Posted on 12/01/2004 9:19:41 AM PST by UltraConservative
Oliver Stone had a really rotten week. His huge-budget epic drama “Alexander,” starring Colin Farrell, Angeline Jolie, Val Kilmer, and Anthony Hopkins, premiered to critical raspberries and popular apathy. “Alexander” reportedly cost over $150 million to make, and over the five-day Thanksgiving weekend, it garnered a mere $21,837,517, finishing sixth at the box office.
In all likelihood, Warner Bros., which produced the film, will still recoup its costs, despite the probability that “Alexander” won’t come close to $100 million in domestic grosses. Europeans are expected to turn out in high numbers to see the Macedonian wunderkind; they turned out en masse to see the American box office flop “Troy” as well.
What was the hold-up for American audiences? It wasn’t the nearly three-hour running time – remember, each movie in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy ran over 178 minutes, with the most successful of the trilogy, “The Return of the King,” running at well over three hours. It wasn’t the critical coolness toward Stone’s pet project – several of the movies that finished above Stone’s at the box office last weekend were critically panned (although none to the extent of this disaster).
A large part of “Alexander”’s downfall is attributable to the moral distastefulness of the subject matter. Alexander the Great is played as a mop-top, indecisive bisexual by Farrell. During the course of the movie, Farrell kisses a eunuch full on the mouth, and exchanges numerous lingering glances with boyhood chum and grown-up gay lover Hephaiston (played by an eye-liner-wearing Jared Leto). Anthony Hopkins, playing Ptolemy, intones: ““It was said . . . that Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaistion’s thighs.”
This stuff doesn’t go over well with most Americans. Frankly, we don’t want to hear about it, and we’re definitely not going to pay money to see it. Critics love films with homosexuality, but very few of those films go on to see great popular success. Since 1994, 17 actors and actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing gay characters; meanwhile, every movie nominated for an Oscar since 1994 containing substantial homosexuality has fallen well-below the $100 million mark, except for “As Good As It Gets” and “American Beauty,” both of which were fueled by Oscar hype.
You can sense how much the critics wanted to love “Alexander,” too, primarily for its exploration of bisexuality, despite the fact that the movie is simply awful. Manohla Dargis of the New York Times ripped into the film, but praised Stone’s portrayal of Alexander’s homosexual tendencies: “There are moments in ‘Alexander’ that show Mr. Stone in fine form, including . . . the aching tenderness between the ruler and his longtime lover, Hephaistion . . .”
Meanwhile, most of the critics complained that “Alexander” failed because it didn’t do enough with Alexander’s sexuality. Desson Thomas of the Washington Post complains that “Alexander's homosexual side is only bashfully explored . . . . There are no thighs, just whispers.” Likewise, Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe writes, “The nervous handling of the important relationship [between Alexander and Hephaiston] lays an absurd emotional dead spot over the picture's overblown finale.”
Unfortunately for the critics – and Stone -- the cultural pendulum has begun to swing toward traditional morality again. The five films that beat “Alexander” to a pulp were: “National Treasure,” “The Incredibles,” “Christmas With The Kranks,” “The Polar Express,” and “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie.” These films were rated, respectively, PG, PG, PG, G and PG.
These are all family friendly fare. That’s what Americans want to see nowadays. That’s why Sharon Stone whined that social conservatism prevented the filmmakers from approving a lesbian kiss between her and Halle Berry in “Catwoman”: “Halle’s so beautiful, and I wanted to kiss her. I said, ‘How can you have us in the movie and not have us kiss? It's such a waste.’ But that’s what you get for having George Bush as president.” That’s why Wayne Llewellyn, president of distribution at Paramount, blamed “Alfie”’s flop on President Bush’s re-election: “It seems to be the result of the election. Maybe they didn't want to see a guy that slept around.”
With the shift in social values currently underway, here are a few predictions: “Brokeback Mountain”(2005), starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger as gay cowboys, will be a critical favorite but a box office dud. So will “Brideshead Revisited”(2005) starring Jude Law and Paul Bettany as love interests. Meanwhile, anything Pixar puts out will do big business. Note to Hollywood: welcome to the backlash you inspired. Hope you enjoy it as much as we do!
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Hollywood can't handle the truth. Which is, Oliver Stone is incapable of telling the story of a great general without mucking it up. This project was doomed the day he was hired. But Hollywood will never criticize one of their own, they'll always blame their customers.
Follow the money on the result of this movie.
Hollyweird is staying that AMECRICANS do not accept homosexual propagands HOWEVER homosexualilty will sell in the membership of the EU.
The suits are saying that they don't need the US market to make money, only dump this fecal material on the eeeeeuropeans, they will watch aaaaaaanything.
I guess I was one of the few people who liked Alexander. It wasn't too gay and the story is very interesting. It needed more fighting and less tearful Colin Farrell though. Other than that, it was a fun way to kill a couple hours.
The Russian version of "War and Peace" does a really good job of the battle of Borodino just the way you describe.
That fat critic - Ebert - is not gay - he is straight and married to a black woman. He is a "liberal" though.
"Colin Farrel isn't physically big enough to look the part"
I agree - that's another part that bothered me .. the guy just isn't credible. Mel Gibson (or someone of his stature) could have pulled off that role and it would have been a smash hit.
Alexander was kind of a short guy - even by ancient standards. Unless you mean screen gravitas - then I agree.
Change "US market" to "Red State market" and you're correct. If they can make money with this kind of strategy, they can have their cake and eat it too. Get rich, and continue to push their far left agenda, sneering at us Red State "barbarians" all the while.
Screen gravitas was what I meant. Gibson is not that big a guy, but in Braveheart, he was definitely in command. I would also consider Russell Crowe a good candidate for the role.
Which brings up and interesting point.
Do people in blue counties go to the movies more than people in the red counties?
Who is more likely to buy the DVD of any given movie?
Who is more likely to simply download the movie off of a P2P system?
I bet they calculate this in their projections.
There is Historiae Alexandri Magni of Quintus Curtius Rufus, as well as other works of equally poor scholarship (such as a forgery claiming to be the work of Callisthenes with numerous laughable errors in geography, chronology, etc. just like the Quintus Curtius Rufus volumes). But none of the older Greek sources even suggest such a thing (unless poorly translated into English), using language that far from supporting the conclusion almost instead disproves it (the greeks had numerous words for "love", and Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion is always described as brotherly love ("philos" derived) and never any of the words suggesting a physical or homosexual relationship).
As to whether he was or not, there is no proof either way. Clearly, the stronger, older evidence almost certainly disproves it (one would think Alexander's comments regarding the topic alone would be sufficient), but later Roman writings (and the history that everyone is going to be taught post-20th century) accepts it as factual. Of course, these same historians and authors also believe that such historical entities as Lincoln, King James, and even Saint John were homosexuals as well, and no doubt these absurdities will also be generally regarded, and taught, as "fact" to future generations.
You are so right re the "fast-cut jiggly camera stuff." It is meant to hide the fact that Hollywood apparently no longer employs such experts in battlefield choreography as Yakima Kanutt (one time stunt rider and later did battles for El Cid and the chariot race in Ben Hur among many others.) Whoever did Braveheart's battle scene was WAY ahead of the jerks who did Gladiator and Alexander.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.