Ace of Spades HQ

« And the Media Shall Yawn: Killing Field of Babies Unearthed in Kite-Flyin' Iraq | Main | Was Kerry Honorably Discharged? »

October 13, 2004

Oliver Stone: A "More Honest Time" of Bisexuality

Defending the bisexuality in his "Alexander":

“Alexander lived in a more honest time,” the controversial filmmaker, who directed the big-budget flick starring Colin Farrell, tells the upcoming issue of Playboy magazine. “We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be.”

First of all, I don't know how much the man's bisexuality needs defending. He was gay. The film has to note that, I suppose. Especially these days, when to elide over it would cause a furor.

But look-- what's Stone trying to tell us, here?

I know from a gay friend that there is an idea among gays that everyone is pretty much gay, but only some are "brave" enough to act on their gay desires. People universalize from their own situations, I guess; just as gays can't imagine that some people aren't gay, some straights have an awful lot of difficulty imagining life as someone physically attracted to the same sex.

But if the right is to be faulted for not being understanding enough about gays' hard-wired, almost-impossible-to-thwart sexual drives, can the left lay off with this crap about how we'd all exist in some sort of Pansexual Pandemonium if it weren't for "Christianity" and our "society" telling boys not to have sex with boys?

Any time anyone says something like this, he gets hit immediately with the kneejerk charge of "overcompensating" or "hiding something" or "secretly gay," but who cares: If you're attracted to boys, that's fine and all, but trust me, there are an awful lot of other men who have never once even thought about having sex with a guy.* It's not a deep secret urge being restrained by some Christian superego; it's just not on the fuckin' menu, okay, Oliver?**

I think it's very nice that some on the left are/have been attracted to the same sex, and maybe have been a little more than attracted. I'm not going to "deny your sexuality" or whatnot.

But do me a favor and don't deny mine. Not everyone's gay, you know. I know you sort of want to believe that, but it's just not true.

* I can only offer the straight male take on this. I'd extend my analysis to women, but I'm restrained by the wisdom of a remark by Dennis Finch on Just Shoot Me: "Every woman's just a few drinks away from some hot girl-on-girl action."

Is this true? Well, one can only hope. Let's just say it doesn't seem entirely untrue. But maybe I just went to a really fun college.

** Okay, perfect candor requires me to admit that my record of virulent heterosexuality is almost umblemished, but only almost.

Look, yes, I do dress up as Nick Rhodes every Saturday night, but that's only because I play air-synthesizer in my lip-sync Duran Duran cover group, Wild Boys. I swear to you, I do not enjoy wearing eyeliner and lipstick and fingerless gloves.

Okay, I don't exactly hate it, either. But I assure you it's all for the sake of art.

And okay, fine, I did shack up for a time with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. But power is an aphrodisiac, and besides, when I was young and sexually confused, I was young and sexually confused.

Plus, I got a kick-ass recommendation out of it. A nice recommendation from Dr. Henry Kissinger (or "Doctor Kissyface," as I know him) makes up for an awful lot of shame and emotional scars.

You curl up into the fetal position in the shower a couple of times like Glenn Close in The Big Chill and seriously, the water just washes the tears away.

posted by Ace at 01:19 PM

Comments

Why are you investing so much time and energy into this particular issue, Ace?

Hmmmm. It makes me wonder about you. You know what they say about 'protesting too much...'

Mwaa ha ha haaa

Posted by: lauraw on October 13, 2004 01:27 PM

Aaargh. Et tu, LauraW?

You're just mad about the Dennis Finch remark at the end.

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 01:28 PM

Well said Ace, boy I sure...well...I've never felt this way about a man before...you're just so...I...I have to go...

Posted by: Ken J on October 13, 2004 01:32 PM

I find it amusing that it is some sort of indictment against Christianity that it has repressed the urge for men to have sex with boys ... let me get this straight? That is/was a bad thing? (I'm hiding my boys away in a closet ... NOT that closet ... a closet that keeps 'em away from the likes of Oliver Stone.)

Posted by: Carin on October 13, 2004 01:41 PM

So far as it goes, I think most women are a little easier going on the whole matter than men. I also suspect that being a California girl makes me think that. Oh, well.

On the other hand, well, who would you rather think about in the act of stuffing classified documents in his/her undies, Fawn Hall or Sandy Berger?

I'm pretty seriously hetero, and I'm here to tell you the answer is definitely Fawn.

As for Alexander's sexuality, he definitely prefered guys by the historical accounts, and nobody cared, much, at the time.

Posted by: Dianna on October 13, 2004 02:07 PM

A-hem.

Mm-hmm. Mmmm-hm.

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 02:23 PM

Ace--

The real scandal is that Stone's movie may depict Alexander as some sort of hero, and not the butcher he was (or, if they *do* depict him as a butcher, it'll be of those innocent little brown people to the East).

Don't take my word for it, take Victor Davis Hanson's word for it:

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson100904b.html

Cheers,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on October 13, 2004 03:04 PM

I'm pretty sure you can see one of Glenn's nipples in that shot, by the way. That seems relevant, doesn't it?

Posted by: mikeski on October 13, 2004 03:44 PM

Huh?!

Is this the right thread for Glenn's nipples?

(Is ANY thread the right thread for Glenn's nipples?)

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 04:16 PM

Whoa! Where's my head at? For some reason I thought you were talking about Glenn Reynold's nipples.

I completely forgot I mentioned Glenn Close in this post.

I guess you probably can see her nipples there, sort of. I've never really looked. Glenn Close has always had about as much sex appeal to me as a Sports Illustrated football phone.

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 04:23 PM

Good post.

James

Posted by: James R. Rummel on October 13, 2004 07:21 PM

James,

Good comment.

Frances

Posted by: Frances S. Travermeier on October 13, 2004 07:26 PM

Frances,

Good surrebuttal.

Ace

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 07:29 PM

Generally speaking, i have the `Eeeuw, yuck!` reaction to male homosexuality. But I don't want to stone them, or even keep them from visiting a partner in the Intensive Care Unit (because they are not "family", as is a heterosexual with a form from the State).

With the possible exception of Sparta, I think most societies frowned upon - but tolerated - homosexuality. Until something prompted the Leviticus book to proclaim it an "abomination" (far worse than a mere "sin" like murder).

Of course, according to that book, if you've ever had a ham sandwich or eaten lobster, you have also committed an "abomination".

Posted by: John Anderson on October 13, 2004 11:32 PM

Yeah, I agree with all that. I think men have an inborn revulsion to touching other men, which is why you don't hug your father much after you're past 12 years old.

Women don't have that, with the caregiver thing and all, which is why they braid each other's hair, walk arm in arm, and occasionally have some hot girl-on-girl action.

Posted by: ace on October 14, 2004 12:08 AM

"I think it's very nice that some on the left are/have been attracted to the same sex, and maybe have been a little more than attracted. I'm not going to "deny your sexuality" or whatnot."

This is a freaking amazing comment and it went unchallenged. So homosexuality is "peculiar" to those on the left? I think I speak for every thinking person when I say WHAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT?????

Posted by: patrick gorseI think it's very nice that some on the left are/have been attracted to the same sex, a on November 18, 2004 09:22 PM

Historically, Alexander and Hephaestion's relationship was unusual because they were the same age. But the norm then was boy & man (which I bet Stone doesn't even mention in the movie), not boy & boy. But he also had a wife, with whom he (apparently, pre blood-tests) conceived a child.

Historically, Stone seems to be correct; but the rumours suggest the movie is a turkey.

Posted by: Fontboy on November 20, 2004 11:37 AM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.

Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!

Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."

Batman fires The Batman
Batman is disgusted by the Joachim Phoenix version of Joker
Batman tries to fire Superman
Batman is still workshopping his Bat-Voice

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all

Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)

Sec. Army recognizes ODU Army ROTC cadets for their bravery and sacrifice in private ceremony
[Hat Tip: Diogenes] [CBD]

TJM gives you a brief tour of his movie collection.

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
One day I'm gonna write a poem in a letter
One day I'm gonna get that faculty together
Remember that everybody has to wait in line
Oh, [Song Title], look out world, oh, you know I've got mine

US decimation of Iran's ICBM forces is due to Space Force's instant detection of launches -- and the launchers' hiding places -- and rapid counter-attack via missiles
AI is doing a lot of the work in analyzing images to find the exact hiding place of the launchers. Counter-strikes are now coming in four hours after a launch, whereas previously it might have taken days for humans to go over the imagery and data.

Robert Mueller, Former Special Counsel Who Probed Trump, Dies

“robert mueller just died,” trump wrote in a truth social post on march 21. “good, i’m glad he’s dead. he can no longer hurt innocent people! president donald j. trump.”

TJM has thoughts on Superheros and Iconography

Canadian School Designates Cafeteria And Lunchroom As "No Food Zones" For Ramadan
Canada and the UK are neck and neck in the race to become the first western country to fall to Islam [CBD]

Chuck Norris, Action Icon and 'Walker Texas Ranger' Star, Dies at 86

Podcast: Sefton and CBD have a short chat about Iran, the disgusting SAVE Act theater, Mamdani's politicizing of St. Patrick's Day, and more!