Wooooh. While being universally panned by the critics, it seems Alexander has one defender: Gore Vidal.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - While critics savaged Oliver Stone's long-waited epic "Alexander," novelist and social activist Gore Vidal rallied to the $160 million movie's defense saying it was "barrier-breaking" because of its frank depiction of bisexuality. Stone's film opened on Wednesday to near universal pans from critics who called it everything from a "noble failure" to an "indifferent epic." The Charlotte, North Carolina, Observer said the movie was "an act of hubris so huge, that, in Alexander's time, it would draw lightning bolts from contemptuous gods." Vidal said the critics failed to see it was a seminal movie because of its treatment of Alexander's bisexuality. {...} In an interview with Reuters, Vidal said the film was "a breakthrough in what you can make films about. Movies are always the last to register changes in society and this movie does it." Vidal's novels and plays, including the hit drama "The Best Man," often deal with once taboo gay themes. He said American filmmakers had thrown up a wall against showing bisexuality out of fear of alienating the public. "But I don't see why they should be so upset since the public practices it," he said.{Insert shaking of head here}
What have you got here? One revisionist historian defending yet another revisionist historian. Alexander's
not a "seminal" work (poor choice of words there, eh, Gore?)because it
shows Alexander the Great's bisexuality. Give it a rest, Gore.
Bisexuality was as common in those times as internet porn is nowadays.
Ancient Greeks and Romans enjoyed buggering young men. Why? Because
young men's bodies were seen in those times as the height of
aesthetics. Everyone who's ever had to take a course in school that
touched on ancient Greeks and Romans knows this. You haven't lived
until the nun who taught you Latin talked about the prevalence of
buggery in those days. Yet, even for me, it wasn't taught as "Buggery
brought down the Roman and Greeks," but rather that this is how they
did things back then. Modern notions of right or wrong never came into
it. It was simply a lesson in different cultures, different aesthetic
standards, different morals leading to the cultural acceptablitity of
different sexual practices. Portraying Alexander's switchhitting isn't
"barrier breaking." It was an attempt by Ollie Stone to get it right,
which he failed to do, once again. Why didn't he get it right? Well,
while I haven't seen the movie (meaning I make no claims that this next
statement is 100% accurate), reportedly Stone's script has Alexander
actually in
love with Hephaestion. Uh, I don't think so, bub. Bisexuality was
common then, yes. Not denying that one little bit. But that doesn't
mean Alexander loved his lover. Just because Plato wrote poetry about
the beauty of the male form doesn't mean even he fell in love with the
young boys he was buggering. That act, in Plato's day and age, was seen
as, well, unseemly. Shameful, in fact: you played with men, you were infatuate with them, but you most certainly didn't love them.
What was Ollie trying to accomplish here? Well, I'm pretty sure he was trying to push acceptabilty of bisexuality---today's
notion of bisexuality, meaning you can fall in love with either a man
or a woman and the matching genitalia is an after the fact thing---onto
Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion, hence furthering (or so
Ollie would think)the public's acceptance of bisexuality. After all, if
Alexander was bi, why shouldn't such a thing be publically accepted?
More revisionist history aimed at pushing forward an agenda Stone finds
should be commonly accepted today. And Gore Vidal, of course, would
back this agenda, because if he didn't what would happen to all the
revisionist history he tries to dump onto the public every day of the
week? This movie is far from "barrier breaking" to my mind: it's going
to wind up marginalizing the GLBT community because Stone got it wrong.
Let me explain: a few years ago, I was having coffee with Mr. H. and
his then boyfriend and we were chatting about seeing a A Beautiful Mind.
Mr. H's boyfriend was upset over the fact that John Nash's numerous
bisexual relationships weren't going to be shown in the film---at all.
Mr. H. took issue with this, saying it was the director's choice. It
was Ron Howard's film and he could do with it as he wished, but noted
that there, indeed, was a scene in which Nash's bisexuality was
acknowledged; it was that you just had to be looking for it as it was
subtle. This wasn't good enough for the boyfriend: he wanted it all out
there. Mr. H., who by this time was a bit exasperated, put an end to
the conversation by in effect asking, would you rather it was
completely ignored or if Howard had put a scene in there that got it
completely wrong? To consolidate his position, he then went onto to
explain the obvious: that Nash's bisexuality wasn't the central focus
of the story; that, yes, it happened, but it really didn't matter all
that much because it wasn't central to his schizophrenia, which was
what the story was actually about. The boyfriend wasn't convinced, but
he grudgingly accepted Mr. H's position. Personally, I think Mr. H. was
right. Does inaccurately portraying Alexander's relationship with
Hephaestion---portraying their relationship in a 21st Century
light---help Obvious Ollie's goal of furthering tolerance and barrier
breaking? I don't think it does. If Ollie wanted to get it right, he
could have. He could have accurately portrayed Alexander's bisexuality
and it would have furthered the knowledge we all gained when we were in
school and were taught that the Ancient's liked to get it on with men
as well as women; that they didn't think there was anything wrong with
it; that perhaps it didn't turn out so bad for them, so what's wrong
with it nowadays? That's understanding:
showing someone something in a different light and getting that person
to think differently about the issue being contested. But Ollie didn't
do that. He revised the history in question. He pushed his own
agenda on the story, getting it completely wrong in the process. He
didn't give his audience credit for having brains. He didn't further
understanding of bisexuality. Instead, he shoved it down their throats
and wants to force them to come to the correct conclusion. Which does
those of us who believe the GLBT community shouldn't be marginalized,
but rather embraced and given the same rights as heterosexuals, no
favors in bringing those who think differently on board. I've said in
the past that when people who are opposed to what gays and lesbians do
in their bedrooms actually manage to mind their own business, they will
come to see there there is absolutely no freakin' difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one.
This is what I have seen. This is what I believe. By focusing entirely
way too much on Alexander's bedroom, Obvious Ollie didn't push
tolerance forward, but rather set it back.