Hollywood is all about make-believe, and never claimed to be anything else but an industry cranking out entertainment on celluloid (or digital, as the case may be). Yet when Hollywood twists the facts around or ignores them completely, I think we need to hold them accountable.

One of the most enduring fakeries Hollywood perpetuates is the making of homosexuals into heterosexuals. A recent biopic of Cole Porter, a well-known bon vivant of the Jazz Era and throughout the 30s and 40s, glossed over his homosexuality. Given the era in which he lived, Porter was openly gay, and certainly his song lyrics played with that. ("Mad About the Boy"? I mean, come on...)

A current biopic on the author of Peter Pan casts Johnny Depp as a sensitive, somewhat introverted writer and totally ignores the very thing that informed, even inspired, his classic story – Barrie liked boys; a lot, apparently.

Now we have Oliver Stone, well known for thumbing his nose at Hollywood conventions and daring to direct the films he wants in the way he wants, caving into pressure to make his hero, Alexander The Great (a.k.a Colin Farrell), appear as heterosexual as possible.

Of course, we have no way of knowing if Alexander was heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or whatever. Plus, it is important to keep in mind that in the time of Alexander The Great, the idea of someone having a sexual orientation was unheard of. It wasn’t until the mid-1800s that the whole idea of someone being heterosexual, or being homosexual or bisexual, gained prominence. Prior to that it was largely assumed men were sexually attracted to women, women (when they were thought to have any sexual feelings at all) were attracted to men, and anyone who didn’t conform to that was degenerate and depraved.

The idea of man-woman sexuality being the norm wasn’t, however, present in all societies. The Ancient Greeks, from whose traditions the Macedonian prince Alexander sprang, idealized male-male love and eroticism, especially between an older (sometimes only slightly older) or privileged male citizen and a younger, sometimes lower social status, male. The whole concept of the philosophers and their disciples was predicated on that ideal. The purest form of erotic love was thought to be between men. Women were there to marry and produce ones heir; one rarely fell in love with the creatures.

The great love of Alexander’s life, according to ancient texts, was Hephaestion. Hephaestion accompanied Alexander across Asia as Alexander conquered the known world as far as India, fought by his side and shared his bed and tent. When Hephaestion died in 323 BCE, Alexander elevated him to a god.

It was written that the only time Alexander was ever conquered was by Hephaestion’s thighs: A breath-catching image, to my way of thinking.

However, in Oliver Stone’s latest movie "Alexander" any reference to the love Alexander and Hephaestion shared is excised. Alexander is resolutely portrayed as a strong, virile, charismatic warrior-king who conquered not only the Persians, but also women. His conquering of (or conquering by, perhaps) Hephaestion and the eunuch Bagoas are not really examined at all.

So, what does it matter if Alexander as man-lover is not shown? Who cares if he is portrayed as what we would now call heterosexual? There are several problems attached to such a false portrayal.

First, if the movie is being promoted as a faithful recreation of the man behind the legend, then the fact he loved and was loved by other men – sexually loved – is a part of who he was and should not be skipped over, ignored or altered.

Secondly, each time a historical figure who loved men is portrayed differently, it further marginalizes us. It reinforces the myth that to be gay one cannot be heroic, brave, a leader of men, noble, fine, fierce, conquering, or anyone of note. If all one’s heroes are heterosexual, or one is led to believe they were, where are our role models, our heroes? We have them throughout history, we know who they are; we just don’t know they were our heroes and forefathers (and in some cases, foremothers).

Thirdly, revisionist history is a dangerous game to be playing. Any attempt to bury history and re-present it to suit the political will of the dominant culture needs to be resisted.

Winston realized this in George Orwell’s novel of a totalitarian future, Nineteen Eighty-four, in which Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth churned out lies to keep the proletariat, the average citizen, believing what Big Brother (or The State) wanted them to believe. Winston remembers when Oceania was at war with Eastasia, only now Big Brother was claiming Oceania was at war with Eurasia, and had always been at war with Eurasia. All documents, all photos, all records were changed to reflect the new reality. Scary stuff. Scarier when one realizes just how close it sometimes is to reality.

When mass media, like the movies, doctor historical fact, how different is that from Big Brother altering all records to reflect the Big Lie?

Oliver Stone isn’t Big Brother and Hollywood is not the world of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four. However, revisionist history is ungood, as Orwell would have written.

If Colin Farrell had portrayed his Alexander as a lover of men, how would that have diminished his portrayal of Alexander? Which leads us into the fourth concern.

Farrell has been quoted as saying he found kissing another man, stubble and all, on the lips as "repulsive" – this from the pre-eminent male slut of Hollywood...not that that’s a bad thing, being a male slut...

But one wonders why leading men always feel it so necessary to distance themselves when their character is called upon to behave, however remotely, as "gay" – especially men with the clearly heterosexual credentials of a Colin Farrell, a self-described womanizer, party animal, and carouser. Colin, we know you like women, okay? Relax, mate.

Also, various groups in Greece, Macedonia, and Turkey apparently were up in arms about any portrayal of Alexander that indicated he was a lover of men, believing this somehow diminished him.

There is a pattern emerging there that I have some difficulty with. A pattern that suggests portraying someone as homosexual is to slander the individual. How does it slander them? It only slanders them if one thinks being homosexual is something one should be ashamed of. I’m not in the least ashamed of being homosexual. In fact, I glory in it.

I bet Alexander and Hephaestion likely did as well.

Related Articles

Contributor Stephen Lock |

Topic Politics |