![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I believe I am ready to take a more thoughtful stand on Alexander now. Had to go over some things, but... here goes. And THIS IS A WARNING. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE, THERE BE SPOILERS HERE!
Alright. So, I think the question on everyone's mind has been the depiction of male/male relationships in Alexander, particularly the one between Alexander (Colin Farrell) and Hephaestion (Jared Leto). Can I just say right now that both actors did a WONDERFUL job of portraying their respective characters? In fact, the speaking parts were all cast incredibly well. This movie does not lack in good actors and actresses, that's for sure.
I am very torn over what I think of the portrayal of Hephaestion and Alexander's relationship. Regardless of what it was in real life (and to my knowledge, the movie follows history -- what is known of it -- very well), it is very clear in the film that the two men have a sexual affair, and are deeply in love with each other. Now, the film does not ignore this relationship at all. It is brought forward very plainly verbally, by several characters. And there is definitely kissing between men here as well: Alexander kisses a male dancer and a eunuch in quite a suggestive manner. There is a graphic sex scene between Alexander and his wife Roxana, in which Rosario Dawson has a full frontal, for the most part.
BUT. There is no kissing between Alexander and Hephaestion. They profess their love for each other several times, and hug each other in almost every scene when they are alone. There is barely a physicality to their relationship on screen, and this is what I am indecisive about. First off, I am pissed because it almost seems like Stone was trying to play it down. And I know he probably got a lot of flak for not glossing over it completely (To that, I say fuck it. I would have a huge problem if he just ignored history, especially after doing a decade's worth of research on Alexander of Macedonia. And I don't see what the big deal is. People get all worked up over the issue of bisexuality and such, but they fail to realize that that term, as well as the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" DID NOT EVEN EXIST BACK THEN. There was no real concept of any of that.)...
Okay, I am digressing. Allow me to do so in order to impart a wonderfully interesting bit of info I learned junior year of college in a classical myth class. Apparently the Greeks had a system called "pedaerastia" in which a young boy/man would be taken under the wing of an older Greek man for several years of his pre-pubescent and pubescent life, and taught everything about what it meant to be a Greek male in society. And I mean EVERYTHING. The boy learned about manners, social behavior, hunting, fighting, sports, and sex from his older counterpart. There was no problem with this in Greek society; it was seen as a rite of passage, and an honor to be a favored younger member of the relationship. You could build your rep on how good a teacher you were, or on how beautiful an adolescent you were. I find this so intriguing. *must learn more*
But back to Alexander, who was Macedonian, not Greek. Anyway, I have a problem with seeing a couple who is so obviously devoted to each other in every sense of the word do nothing except hug and speak poetry to each other. I would expect a kiss. I would expect sex (and it is FINE that that part is left off-screen. That's a matter of preference). But the constant hugging and nothing more began to distract from the tightness of the relationship, and drew much more attention to the fact that Stone was CHOOSING not to have them kiss... for whatever reason. It got a bit uncomfortable to watch in its own right, because, to me, it almost began to diminish what Hephaestion and Alexander had. It's not just brotherly love, no matter how you paint it (or fresco it, or tile it *snicker*), and I am a bit put out that it was treated that way outwardly when it was SO OBVIOUS that that was not the case.
Now. THE OTHER SIDE. In a way, I find this non-physical portrayal of their love to be quite soothing, and please let me explain. It was plain that Oliver Stone was not ignoring the male/male relationships in this movie. He pinpointed them many times, let me assure you. But all the comments by his drunken friends, all the hard lustful kisses between Alexander and the gorgeous slaves or dancers or what-have-you... the rough sex between him and his wife... That was NOT what he and Hephaestion had. Their love went much deeper; it consumed not only their bodies but their hearts and minds as well. They were utterly devoted to each other. So in a way, I think Stone may have been trying to give them their privacy, to set their relationship plainly on a pedestal above the lustful physicality of the others. Sort of... as if it would be disrespectful to see their tenderest moments. Their intimacy remains their own. And that interpretation, I like.
But it is hard to decide what the point was here. I heard that there was a full frontal of Colin Farrell cut from the movie because the critics did not want to see his more private bits. I have no idea if this was a sex scene with Leto. I guess we'll just have to wait until the DVD comes out, yeah? But the thing is, there is such a double standard here: Rosario Dawson gets quite the full frontal shot, breasts and all, for a lengthy amount of time, and yet they can't show Colin Farrell for a few seconds? So, why the graphic hetero-sex, and barely any homosexual content? *fumes* Tis killing me, let me tell you. Our society needs a big kick in the ass.
The thing is, Hephaestion's role in Alexander's life was NEVER downplayed. He is always there. There is this wonderful scene wherein Alexander is listening to his generals argue with him over what the next best move is for his army. Leto says nothing in this scene. NOTHING. Yet his presence is very apparent. As Alexander listens, Hephaestion is in the background, fuzzy and vague, but watching, always watching, almost always in the shot. You get the sense that Alexander is constantly aware of his presence: what Hephaestion is hearing, what he thinks, whether or not he agrees, what he will respond with. He is his best friend, the man he loves, and his most trusted advisor. Hephaestion is there, ALL THE TIME, and it is THAT which details how close they are, not so much the intimacy (or lack thereof) in their relationship. They get one kiss, to my knowledge, and that is during the heartbreaking scene when Alexander takes a wife and Hephaestion comes to... what? It is too late to try to talk Alexander out of it. Indeed, Hephaestion does not speak a word against the marriage, even though it is obviously hurting him terribly. Yet he comes to Alexander, in the last moment that the man's body is his as well as his mind and heart. This scene... watch for it. It is wonderful and terrifically painful. Reminded me of Frank Herbert's Dune and the Paul/Chani/Irulan triangle. There must be a legitimate heir, a wealthy familial bonding. But someone always suffers for it.
So okay. I would LOVE to hear people's thoughts on this, and any other related topic you want to bring up. I love discussing this kind of thing. The interesting bit is (and it makes me chuckle), this movie will go down as so experimental and influential in bringing forth homosexuality on the big screen -- so enterprising and brave a gesture -- the first step, you might say... and yet there is very little here to see. I really wish that the physicality could have been brought out more. I don't like to see it ignored or downplayed, especially if it is simply to please "the masses".
Be bold, man! Let them KISS, for goodness' sake!
Possibly more ranting on this thread later...
On another spoiler-free and unrelated note, I simply must say that I think my favorite type of movie is "the epic", especially the historical epic. Gladiator, Alexander, Braveheart, Last of the Mohicans, Attila the Hun... I will be a very happy woman if someone makes a movie about Chingiz Khan next. And how about a movie about Mary Read and Anne Bonny? They had an interesting story. Pirates, those two. I'd love to see that.
Alright. So, I think the question on everyone's mind has been the depiction of male/male relationships in Alexander, particularly the one between Alexander (Colin Farrell) and Hephaestion (Jared Leto). Can I just say right now that both actors did a WONDERFUL job of portraying their respective characters? In fact, the speaking parts were all cast incredibly well. This movie does not lack in good actors and actresses, that's for sure.
I am very torn over what I think of the portrayal of Hephaestion and Alexander's relationship. Regardless of what it was in real life (and to my knowledge, the movie follows history -- what is known of it -- very well), it is very clear in the film that the two men have a sexual affair, and are deeply in love with each other. Now, the film does not ignore this relationship at all. It is brought forward very plainly verbally, by several characters. And there is definitely kissing between men here as well: Alexander kisses a male dancer and a eunuch in quite a suggestive manner. There is a graphic sex scene between Alexander and his wife Roxana, in which Rosario Dawson has a full frontal, for the most part.
BUT. There is no kissing between Alexander and Hephaestion. They profess their love for each other several times, and hug each other in almost every scene when they are alone. There is barely a physicality to their relationship on screen, and this is what I am indecisive about. First off, I am pissed because it almost seems like Stone was trying to play it down. And I know he probably got a lot of flak for not glossing over it completely (To that, I say fuck it. I would have a huge problem if he just ignored history, especially after doing a decade's worth of research on Alexander of Macedonia. And I don't see what the big deal is. People get all worked up over the issue of bisexuality and such, but they fail to realize that that term, as well as the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" DID NOT EVEN EXIST BACK THEN. There was no real concept of any of that.)...
Okay, I am digressing. Allow me to do so in order to impart a wonderfully interesting bit of info I learned junior year of college in a classical myth class. Apparently the Greeks had a system called "pedaerastia" in which a young boy/man would be taken under the wing of an older Greek man for several years of his pre-pubescent and pubescent life, and taught everything about what it meant to be a Greek male in society. And I mean EVERYTHING. The boy learned about manners, social behavior, hunting, fighting, sports, and sex from his older counterpart. There was no problem with this in Greek society; it was seen as a rite of passage, and an honor to be a favored younger member of the relationship. You could build your rep on how good a teacher you were, or on how beautiful an adolescent you were. I find this so intriguing. *must learn more*
But back to Alexander, who was Macedonian, not Greek. Anyway, I have a problem with seeing a couple who is so obviously devoted to each other in every sense of the word do nothing except hug and speak poetry to each other. I would expect a kiss. I would expect sex (and it is FINE that that part is left off-screen. That's a matter of preference). But the constant hugging and nothing more began to distract from the tightness of the relationship, and drew much more attention to the fact that Stone was CHOOSING not to have them kiss... for whatever reason. It got a bit uncomfortable to watch in its own right, because, to me, it almost began to diminish what Hephaestion and Alexander had. It's not just brotherly love, no matter how you paint it (or fresco it, or tile it *snicker*), and I am a bit put out that it was treated that way outwardly when it was SO OBVIOUS that that was not the case.
Now. THE OTHER SIDE. In a way, I find this non-physical portrayal of their love to be quite soothing, and please let me explain. It was plain that Oliver Stone was not ignoring the male/male relationships in this movie. He pinpointed them many times, let me assure you. But all the comments by his drunken friends, all the hard lustful kisses between Alexander and the gorgeous slaves or dancers or what-have-you... the rough sex between him and his wife... That was NOT what he and Hephaestion had. Their love went much deeper; it consumed not only their bodies but their hearts and minds as well. They were utterly devoted to each other. So in a way, I think Stone may have been trying to give them their privacy, to set their relationship plainly on a pedestal above the lustful physicality of the others. Sort of... as if it would be disrespectful to see their tenderest moments. Their intimacy remains their own. And that interpretation, I like.
But it is hard to decide what the point was here. I heard that there was a full frontal of Colin Farrell cut from the movie because the critics did not want to see his more private bits. I have no idea if this was a sex scene with Leto. I guess we'll just have to wait until the DVD comes out, yeah? But the thing is, there is such a double standard here: Rosario Dawson gets quite the full frontal shot, breasts and all, for a lengthy amount of time, and yet they can't show Colin Farrell for a few seconds? So, why the graphic hetero-sex, and barely any homosexual content? *fumes* Tis killing me, let me tell you. Our society needs a big kick in the ass.
The thing is, Hephaestion's role in Alexander's life was NEVER downplayed. He is always there. There is this wonderful scene wherein Alexander is listening to his generals argue with him over what the next best move is for his army. Leto says nothing in this scene. NOTHING. Yet his presence is very apparent. As Alexander listens, Hephaestion is in the background, fuzzy and vague, but watching, always watching, almost always in the shot. You get the sense that Alexander is constantly aware of his presence: what Hephaestion is hearing, what he thinks, whether or not he agrees, what he will respond with. He is his best friend, the man he loves, and his most trusted advisor. Hephaestion is there, ALL THE TIME, and it is THAT which details how close they are, not so much the intimacy (or lack thereof) in their relationship. They get one kiss, to my knowledge, and that is during the heartbreaking scene when Alexander takes a wife and Hephaestion comes to... what? It is too late to try to talk Alexander out of it. Indeed, Hephaestion does not speak a word against the marriage, even though it is obviously hurting him terribly. Yet he comes to Alexander, in the last moment that the man's body is his as well as his mind and heart. This scene... watch for it. It is wonderful and terrifically painful. Reminded me of Frank Herbert's Dune and the Paul/Chani/Irulan triangle. There must be a legitimate heir, a wealthy familial bonding. But someone always suffers for it.
So okay. I would LOVE to hear people's thoughts on this, and any other related topic you want to bring up. I love discussing this kind of thing. The interesting bit is (and it makes me chuckle), this movie will go down as so experimental and influential in bringing forth homosexuality on the big screen -- so enterprising and brave a gesture -- the first step, you might say... and yet there is very little here to see. I really wish that the physicality could have been brought out more. I don't like to see it ignored or downplayed, especially if it is simply to please "the masses".
Be bold, man! Let them KISS, for goodness' sake!
Possibly more ranting on this thread later...
On another spoiler-free and unrelated note, I simply must say that I think my favorite type of movie is "the epic", especially the historical epic. Gladiator, Alexander, Braveheart, Last of the Mohicans, Attila the Hun... I will be a very happy woman if someone makes a movie about Chingiz Khan next. And how about a movie about Mary Read and Anne Bonny? They had an interesting story. Pirates, those two. I'd love to see that.
