pothos.org

Just to confirm - the link on "purported homosexuality" leads to Pothos. You need to scroll down a bit before you get to it.Marcus

Well, while we're on the subject of "purported homosexuality"... The site says it doesn't know what to expect of Stone's movie. I found this in a short article in the July 2004 edition of Empire, a UK movie mag. It's under the heading of Coming Soon. (Has a nice blown-up photo of the scene with Alexander's horse rearing at Porus' elephant.)'...With Baz Luhrman's Leo DiCaprio starring version of the Alexander the Great legend seemingly in permanent gridlock, it looks like Oliver Stone's bio-epic of the Hellenic hero will be the only glimpse of full on Alexander action that audiences get, for a while at least. And as our picture shows, with Alexander (a bleached-white Farrell) on horseback confronting an elephant, Stone hasn't scrimped on the spectacle, the opulence and...the bizarre."It's gonna be the weirdest big movie ever made" laughs Val Kilmer, who plays King Philip, Alexander's one-eyed father and husband of Olympias (Jolie). "There's no film like this." Stone's said from the get-go that his version was very much in the shadow of Lurhman's flick. But with a $100 million budget, the full backing of Warner Brothers (looking to capitalize on any heat from Troy) and that cast, this underdog has one hell of a bite. "Oliver's on a real journey to seek the truth," says Kilmer. "And I think that maybe Alexander will be his greatest film because of that." And part of that truth involves depicting Alexander's bisexuality. "He's got his boyfriend - Jared Leto, who's handsome as hell, and it's not like Colin is ugly - standing right behind him for the entire film." laughs Kilmer. "Alexander's married but he has these affairs with these androgynous creatures that he meets along the way. I can't wait to see it." Nor can we..."Mmmmm. Looks like a case of Kilmer shooting his mouth off and enjoying the press attention - he hasn't had too much lately. I certainly expect the upcoming publicity campaign to have more to say about the rest of Alexander's life and accomplishments. However, as we see already with Tre's post, this is the kind of thing the press *love* to sink their teeth into. Steel yourselves, folks. We'll probably hear a lot more in this vein before the movie debuts. :-)Regards,Linda Ann

Ah yes Kilmer who recently said Brad Pitt's muscles were all fake and airbrushed on the Troy poster, adding he was a 'wimp' to make some press. Alas, I don't think he much cares for the moniker he's been stuck with in Hollywood 'The Poor Man's Brad Pitt,' but of course Stone likes him and that's more important. BTW there were strong rumors Pitt was offered the role of Hephaistion but turned it down. But who would look at little Colin if Pitt was in the film?

Hi Tre -With all due respect, I don't find the article that stupid. Maybe this is the difference between a European point of view versus the American? But indeed I can see in all three movies (Troy, Alexander, Crusades) an allegory of the present struggle between American and Oriental interests. In all three movies a victorious (maybe a bit less so in the Crusades) army moves from west to east. (I also suppose that on all three occasions a more unpolished, brutal, barbaric force marches against a more complex, subtle, probably more advanced culture. But that might be a point of discussion.)We have seen plenty of James Bond and Rambo attacking Communists in the past. In the present globalized post-Cold War world American supremacy needs a more 'veiled' allegory (conveniently situated in a distant past) to score the same points.Best regards -Nick(Nick isn't a communist nor a fundamentalist, just an exponent of the old, indigenous European, Rhineland culture.)

Nick:I stand by my comment itGÇÖs a stupid article for many reasons but I donGÇÖt think it is of sufficient enough interest for the Forum since it wouldnGÇÖt deal that much with Alexander, but rather with the movie business, using the internet for information on same, freedom of speech and the importance of history which isnGÇÖt discussed enough (and for that matter can never be portrayed perfectly, since History is not a thing that can be touched and has mass, but an interpretation of an idea at all times) and the unimportance of our current scholarship, culture and viewpoints in history when it comes to Alexander. Frankly it wonGÇÖt be remembered, but Alexander will. We don't all qualify for everlasting fame I'm afraid :-)If the old, indigenous European Rhineland culture chooses to assume that my opinions are based on culture or gender rather than knowledge or scholarship, I think I can do without that cultureGÇÖs presumptions. But then, one should never feel they are wholly representative of a culture anyway. We are individuals, not countries or borders with an agenda and the sooner we realize that, the better it will be for all of us. Regards, Tre

Can you separate culture from scholarship? Alexander is only remembered because people now find him interesting. He only has value because people think he has.My objection to the article is that it seems to confuse two different things. Making a film about western imperialism is a political act - and it may be conscious or unconscious on the part of the film-makers, but I am sure it will be thought of in terms of the conflict between the "west" and the Arab nations in future analyses. However the sexuality aspect has more to do with the preoccupations of western culture, and has little to do with what teh Muslim world thinks - it is not intended to be provocative in that way - I was very puzzled by the argument. It is not as if Alexander is a hero they feel has been sullied - if there is an outcry that Persians have been insulted by claiming that a wooly woofter beat them, then, deal with it. But making lots of films that emphasise past conflicts with arab-y type people in this present climate is not going to be unnoticed by either "side".