Colin Farrell's Gay Love Scene Too Explicit

Insiders claim studio bosses fear scenes featuring the Irish heartthrob, as bisexual warrior Alexander the Great, romping with actor Francisco Bosch, who plays a Parisian eunuch called Bagoas, are too raunchy.

A source revealed to America's MSNBC: "Alexander was almost certainly bisexual, and director Oliver Stone wanted to portray that. So there are scenes between Colin and women, but there are also some passionate scenes between Colin and Francisco.

So the release date of the film has been put back from November 5 to 24 so editors can cut the racy shots.

A source revealed to America's MSNBC: "Alexander was almost certainly bisexual, and director Oliver Stone wanted to portray that. So there are scenes between Colin and women, but there are also some passionate scenes between Colin and Francisco.

"Some of the suits at Warner Bros think that the movie-going public just isn't ready to see that. There are some pretty heated arguments going on over it."


This from a studio that CGI'd out the naughty bits of Eyes Wide Shut. :mad:

But isn't America ready for -- and may look forward to -- Colin Farrell getting it on with a man? (I know I am.) When is there gonna be an explicit gay love scene in a major Hollywood drama? Oliver Stone certainly handled the controversy over JFK and Natural Born Killers, so why isn't he defending his work now? Doesn't he have final cut as long as the movie gets an R rating? And is this bisexual panic going to be A Beautiful Mind all over again?

Maybe I'll wait to see if there is an uncut DVD.

I was already a little put off by the previews for this movie. For one, showing Alexander with long blondish hair--how many Greeks have olive skin and blond hair? And second when they claim "passion" as he makes out with a heirem of women. Its somewhat accepted knowledge that Alexander had a longtime male partner (as well as boy toy Bagoas) and that his time with his female companions was just him doing his expected duty, sans passion.

I think there are some historical data about Alexander's appearance, and I think they mentioned that he is blond. Olive skin maybe due to prolonged exposure to the sun. But I am not a historian, nor an expert in this matter, but I'm just going along with what I read.

Colin, for one, has already stated in interviews that there wasn't going to be any real overt depiction of Alexander's same-sex activities. So I wonder if what this article says is even true.

Jared Leto, who portrays Alexander's longtime companion, also has stated there were no overt depictions of their physical relationship, so I have doubts about the veracity of this article.

It reminds me of the much-publicized "they've cut Colin Farell's nude scene in 'Home at the End of the World'" tumult. Designed to generate controversy (buzz) and not much else.

~Adam

I wasn't surprised that studio execs wanted to limit the man-on-man scenes. I think for all the progress gay people have made, there is still a taboo regarding same-sex affection (at least for men anyway). I'm willing to bet you'll see the same thing for the movie Brokeback Mountain. I don't believe it's intentional homophobia on the part of the studio but we have to keep in mind that mainstream America is the target audience for most movies today. Man-on-man attraction is something most straight Americans don't want to see. I think that's just the reality of the world we live in. Ah well.

I don't know if I'm more surprised or disappointed by the decision to cut and delay. It's historical fact that Alexander was both blond and gay, but his lover Hephaestion was no "Parisian eunuch;" he was another Greek. Why the almost-ridiculously tawdry need to invent and bring in a far-flung Gaul? As a history major who's kept up with his subject, I'm always mad when Hollywood dumbs down or cleans up the facts, which usually tell the story much better than any writer could devise.* I'm not looking forward to seeing this flick nearly as much as I was before this cutting frenzy ensued! :mad:
_____
* Cf. "Colonel Redl," a gay-themed biopic about the man who developed the Austrian secret service around the turn of the last century, for a movie that follows historical fact and is visually and dramatically entertaining at the same time.

[ October 05, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

The "Parisian" eunuch reference is actually a typo in the original article or post. Bagoas was a Persian eunuch. Mary Renault's The Persian Boy was essentially the story of Alexander as told from his eunuch/lover's point of view. Skip the movie 'til the Director's Uncut wink comes out on DVD. Read her book instead. Historical sources indicate that Alexander was blond. Macedonian on his fathers side, Epurian (present day Albania) on his mother's. The Greeks like to promote the idea that Alexander was Greek but he really wasn't. In Alexander's day Greeks viewed Macedonia as a land of barbarians quite separate and distinct. In any event the whole area and much of Europe at that time would have been very different ethinically from the present day. Much as the original natives of Britain have been pushed to the fringes or assimilated by invaders during and after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Balkans too were invaded by barbarians who substantially altered the ethnic make-up of the inhabitants since Alexander's day.

Greece was really Alexander's first conquest. Later they rallied to his cause as he led them off to defeat the Persians (not the Parisians) their arch enemies. He had an earlier liaison with Hephaistion his boyhood friend. This sort of thing was quite common at the time amongst ancient Greeks. The Spartans were notorious for assigning yourger males to an older tutor who schooled them in the warrior arts among other things. Ultimately Alexander married a Bachtrian (somewhere in the Caucauses) princess named Roxanne. I forget whether they had any children.

I suspect that what the Hollywood execs don't feel Americans are ready for is the truth. All the evidence would indicate that they are correct.

As far as the eunuchs go, I was recently surprised to learn that, if castrated after puberty, they can keep it up for a surprisingly long time. More recently, this fact made some castrati in the age of belcanto superstars both in and out of the bedroom.

Reading the history of Alexander I noted this interesting line:

If his relationship with Hephaestion was such that he seems to be the only individual for whom Alexander waged such a terrible war, how can anyone make a movie that doesn't focus, in large part at least, on that relationship?

If Bush invaded Iraq for a gay lover I think it might at least get into the history books, if not Fox news. And wouldn't be ignored in a documentary or entertainment vehicle about his life.

Greeks say Alexander was not bisexual

Stupid Greek lawyers. Go earn some money to pay off your country's Olympic debt, why don't you? wink

Now I had heard about the alleged gay scene in the movie. Sounds like if Oliver were to leave it in, he may face the wrath of the F.C.C. or something.

Am I the only one who laughs out loud every time an ad for "Alexander" airs? Hearing Angelina Jolie--using some Natasha Fatale-like accent--say, "There has never been an Alexander like you. Alexander the Great," makes me laugh so hard I just about tear up.

~Adam

Interesting that in this list of ethnicities The Greeks are the only one, that I noticed, that the government makes an official statement about the lack of ethnic divisions. They are obviously very sensitive about their genetic connection to their past, much like the Egyptians, and perhaps for the same reason: a very rich cultural heritage. But I wonder how close either is genetically to those ancestors.

Alexander deliberately tried to establish ties, and Greek civilization, in at least one territory he conquered by encouraging, or requiring, his generals to take wives among the conquered peoples. If invaders did the same to the Greeks, can they be so certain they are of great relation to any of the "Greeks" of that day, much less to Alexander who apparently was not racially related. Also rape was standard procedure for invaders then.

They were of the same age, and most historians I've read matter-of-factly state they were soulmates and lovers. One historian wrote that the only thing to ever conquer Alexander were Hephaistion's thighs. It does seem, though, that war, not sex was what drove Alexander.

This is pure governmental propaganda, but should anyone be surprised?

Over the long history of what is now Greece--and by extension most of Asia Minor--the range and intermixtures of peoples is quite extensive. In addition to the various Indo-European interminglings, including the Romans, the Greeks have been or were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Turks, etc.; and the populations of what is now Greece has included--and this is documented from antiquity forward--peoples from various regions of southwestern Europe, parts of northern Europe, northern Africa (from what is now Morocco all the way west to Egypt), Africa down into what is now Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and of course all of what was once Asia Minor. These various peoples have been depicted in Greek visual and functional art, material culture and literature for aeons. Greece has one of the older Jewish populations in Europe as well.

As for Alexandros being \"fair,\" so sayeth Plutarch (45-120/125 AD), who also wrote that a sweet fragrance issued forth from his body. Of course Plutarch lived long after Alexander the Great (323 BCE), and his writeup of Alexander was famously translated by none other than John Dryden, the great British poet. He like all translators takes some liberties, but hey, what's a little artistic license? Fair to \"blond\"--or James Joyce's indelible phrase, \"oakpale.\"

In Dryden's words:

In the Loeb Classical series, we get the following translation of Plutarch:



[ November 22, 2004, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Just started Mary Renault's "The Nature of Alexander" - heavy lifting for this neophyte.

A bit story-tellingish for me, rather than a straightforward bio. But then Alexander is so far back in history and so mythologized that I suppose one picks up the style reading so much literature from that period.

One surprising "fact". His mother supposedly had red hair. Don't know why that surprised me.

As for the movie, why do I have the feeling that this one has "bad camp" written all over it? My hunch is that it will make "Troy" look like Citizen Kane.

You may very well be right George, but given my strong feelings for Mr. Ferrell, as my friend Adam would say (swoon) I still think I am going to check it out.

Since I actually saw "Troy," I guess I'll have to go see this to make the comparison -- although I keep seeing the ads and getting scared...ugh, the acting, the lines, the blond hair on Colin Farrell! eek!

BTW, Colin is on the Late Show with David Letterman tonight.

"Troy" provided some of the best laughs I've had at the movies this year, and since (as I posted earlier in this thread) I'am already laughing at Angelina Jolie's Natasha Fatale-accent in the ads for "Alexander," I'm looking forward to seeing it--for all the wrong reasons.

~Adam

Hey, at least Troy had some nice eye candy in the form of Eric Bana! Sorry to all the Colin Farrel fans out there but he just doesn't do anything for me in that blond wig. I think this movie will be a bust. The previews I've seen in the theatres had some people in the audience laughing! I admit I was one of them. I can't wait for further critical reviews of this film. I think they're gonna trash it!

Review: Alexander the Dud

This is just silly.

I don't know which is worse: Greek lawyers threatening to sue for defaming the dead, a cause of action recognized neither in Greece nor in the US, or GLAAD pronouncing judgment on The Great One's sexuality. HISTORIANS generally agree he was what we would call homosexual; politicians and fundraisers have nothing to contribute in this department. :mad:

Saw it last night (media preview!) at the San Francisco Metreon. Critics will hate it.

Oliver Stone is still on his anti-war campaign, and the battle scenes are brutal. I thought I was going to be covered in elephant blood sitting up so close.

The psychological parental+son triangle of Alexander, Philip, and Olympia was handled very well.

The bisexual/homosexual aspect was handled very well also... the way it should be...matter-of-fact, not a big deal...

The boi-toys of Babylon will spawn a new line of clothes and make-up this year I am sure.

What was lacking for me, as a student of the classics, was the testosterone. Oliver Stone portrays Alexander as so flawed and weak that it is hard to believe he conquered the known world on his looks alone.

Like Brad Pitt's Achilles in Troy, this is the year I guess for flawed heroes.

What I really liked was the acceptance that masculinity and heroes were not a function of gender preference. In fact the fluidity of sexuality was probably the most historically accurate aspect.

Also, Alexander's modern vision for uniting peoples was believable as another 'enlightened ruler' (cf: Troy's King Priam & Hector). His marraige to the Afghan princess and his total acceptance of the Persians was frowned upon by his bigoted generals of Macedonia.

If you are a student of history, and like spectacle, see it. But don't read too much into the wussy treatment of Alexander... that is Oliver Stone.

[ November 23, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: gdermody ]

True to form, NPR this afternoon referred to it as "the Heaven's Gate of sword-&-sandal movies."

Like Troy, Alexander will open pretty huge but fall off very quickly once word of mouth spreads.

I suppose the Band of Thebes is included, right? The first warrior society of committed gay couples!! As paris would say, "That's hot!"

It got a terrible review in the Phila. Inquirer. Says, among other things, that it makes "Conan the Barbarian" look like "Gladiator." eek!

And it's nearly 3 hours long! eek! eek!

Another terrible review, from the Phila. Daily News, but the review itself is highly entertaining. A sample:



[ November 24, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

I'm the one who got Gene into the sneak preview Monday of Alexander. Like him, I enjoyed the movie, realize the critics will hate it, and the public won't understand it.

My perspective is as a classcial civilization major who has made a lifelong study of Alexander the Great as arguably the most influential person in history. Slam dunk if you discount religious figures, but still arguably the tops even if they are included.

Every aspect of Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion was accepted as within social norms of the time, and so Stone's movie treats it as a matter of fact without overplaying it or misstating it. But sex was just one part of it and by no means a dominant part of it. There is no indication that Alexander was ever sexually terribly active -- when would he have found the time? -- but it is obvious that Hephaestion was the one person who in private moments shared intimate thoughts and challenged him.

There was so much skipped over in this movie just to cram a very full life into a couple of hours, so major battles, the burning of Persepolis, the meeting with Ammon ... these are all pretty much left out. Stone chose his moments for dramatic effect, not historical interpretation. I think what he captured particularly well were Alexander's volatile relations with his parents.

As to the hair... Alexander was blond, that's known, and he wore it a bit longer than the closely cropped cuts of his fellow soldiers. He did have a bit of dandy in him, very fond of luxuries such as perfumes, but he also had a magnificently masculine, charasmatic personality that brought out the best leadership capabailities of those around him.

Final note: what they really didn't capture in the film was that Alexander, while not making a moral leap forward and seeing the unity of mankind as an abstract ideal, did see unity and equal roles as a pragmatic necessity for ruling such an enormous empire. It was that pragmatic forced fusion of cultures that was his greatest stamp on history. In his day, Alexander was radical. Two centuries later in the time of Cicero, his view point was mainstream thinking in Roman rule.

The movie critic on the local CBS station called it the worst movie of the year. And TimeOut NY magazine thrashed it as well. How many critics will use the word "turkey" in their Thanksgiving weekend review of Alexander?

Saw it the other night, and while it wasn't as good as I hoped, it wasn't as bad as I heard. It was way too long, with one ending after another. And I didn't get why the story was told in voice over, or the maybe-twist ending, when Anthony Hopkins as the narrator implies a Keyser Soze-type twist? Or was it not just implied, and Oliver Stone and his editor muddled the final scene?

On the plus side were the women. Four gay men went to see a quasi-queer historical epic starring Colin Farrell and the best thing we discussed were Angelina Jolie's acting and Rosario Dawson's breasts. The movie wouldn't be the same without either. What stars they are.

I was tired the evening of the screening, so the moments during the movie I rested my eyes probably had nothing to do with what I was watching. The movie's slow at parts, but never boring. Even with the cruddy viewing conditions I had to endure (just say no to the Loews Cherry Hill), I was interested in the movie, if not involved. Maybe it was the anticipation of some man love, even though I knew going in it was cut.

I'm not a history buff, so I knew little about Alexander the Great beforehand. The details are clear in the movie, but I got the gist. Maybe I was too distracted by Ms. Dawson to absorb the small points.

No way this is the worst movie of the year when Christmas with the Kranks is also opening. So the point of this movie is the perils of not conforming in the fascist state of suburbia? Who would want to see that?

I saw it Thanksgiving night. It's....not very good. Poor dialogue, some way over the top acting and so on. I wonder if some important scenes were left out--as my movie companion noted "It's supposed to be an epic and it's not at all".

I really think that a major problem is that the main romantic story--Alexander and Hephaestion--is handled so poorly. Sure, some Colin and Jared porn would be great, but it's not even that they didn't get a soft-lit, Vangelis-scored sex scene; it's that their characters have about 3 or 4 intense scenes where they passionately declare their love for each other in unambiguous terms--you'd have to be really, really dense to think that "they're just good friends"--and, since this is the movies, they're supposed to kiss wildly while the music swells and surges at the end of those scenes. And....they hug. It's absurd.

And even that take on it doesn't work. There's a scene with Brian Blessed early on that had me giggling because he was in full-on Blackadder mode as Alexander's wrestling teacher, but that's not the same thing.

[ November 26, 2004, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

So, it is true, Stone took out the kissing scenes that were vividly described in the recent issue of Vanity Fair. Hummmm. I guess this is what we get in the red state years. I'm sure Colin (who has an openly gay brother) was pissed about this.

My local paper reviewed it this morning, and it also wasn't overly kind. Sounds more and more like a "wait for the video" movie.

I liked the fact that the Alexander-Hephaestion relationship wasn't turned into one of just cousins or buddies, but not showing the physical nature of it while giving Alexander a several-minute romp in the sheets with Roxanne is about as heterocentric as it gets. Overall I think the movie could do a lot to change the image of gay men, for the better.

I've read that the Greek pronunciatation of Hepaestion's name would put the emphasis on the penultimate syllable rather than the second(something like Hay-fuh-STEE-uhn). I couldn't help thinking of that every time someone said his name in the movie. That possible mispronunciation rendered everything else a little less authentic.

Personally I think Alex was a big ole bottom. Hephastion was taller, better looking and always defeated Alexander at wrestling. But Alexander was born to power and brash about his duty to keep it. In public he would always be the superior. Ptolemy probably was never with them in the bedroom, so he may have made a flse assumption in his oft-repeated declaration about Alexander being only defeated by Hephaestion's thighs. It may have had more to do with what was between them.

I don't think Alexander was effeminate in the least. That all, or even most, bottoms are effeminate is, I think a myth - a stereotype common among some gays as well as straights. True he sang and danced, and loved the arts. He had a taste for Persian finery and liked wearing it. His voice changed later than most boys and it is speculated that that may be partly why he stopped singing in public at the end of adolescence. But none of this necessarily suggests a flamer to me.

I think the guys intellectual brilliance and creativity, as well as his oratorical skills are difficult to portray in a movie. Farrell was not quite up to the role. To motivate some 40,000 men to march around the known world defeating much larger armies, and do so not from a throne but from the head of the line, is downright amazing. But what really separated him from most other leaders was his alleged ability to remember something about every single soldier, to improvise on the battlefield, lead by example and depart from the usual Greek abhorence of treating non-Greek peoples as humans.

The A-H relationship must have become platonic by the time Alexander set himself on Greekanizing the known world at about 16. Like a married couple, sex probably just wasn't necessary to confirm their bond. But Hephaestion's love must have defined Alexander. When he told Roxanne "He too is Alexander" after she mistakenly payed honage to Hephaestion as the leader of the army that had just conquered the Persians, it said everything one needed to know about Alexander-Hephaestion.

Roger Ebert's review, in case anyone's interested.

I agree with Roger Ebert's review. Although not as bad as some of the critics say, the film does not live up to it's title of Alexander the Great.

The movie is too long. The dialogue is often lame. The fake accents were all over the place. The movie lacks a dramatic spine, and just seemed like a series of events. I couldn't get the understanding of Alexander conquering and uniting vasts lands into a united kingdom. And, Colin Farrell didn't really have the larger-than-life character or charisma to lead men into battle like, say, Russell Crowe in Gladiator or Viggo Mortenson in Return of the King.

I did like that it was clear that Hephaistion was the love of Alexander's life. But why was he always smoldering in the background? We see Alexander kissing and bedding other men (servants?), yet he only exchanges hugs and meaningful looks with Hephaistion. There were a couple of good conversations, where they spoke to each other like companions, and I did like the scene (Alexander's wedding night) where Hephaistion gives Alexander a ring and his bride becomes aware that it's merely a marriage of convenience... but in the many scenes of military strategy, Hephaistion would remain silent as the other generals debated with Alexander. Seems that private discussions between the two would have shown their bond better (there was a scene where A. tells H. 'It's always loneliest the night before a battle' and I though "Ah! He's going to ask H. to spend the night with him." But instead they hug and go off to their separate tents.) Because we don't learn enough about Hephaistion, it's not clear why he and Alexander are lovers, as opposed to best friends.


On the plus side, I found Anjelina Jolie strangely attractive in those elegant Greek gowns. And Rosario Dawson--my! If I was straight... eek! And I did like some of the Romeo Gigli-esque fashions in the Asian scenes, not to mention those Greek toga-like outfits. And plenty of handsome men (of different types) to go around... I can imagine all sorts of gay porn titles being spawn by this movie. eek!

[ November 26, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]

This movie is pretty bad, from the hard to decipher dialogue to the over-the-top acting.

The only saving grace is the real performance of Jared Leto. And my, is he hot!

Come to me Hephastian.

Canmark summed up just about all my criticisms. The two good things: Angelina Jolie is an incredible beauty in this (though I find her annoying as hell in just about everything except L. Croft); my round-the-way girl Rosario Dawson's awesome breasteses. I guess we're all so used to fake boobs that the real things look a bit odd. Saw it at a suburban theater on a Fri night with my bros. It was packed, and I was surprised at how there wasn't any tittering at the gay stuff (there was some muted muttering--at its loudest, one of my brothers turned to me and said, "I bet that's some deeply closeted homo letting his buddies know how that shit turns him off cause he's such a mega straight stud."

Assuming the guy who said that is straight, it looks like they are finally "getting it". That's one reason I think this movie, as aesthetically unappealing as it may be, will do some good. Why else would so many straight people watch a basically gay movie?

Well, at the showing I saw yesterday there was quite a bit of tittering and commentary on the gayness of it all. Frankly I was doing some tittering myself. The only way I can describe this film is to call it, quite simply, a mess. I laughed a bit at some of the incredulous overacting but that's about all the enjoyment I got out of it. Poor Colin Farrell. I don't think he'll ever live this down.

Gore Vidal has defended Alexander.

Vidal has a point. I mean, when was the last time a $100+ million budgeted film had a gay lead character? Sadly, when the film flops the studios may blame the gay angle instead of the fact that it's just not a good movie.

I saw Colin Farrell on The View, and he was saying that he felt that society had "regressed" in a way, because in those days male/male love/sex was no big deal... whereas now, 2,000 years later, it is a big deal.

I wonder if there will be a 'director's cut' on the DVD version with the expurgated 'love scenes?'

I wonder whether the response to Oliver Stone's Alexander will have an effect on the release of Baz Luhrmann's version with Leonardo DiCaprio and Nicole Kidman. Rumor is that it's canceled.

Is it still in the works?

I am not a great fan of DiCaprio but thought he was interesting at least in Total Eclipse. Or maybe the poet Arthur Rimbaud was a more interesting character. How was his pirate movie?

Nope. They never even filmed any Colin n' Jared 'love scenes'.

[ November 28, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Well, Oliver Stone never did, but maybe private videos will surface a la Tommy Lee & Pamela Anderson. wink

There was a recent series on PBS, In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great, which I saw part of. It was mostly a historical journey, though, and didn't tap too much into Alexander's sexuality.

As for the Baz Luhrman project, the film page in IMDB.com, says "In October 2004, Nicole Kidman, a potential star of the movie, asserted to the media that the movie would not be going forward." Nicole Kidman was to play the Anjelina Jolie character, Alexander's mother Olympias.

-----------

Early numbers show Alexander as sixth in weekend box office at $13.5 million ($21.6 million since its Wednesday release)... although, in its defence it showed on fewer screens (2445 vs. 3243 for #1 National Treasure), and given its long running time may have had fewer screenings per day than other films.

[ November 28, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]

I watched "Ebert and Roeper" review this carefully last night. Ebert said it was a big disappointment, and mentioned about Alexander's male lover, and the fact they "hugged alot", which brought laughs from Roeper. Roeper surprised me and gave it a thumbs up, mainly for the "camp" factor as he called it. He said it had many shortcomings, but he found it entertaining enough and funny enough to mildly recommend it. He said of Collin Farrel, " he does a pretty good Alexander, not a great Alexander."