This is only a teaser, for the November release film but as a huge Alexandrophile I’m curious to know what others think of it. (There are at least two historical errors in the trailer, but the look is generally impressive; it’s made by Oliver Stone which does not bode well, but at least Farrell looks the part.)
There’s still the Dicaprio project as well (rather like the twin Columbus movies some years back, both of which tanked), and a miniseries in development.
Thoughts?
I think it’s disgusting, buggering ancient conquerors like that. :eek:
I thought Jim Cameron was directing this? No offense to Baz Luhrmann but whoever gave that guy a hundred and fifty million dollars must have balls that clank.
I was quite annoyed that it appears from the trailer that Oliver Stone may be lying through his teeth again, perhaps as despicably as in JFK. Why do I think this might be true? Well, there were a few scenes in which Alexander is shown actually kissing – urk! – ladies! 
Okay, all kidding aside, I understand that many otherwise renowned Ancient Greek historians – blindly prudish, socially conservative and conformist as they were and are – needed desperately to pretend that no one of any historical importance – including Alexander – was a homosexual or committed any homosexual acts. Ox-fordbid!
But today we understand that Alexander had fairly strong homosexual tastes. He was not an exclusive homosexual, and his sexual preferences might not be best described as homosexual, but he was certainly at least a bisexual, as were so many – perhaps most – Greek men of his day.
I realize, of course, that I’m going strictly on the trailer, for which Stone may well have hidden the truth there solely in order to encourage gay-haters and homophobes to give the movie a chance. Does anyone know one way or the other?
I understand (from an interview I read recently with Colin Farrell) that the movie does at least address the bisexual issue. (Alex’s daddy Philip [Anthony Hopkins in this film] also cut a swath through the Macedonian boy p*ssy, incidentally, but his preference was decidedly women].)
One thing that irked me about the trailer is the tired old saw “he conquered the known world before he was 25”. In the first place
(the Persian Empire) + (Greece + Macedonia) did not equal the known world even in the 4th century BCE, and in the second his conquests didn’t end when he was 25 (he was planning to push farther into India even when he died). The most learned western men of the day couldn’t have drawn you a map of western/northern Europe, China, Africa (south of Egypt) and Russia, but they definitely knew that all of the above existed and even had some trade with them (albeit through many mediaries). Surely to Zeus-Amman they won’t actually have him crying at the lack of more land to conquer per the tall tale.
PS= There is also a teaser trailer up for Gilgamesh (though it contains no shots from the movie).
You said 2 historical errors. What’s the other one? I’ll admit I never paid any attention to Alexander the Great before, but this project has gotten me interested.
On another message board people are mainly talking about Farrell’s hair (I know, I know) so I’d like to know what you think of it? I see 2 different lengths in the trailer. I assume the longer mullet style is Alexander when he’s younger. The shorter style seems fairly accurate based on some of the busts I’ve seen. I’m just curious what you think. If you think it’s all accurate (or as accurate as possible) it’d be nice to have a comeback when people complain.
I’ll be seeing this, but I also hope Baz’s version gets made. I’ll see them both.
I’m going from what I learned at school 20 years ago - my Googling needs improvement to get a definitive answer - but I’m not entirely sure this is correct. Dredging through Google turns up this:
I think it’s more correct to say that Greek mores were very different. IIRC Men formed an emotional bond with post-pubescents, but it was not actually the done thing for the latter to actually go all the way - it was more an emotional bond, and less a physical one (which is what women were for) - and those that did were looked down on, especially if they were the ‘bottom’. IIRC Gaius Julius Caesar was criticised for the latter; don’t recall whether it was justified.
I haven’t seen the trailer, but the BBC recently ran a half-hour documentary about Robin Lane Fox’s involvement with the film. This was all pretty fluffy, concentrating on the fact that he was getting to visit the set to take part as an extra in one of the cavalry charges. Very much the eccentric Oxford don bumbling about around the meglomaniac Hollywood director. But there was a certain amount of both Fox and Stone talking about how the latter had consulted the former during scripting.
Stone’s prepared to talk up Fox’s status as the authority he’s basing the film on on camera, though I suppose you’d expect him to say that. Fox seems quite realistic about the fact that they disagree on some of the details - he singles out the fact that Stone has fought in battle, while he hasn’t, as one area where they’ll probably have a slightly different perspective. But the overall impression was that Fox is basically happy with the script.
If Stone is following Lane Fox on Alexander’s sexuality, then a heterosexual angle is hardly inappropriate: he sees the marriage with Roxane as, if not necessarily a love match, then still probably a bit of a shag-fest. Without Hephaistion being sidelined. If either relationship could be emphasised for the trailer, it really doesn’t surprise me that the studio would choose the heterosexual one for marketing reasons.
It’s “The Passion of the Gilgamesh”!
I’m torn. On the one hand, I’d love to see the Epic on screen and they could probably be fairly faithful to the source material without much problem.
On the other hand, they could easily screw this up.
I kind of wonder if the movie would have an implied homosexual bond between Giglamesh and Enkidu.
Sorry to break it to anyone who thought Alexander was gay, but he was pretty fond of women from what I heard and in fact had a kid. Thought he was also fond of some men as well.
I get into the same arguments about Achilles, some people didn’t think he was straight. Hello, he has a wife and son!
In my opinion, if most Greeks were bi, then Lysistrata would never have been written.
Achilles had a wife and a son, and his quarrel with Agamemnon was over a woman.
On the other hand, the books I’ve read indicate that Alexander probably swung both ways.
Back to the thread topic: I suspect Mr. Stone will, like most in Hollywood, not let mere facts interfere with a good story. Check your brain at the door and enjoy the spectacle.
Two, actually. His legitmate son Alexander IV ( eventually disposed of, probably murdered by Cassander ) by Roxanne and his older illegitimate son Heracles ( eventually used as a pawn and slain by Polyperchon ) by his earlier mistress, Barsine. In addition it is rumored that Alexander’s second wife, the Achaemenid princess Stateira ( also called Barsine ) was pregnant at the time of Alexander’s death and was murdered by Roxanne to eliminate a potential rival.
His relationship with the first Barsine, which was not strictly speaking a necessity of state ( though she was very high born and a youngish widow of one of Alexander’s most formidable opponents, Memnon of Rhodes ), is probably the best evidence that he did not disdain female companionship ( his marriages and children aren’t good evidence for anything, since those were a necessity of state ). However the evidence is also pretty decent that the single greatest love of his life was Hephaestion.
Me, I’m interested in just how far they stretch things trying to make his character appealing. Though he was a complex man, in many ways he was overall quite detestable as a human being. Not just a walking exemplar of megalomania, but moody with a savage temper, often cruel, paranoid, murderous, frequently extortionate, and one mean-ass drunk just for starters. All this while also being incredibly charismatic. I’m kind of curious to see how much of that will reach the screen ;).
Yeah, I heard he was a pretty mean drinker, and that the Macedonians were fond of having drinking contests. I also read that Haphaestion (sp?) died as a result of drinking while recovering from an illness/fever.
I did a research project that had a lot to do with Alexander the Great and I read several biographies of him. I gotta admit, he was quite the badass and I would look forward to seeing a film of him because a man of his stature is hard to over-exaggerate in greatness 
And one of those people may have been Alexander. Having Hephaistion simultaneously pay tribute at the tomb of Patroclus while you pay tribute at the tomb of Achilles is at least suggestive.
I think it’s disgraceful that they cast Will Farrell as Alexander.
What?
Putting Oliver Stone in charge of Alexander. Hmmmmm.
So will Alexander’s death be portrayed as a covert action by the Helenistic equivalent of a right-wing conspiracy? Or, on the other hand, will Stone draw heavy-handed parallels between Al and GWB as two greedy, soulless conquerers of Mesopotamia?
:rolleyes:
The mind boggles.
There are some scholars who have argued that in fact there is a real possibility that this was the case :p. There is one tradition from the ancient sources that Alexander was poisoned by his cupbearer Iolaus, a son of Antipater ( then in disfavor and about to be removed and replaced with Craterus ). Though it is quite possibly a bit of Diadochi smearing, Alexander’s death ( and Hephaestion’s, which was pretty similar ) is entirely consistent with stychnine poisoning, a method of assassination very well known to the ancient Greeks ( in this tradition Aristotle is said to have prepared the dosage and it is a fact that Aristotle’s buddy Theophrastus had described how to best use it as such - mixing it into wine to disguise its bitter taste - Hephaestion and Alexander both died of fevers after heavy wine drinking ).
As far as it being a right-wing coup, Antipater was from the conservative old guard and not only was in disfavor, but like many was scandalized by Alexander’s elevation of himself to the status of an oriental absolutist and living god ;).
If Oliver Stone ran with that particular storyline, which is actually plausible but would be so terribly cliched for someone with Stone’s reputation to pursue, I’d be mighty amused :D.
Hilarious! Roughly half of the gay men I’ve ever known had a wife and kids, and that’s in the 20’th and 21’st centuries! Yeesh!! Wake up, son: we’re living in a fairly repressive society, and spouses (if not necessarily kids) are still almost mandatory if you want to get anywhere in the professional or political world!
Are you living under a cup?
And in the ancient and not-so-ancient past, it was absolutely mandatory to have a spouse of the opposite sex, no matter how gay you were! Having a wife (or three, as did Alexander) meant – and still means – absolutely nothing about your sexuality.
There are excellent reasons to believe that our present texts were redacted over the centuries, if not by later Greeks and Romans once pederasty had become socially unacceptable, then by other homophobic editors with various agendas. We simply cannot trust ancient texts to have passed to us unmolested.
The Old and New Testaments were heavily edited and added to over time to change what “Jesus”, the prophets, and/or the apostles allegedly taught to force these texts to “say” things they never said before in order to advance a new moral or political agenda. And since redactors would even edit the Bible, it’s obvious that wouldn’t hesitate even a second to edit Plutarch!
The more certain passages were seen by later copyists and editors as morally offensive in their given milieu, the less confident we can be that they would not revise them without hesitation to better suit their society’s moral and legal strictures.