In our society we have become so accustomed to silly and frivilous lawsuits that we seem to sometimes just accept them. It seems that these days, the first response is to sue over anything. Whether it is an appropriate lawsuit doesn't seem to be a question. This time around, a group of 25 Greek Lawyers, (yes, Lawyers) are suing Warner Brothers over their portrayal of Alexander the Great in their recent critically panned movie Alexander as bisexual.
Yes, you heard me right, lawyers are suing over the portrayal of a character in a movie.
The lawyer leading the campaign, Yannis Varnakos, said the impending suit is not an attack against gays, but rather a demand to make the film historically accurate."We cannot come out and say that President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay," Varnakos told Reuters.
Although Varnakos had not yet seen the film, he claimed there was enough evidence to point to the film's inaccurate references.
There are so many things wrong here. First of all, why are they demanding that the film be made historically accurate? Since when are films based on a historical premise required to be historically accurate? Most, if not all, historical movies take many liberties with the plot and characterizations to adapt a historical story into a film context or even add things to it. People are allowed to adapt history in whatever way they want to make a film. People may not like the film because of it, but filmmakers are allowed to do whatever they want regardless of historical accuracy. Of course, this argument is even more ridiculous because they ignore the fact that many historians and scholars do think that Alexander the Great was indeed bisexual. Will they also sue any other historians who disagree with them
As to their point that people couldn't come out and say that JFK was a player for the Lakers, I have one thing to say - bullshit. I have a reality check for these lawyers - in our society there is a thing called free speech which allows people to say whatever they want, regardless of what others think. (I am not sure what exactly the specifics are on speech laws in Greece, but I'm pretty sure that it would be similar.) I could write a book which claims that JFK played for the Lakers and claim that it's true and nobody could justifiably sue me over it. People would just think that I'm full of it. Nobody can stop me from claiming whatever I want; they can only disagree.
As an aside, I think a movie about JFK being a pro basketball player would be a cool concept. Somebody should make it just to piss these Greek lawyers off.
Lastly, this whole thing is taken to an even higher level of ridiculous irrelevance because they haven't even seen the movie they are complaining about.
So, to the twenty-five Greek lawyers I say this - do your homework on Alexander and more importantly on free speech.
[Thanks to Posté for the link]
If this is the response to innuendoes, then it is a good thing the producers of "Troy" didn't show what really happened in the Iliad. What would the Greek lawyers have said about Achilles being gay and a necrophiliac.
Who can say with any certainty what happened thousands of years ago anyway? Nobody. They can make educated guesses, but even texts written about people may be fictional in whole or in part.
All of this is a case of too many lawyers. To be successful in this case, a rational judge will make them have to prove that Alexander was not gay, and there's no way to do that, since he's long gone. It seems some judges allow these types of circuses in their courtrooms though.
I don't think it's even an issue of whether or not Alexander the Great was gay, bisexual or whatever. The issue that this is a movie and you're allowed to say whatever you want and change a story. It is artistic license and free speech.
Here's a post I made on another site:
Calling Alexander the great a 'gay' is blasphemy. It is indeed a reflection of the degradation of the male race that one of its best heroes is being labelled as 'gay' today.
Gay refers to a negative form of 'third gender' --- a result of heterosexualisation of the modern society. Although third gender males (whether they like women or men or other third gender people) are by no means inferior they are certainly different than (straight/ masculine) men. Alexander was the opposite of 'gay'. He was the epitome of masculinity --- an alpha male. Probably, the greatest alpha male that this world has known.
There has always been a 'special' kind of person equivalent of today's homosexual, eversince the Greek times who was extremely feminine and exclusively sought passive anal sex.
No one in the history has ever called Alexander or the Greeks in general 'gay' or 'homosexual'. Indeed the whole concept of 'homosexuality' or even 'sexual orientation' is a recent western phenomenon. The concept of sexual orientation or homosexuality is relevant only if male-male eroticism was something that only a small minority could feel, a condition which is (at least superficially) has been artificially achieved by the western heterosexual society by drastically changing the rules of masculinity.
Of course Alexander loved a man. Additionally he may not have much interest in women. (both are typical male attitudes). However, in the ancient world loving another man was not a wayward, feminine or 'minority' thing that the term 'gay' suggests. On the contrary, it was the most common and natural thing that every straight man took part in. In fact it would have been a wayward thing to bond with a woman. It was something that only third gender males participated in. Straight men did marry after they reached 30, but that was because of the social duty to raise children (an attitude which straight men typically exhibited till recent times). Indeed, men considered women to be dispensable but for procreation. Men in fact hoped that if men could give birth they will not need women at all.
This is in keeping with the nature of the mammalian male. In the wild the mammalian males mate only for reproduction. There is never a bonding or equivalent of love between opposite sexes. Any real intimate and committed bonding takes place only between animals who are not only the same-sex but also the same-gender. The opposite-sex mating takes place only once a year and not all males participate. Alpha males often mate only a few times in their lives or even not mate at all.
The only mammalian males that bond with females are the equivalent of the third gender human males --- as observed in the case of sheep and the sea lion. These males don't live in the 'male' pack but live with and bond with females as one of them.
The heterosexual society is a sham. It is an anti-male society that seeks to break men apart from each other in order to demasculinise them and make them forever subservient to and dependant on women. Straight men are never naturally heterosexual. They only pretend to be heterosexual --- or have been trained to be so by a society that requires heterosexuality as a proof of their manhood (straighthood), is hostile to male-male intimacy and propagates it as a third gender 'homosexual' stuff. Bonding with women does not come naturally to men. Indeed the institution of marriage has always been a pain in the neck for straight men and the society has had to compensate them and threaten them in a number of ways to make them marry women. However, marriage till recently did not mean 'bonding' with women, and most interaction with wives were limited to either sex or 'family' matters. Straight men formed any meaningful bonds only with other straight men. Indeed the idea of love marriage was rare and looked down upon in non-western societies.
The entire heterosexual social order ----- it's institutions, it's concepts, it's values, it's science, media, social categories and even it's language is designed to perpetuate this heterosexual agenda. By making essentially a third gender trait into a compulsory 'straight' thing, the heterosexual society has effectively disempowered, demasculated and subdued men.
The only people to benefit from this unnatural social order (apart from aggressive women) are the heterosexuals (who are actually either feminine or lesser males) and the homosexuals (i.e. feminine males who seek men as females). Heterosexuals, because getting 'manhood' has becomes as easy as fucking or bonding with women (unlike in the past). And homosexuals because it gives them the reign over male-male intimacy. The irony is that both the groups are in a minority. The one's to suffer are the straight men --- who try their best to pass off as heterosexual.
--------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: "Us NCOs were EXPECTED to turn in troops we thought were gay."
"I actually don't begrudge anyone their sexuality. If a guy wants to handle his buddies package that's on him, i just have two reasonable requests."
------------------------------------------------------
It is ironical that a heterosexual man asks 'gays' (although he uses the word 'gay', he apparently includes straight men who openly desire males) to keep out of the military. Well, of course the true homosexuals (i.e. the feminine males) should stay out of the military. Third gender males will not care much for the military anyways. But, military is where the straight (masculine) men belong. Just as much as loving another man is THE natural thing for them to do. Indeed, if anyone should stay away from the military (apart from the real homosexuals) are the real heterosexuals. Heterosexual men have no appreciation for, understanding or use of masculinity. They should rather be with women, form families and raise children --- something that they are naturally suited for. Military is not a place for them.
In the end it would be apt for me to include a quote from the well known heterosexual Buddhist scholar and author, the late Alan Watts:
"If they (young and unrealised men who desire men, who affect machismo, ultramasculinity, and who constitute the hard core of our military-industrial-police-mafia-combine) would go fuck each other (and I use that word in its most positive and appreciative sense) the world would be vastly improved. They make it with women only to brag about it, but are actually far happier in the barracks than in boudiors. This is, perhaps, the real meaning of "make love, not war". We may be destroying ourselves through the repression of male-male bonds."
That is a very interesting perspective and I enjoyed reading that. You may be right that Alexander was not "gay" and that is just a label being attached by what you call the heterosexual society. I hadn't thought of the nuances of that label much while writing that.
However, my main point was that it's a movie and the people making the movie have the right to portray the character however they want. It's their movie and nobody has the right to sue them and tell them what they can and cannot make a movie about.