A wasted opportunity

[iskander_32]

Having read the posts I am already believing Stone has wasted an aportunity to show us the Alexander we all know and love.Fair enought we will enjoy parts opf the movie but we all know Alexander was mo weak minded winger who persistently sobbed,, We know his drive his self centred belief and his enyielding courage.A guy that led from the front and was as we all know Alexander The Great.To be honest I think we all knew Stone would go for the shock and Scandal, as its said it was as important to drill on about Bisexuality as it was to totally overlook Granicus, Issus etc.In our sourrces there is no actual acount mentioning Alexanders sexual antics so I assume the Bisexual orvertones is basically Stones attempt at the Sex and scandal to put bums on seats.The shame is realistically the oppoprtunity has been lost he had the money the time and talent to show Alexander The Great as he really was.I always maintained that Alexanders is the Greatest story ever to be told yet Stone has turned Alexander into an unsetrain winging Bisexual head case.RehgardsKenny

[justme]

"Alexander was mo weak minded winger who persistently sobbed..."Persistently? I didn't see that in the movie. However, I find it takes a strong man these days to be able to let himself cry. Crying as a sign of weakness is a current social norm. It's not a sign of weakness in my book, but a sign of someone with strong emotions.The battle scenes - this movie already cost $150M. How expensive would it have been to recreate Tyre? Unfathomable. Having watched the 1956 Alexander, I notice there wasn't much battle there either (and the phalanx was horrendous!). To show all battle and none of the rest of the facets of Alexander wouldn't do him justice either.As far as using the possibility of Alexander's sexuality to put butts in the seats...the US is so homophobic that, I really doubt that! Didn't 17 States just vote against gay marriage? Surely these same people wouldn't understand the sexuality of the ancient past.I'm inclined to agree with the Empire review in that Stone is massacred every time by the US media, just because he's Stone. I'll be interested to see how the movie does in markets other than the US.Lois

[me]

KennyThere is a sufficient evidence that Alexander slept with both men and women. I agree with Lois - Stone can't have been doing it to make money - perhaps to make a startling film. But he isn't making things up..using artistic license, perhaps, eg in the Roxanne scene. But what is clear from the sources is that A was not sex mad, or orgiastic - which the film seems to imply. Homosexual behaviour is often seen as decadent, but Alexander was not this, so either Stone got it wrong, or the reviewers did. A liked a drink, he liked a pretty face, a well-turned thigh, but that wasn't the most imprtant thing about him - just one starnd of a many many stranded personae.

[luisfc1972]

i could have done without babylon (which was nice), and just added issus.if i did not know much about alexander the great before watching this movie, i would have walked out of the theatre wondering what made him so great.

[iskander_32]

Linda Sorry about the references to bisexuality, But the feed back is that theres too much reference to the point of pushing it.I am an Elvis fan and dont care less who he slept with,, For me its his music and influence that made him great.As luis said, the point I make is the opportunity been wasted as to show the world what did make this extraordinary person so great.That aspect and im sure that history is interested in, not who or how the guy had sex with.regards
KennyAs lois

[me]

KennyI agree with you! I haven't seen the film, but from what I can see it is not the fact that Alexander's or Stone's interpretation of Alexander's bisexuality is shown that peolple don't like, but that it is dwelt on - dealt with "maturely but repeatedly", as one review said. But I haven't seen the film, so maybe I'll disagree with the reviewers. After all, in Gone with the Wind, the reviewers didn't complain that Scarlett was shown as repeatedly heterosexual...I saw one review of Best in Show (which has a gay couple and a lesbian couple), which complained that the homosexuality was just a bit much. Like there should be quotas in each film or something...

[Norm]

Yeah- all the flap about bi -or homosexuality gets old- I wish folks would get over it. No one seems to complain when movies, media ecetera (& lately the US prez) rams heterosexuality down everyones throat. That's what bias is about tho- assumed "normals" that aren't really a norm at all but a cultural construct viewed as the norm. Thank you monotheism- NOT. It gripes me that "our guy" would be a 2nd class citizen if he lived in America today- but maybe he'd move to northern Europe & we could all be jealous of Nick & Jona!! A long time ago a poster here-Sikander? Nick?- talked about the continuum- it got me to thinking & I now agree. & THATS why people don't like bi- or homosexuality in a film- they find it intriguing to themselves personally & go "whoops- I don't like THIS feeling" Stone could've done a more focused storyline, less narration & more action because I think his own view of Alexander is a bit too pop psychology, but what we have is what we have- & I plan to enjoy it while I can!Norm

[jan]

The bisexuality is not the problem as it is so poorly done that any homosexual would find it offensive! It insults homosexuals too! The problem is the character of Alexander who is portrayed as a weak willy, not a great charismatic leader! A good homosexual film for viewers if about a woman who wants to be a man called Boys Don't Cry, starring Hillary Swank.

[Norm]

Boys Don't Cry is about a transgender person, not a homosexual. Understand the terms, please. Maybe you need to address your own biases, which, despite your protests to the contrary, are evident every time you write anythiung about gays. Boys Don't Cry was powerful & poignant with a focus on misogyny, spitefulness & the flaws in a culture that insists on gender roles & gender bias & the narrow view that the two sexes are separate & set- Nature isn't so tidy.I don't think gays will be insulted at Alexander- disappointed that Stone cut scenes but not insulted.

[f9bob]

A wasted opportunity?
Who is to determine what is real and what is fiction? Are we to learn about the Kennedy assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK? Are we to learn about American West from John Wayne, from Clint Eastwood or from Sam Peckinpah? Or from PBS documentaries?
....Many people believe that there is no such thing as a documentary film.The moment you decide when to press the button and where to point the camera you are making a choice that affects the 'documentary' aspect of your creation. Not to mention editing or voice - over, that further enhance the filmmaker's manipulation of the story. Every film is a work of fiction, no matter how hard its makers try to be objective. That's the nature of the beast. What is 'being objective', after all?
....Perhaps because film is so convincing, so successful at simulating reality, we are all inclined to believe the make - believe that has been created by people who - more often that not - have nothing to do with the facts. They often do not even have enough knowledge of the facts.
....And sometimes they do not even care about the facts.So, what is left then?
....The personal truth, perhaps. The film might be telling it the way it was - for this one person making the film. How s/he saw. Perhaps this personal truth will be more successful and even more objective in conveying a feeling, and thus - the facts. Does a sincere and well - told personal truth count as - or even become - an objective truth? Whatever objective truth is.
....Furthermore, does a new way the facts have been experienced, and a new angle on the facts (or on what think the facts are) help establish a fuller picture? What happens if this new angle does not jive with the widely accepted interpretation of the facts? Stone's JFK?
....Or, is there another, more interesting level to the historical film? Perhaps we should look at the filmmakers and their times more than we should look at the subject of their films and the time they are portraying in the films. John Wayne, his attitude, his wardrobe and his film partners tell us more about certain social standards of the 50s, 60s and 70s than about the Wild West itself. Then - if this is so - here is a new question. How do we watch these films, how do we separate Sean Connery from King Arthur? How do we separate our relationship to the past from our desire to know more about the past itself (and to learn it from the movies)?
....Again - perhaps it helps being acutely aware of the fact that

[f9bob]

...that it is all an interpretation of a personal truth masked as a realistic re - creation of fact, place and time; a ritual re - enactment.
....It could be John Ford's personal truth helping us learn about his times. Or it could be Jack Warner's personal truth helping us learn about his times. Or it could be Jack Warner's personal truth.
....Or it could be the personal truth of faceless ciphers at a Hollywood studio.
M Manchevski