February 7, 2024 - 10:40am
Members of the Online Right mustered quite a bit of anger this week over Netflix’s new docu-drama Alexander: The Making of a God. The series has made a splash with a sequence that depicts Macedonian world-beater Alexander the Great making out with his close companion Hephaestion (a detail which is anything but clear from the historical record) cut between historians discussing his sexuality.
The immediate, and arguably disproportionate, culture-wars response nonetheless epitomises the pitfalls of contemporary history-making. The show would appear to suffer from a similar problem to other recent works of historical fiction, as award-related quota incentives encourage filmmakers to centre a very 2024 understanding of diversity and inclusivity.
Essentially, these films distil complex historical realities — such as the nuanced understandings of sexuality and friendship in the Hellenistic world — into oversimplified, contemporary narratives that speak to Leftist prejudices while antagonising the Right. Quite often, this means reshaping the past to fit present-day ideologies, the so-called “Current Thing”, at the expense of historical accuracy and nuance.
The outrage seems particularly focused on the deviation from a perceived ideal that Alexander should be depicted as a prototypical conservative hero, echoing similar controversies around portrayals of other historical figures such as Napoleon in Ridley Scott’s film, whom some within the Online Right derided as a “cuck”. These examples highlight a modern artistic tendency to either overly celebrate or vilify, creating narratives which are more reflective of current cultural wars than of the complexities of the past, which was neither straightforwardly “good” nor “bad” but simply different.
Those who value the scholarly pursuit of history understand the importance of nuance and the challenges and ambiguities inherent in historical study. The real difficulty lies not in engaging in the endless cycle of outrage and counter-outrage but in resisting the temptation to reduce history to easily digestible, ideologically convenient narratives. That is, Alexander as hunky contemporary LGBT tough guy; Napoleon as fragile, toxic male “cuck”; Hidden Figures‘s black female protagonists as chief architects of rocket-powered flight (inconveniently, former Nazis such as Wernher von Braun played a far greater role in both the US and Soviet space programmes).
The increasing inclination towards “Current Thing” reinterpretations can partly be attributed to recent shifts in the incentives within the film and television industries. For instance, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has introduced new inclusion standards for Best Picture eligibility, effective from this year, which aim to enhance diversity on and off-screen. These criteria require films to meet certain benchmarks related to the representation of underrepresented groups, which has influenced the industry’s storytelling choices and ostensibly pushed narratives towards more diversity and inclusion.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe‘A new series has been accused of caving to fashionable ideas’Is it not fashionable to say that Greeks are gay?I thought it was racist.
An old Greek man and an old Italian man are arguing.
The Greek man says “Look, all I’m saying is that the Greeks invented everything the Romans get credit for!”
The Italian says “Yes, may be, but the Romans improved it and made it useful!”
The Greek man says “We invented the Democracy!”
The Italian says “We realized the challenge of direct elections and the benefit of the legislature, and thus created the Republic!”
The Greek man says “Yes, but we created beautiful architecture like the Parthenon!”
The Italian says “And we improved your building techniques, and used them to create aqueducts and structures that stood for centuries longer!”
The Greek man, frustrated, finally says “Ah, of course. But the Greeks, we INVENTED sex!”
The Italian man says “That may be true, but we introduced it to women.”
Now that I’ve finished laughing I think it only correct to say I’m deeply offended on behalf of all Greeks.
“Conservatives pounce”
What if the whole time we were actually imposing a heteronormative western Christian interpretation on history?
No… it couldn’t be… only the wokes socially engineer and distort history.
Anyone who’s looking to fantasy TV entertainment for a portrayal of reality is looking in the wrong place. The very core of the culture wars problem is that anyone expects their television to represent reality in any way.
If you want history, read a book. If you want reality, go outside. (and leave the screens at home).
When was there an interpretation of history that said Alexander the Great was a Christian?
When was there an interpretation of history that said that Greeks invented homosexuality?
I assume by “heteronormative” you just mean normal. Heterosexuals make up 98% of the population.
It may have been as low as that among men who grew up when homosexual sex was illegal, but among those born since 1967 it is way higher. And it depends on how you ask the question. Are you asking if the respondent is open to everyone, and preferably in a committed cohabitatting arrangement, or that they find men attractive/more attractive than women? I have no problem in fancying women’s bodies but I’m definitely gay
According to the UK Census 2021: Gay or Lesbian: 1.54%, Bi-sexual 1.28%.
It must be true then!
Do you have a better statistical source?
If you gauged the number by the amount of time news outlets spend discussing gay issues or transvestism etc, you would think they made up about 60% of the population.
I wonder why a history of Alexander the Great born some time around 300 BC and notable for conquering the East might not be a Western Christian one…
That’s not what I meant by heteronormative. Read a book and find that “normal” is defined by its prevailing circumstances.
The question isn’t what proportion of today’s population are heterosexual but what proportion in ancient greece were.
‘Heteronormative’ is a pejorative term often used by those who believe that their lack of personal success is due to the stigmatization of their sexual fetishes.
Read a dictionary and find that “normal” and “normative” mean different things.
heterosexuality is the ‘norm’ for quite good and easy to understand evolutionary reasons (otherwise we would be extinct).
But in that case, it doesn’t really need to be ‘imposed,’ although it finds a wide variety of cultural expressions.
What would need to be artificially culturally ‘imposed’ from above would be an excessive cultural veneration of minority sexual pursuits, along with a disparagement of ‘heteronormativity.’
We are dying out right now
I agree with you up to a point; history and culture are basically decided by the hegemonic tribe that dominates society. In order for the new regime to truly dominate, it needs to destroy the history and culture of the old regime. What disturbs me is the new regime wants to replace core values of the old regime that have made us the most prosperous and privileged people in the history of the world – individual rights and freedoms, the free market, limited govt, the scientific method etc…
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Just because Alexander most likely did things we would today label as “homosexual”, doesn’t negate the fact that the entertainment industrial complex is determined to insert homosexuality at every turn.
I seem to vaguely recall (perhaps from Arrian) Alexander being offered a boy and getting extremely angry about it. His love for Hephaistos always seemed more like the love for a childhood friend than anything sexual. In the Greek world only well regulated relations between an older man and young man were really acceptable.
It is not difficult at all. Just do as I do and don’t watch or read anything written after 1999. After all, everything that can ever be said about Alexander had been said by the end of the last century.
Unless it confirms your point of view, eh?
There hasn’t been an interesting, original human thought expressed so far this century. Just a load of gossip on social media and some reheated 1960s agitprop.
No, question even that. Especially media sources that pander to its readers’ world views.
<<“Just do as I do and don’t watch or read anything written after 1999“>>…. Hmmmm. The lady/gentleman doth protest far too much, methinks. What about books like Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” , Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall (and the rest of her trilogy), many of Lee Child’s “Jack Reacher” books (if you have any interest in the specific genre, of course); or films like “Gladiator”, “No Country for Old Men”,”Inception”, “300”, “Inglourious Basterds”, “Etre et Avoir”, “The Wind that shakes the Barley”, “Ocean’s Eleven”, “We need to talk about Kevin”, “The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, “The Pianist”, “Lord of the Rings” (all three parts), … I could go on and on by adding almost every Clint Eastwood or Martin Scorsese or Coen Brothers film of the last 20 years…. a great pity you will have missed these by stopping in 1999.
I wonder if there is anything meaningful to leftists outside of their genital area?
Quote from Andrew Sullivan’s (named conservative! 🙂 ) interview “What I Got Wrong About Trump”, by Freddie Sayers:
FS: And meanwhile, he’s (Trump) not homophobic especially is he?
AS: I don’t think there’s much evidence that he’s anti-gay. I don’t think any of the core civil rights that we’ve won — the right to marry, the right to be in the military — are in any way in doubt.
It seems that this is the main victory of the enlightenment of the last thirty years. There is very little left to do, let transgender people into all women’s toilets and beauty pageants (no women permitted). Let women use disabled toilets. They are disabled, real women are born with penises.
There is very little left to do, — Except that’s not how activism works. There is always something left to do, even if it has to be invented. Which is how trans thing became all the rage after same sex marriage was essentially codified in the US.
It’s not about the cause. It’s about the business behind the cause. If the cause no longer exists, then the grift dies along with it.
The outrage seems particularly focused on the deviation from a perceived ideal that Alexander should be depicted as a prototypical conservative hero.
Who said anything about conservative? People tend to notice when historical material is bent to suit modern-day sensibilities. Like the highly-educated black characters that increasingly populate productions set in 19th century England. Maybe audiences understand when they’re being lied to and when agendas are being advanced. Or maybe they just get sick of the incessant pandering to the various “victim” groups.
Agreed, I don’t think the frustration is due to an insufficiently conservative portrayal, more likely people are pointing out that today’s progressive sensibilities didn’t exist in the past.
Yes. One could also metaphorically say that both sides are in dispute about ‘The Man’. I would also say more pointedly, if you’ll pardon the pun, the phallus, and each side is pointing in different directions. So called ‘gay’ male relationships in Hellenistic days has had a change of ‘narrative’ to suit todays fantastical romance story. If we are going to go down this path then its not that men did not have ‘relations’ with other men, because we know that they did. But so much has been omitted from this. If you are going to go down this road, you must make it more ‘realistic’ to the times and culture we are being shown. That’s what’s infuriating. Its all BS. If you read renown historian and author, Tom Holland, then he would tell you that these men would have you head if they were fancied as ‘homosexual’ in their day. It just didn’t exist in those terms. These men also were what we were call ‘barbaric’ in todays terms. If we are talking about their sexuality, they used their phallus as swords also. I can’t remember the roman word that Tom Holland said they used for ‘using’ their p***s for sexual relief whenever the ‘call’ arises so to speak, but it is the same one they used for toilet or urinal. Anyone who was not of high status, high-born, was up for grabs. Any orifice of anyone, including young girls or boys, slaves, women, men, could be used for sexual release. If your going to portray this, then portray all of it. Otherwise this movie had been co-opted to throw in some gay sexual fantasy. And we can all smell ‘con-job’ when its not inclusive of a more broad truth.
Both sides are delusional. Both sides are really talking about what makes a man. Both sides are arguing over the phallus.
The ‘conservatives’ up in arms over a similar trope. These men are ‘heroes’ or so the stories have been told over time and passed down. The ancient Roman and Greek story has captivated the west since that time immoral. I also have been swept up in the ‘story’ during my childhood. Particularly the renaissance. It is the story of men and civilization. However, again the story is more complex than that and must also include ‘the darker’ side of our nature, particularly regarding ‘conquest’. They were all about Conquest. Conquest of everything. Expansion, growth and particularly Domination. War. Again, include all of it. Back then, as is now in many parts of our world, (look at Hamas) part of the victory spoils was the taking of women, the savage raping and killing of women and children. It was expected and accepted. Men were slaughtered and humiliated. This was the ‘marking’ of a man. The making of a man. This barbarity was openly applauded. Think all of the above. The use, abuse and domination of anyone and anything not of his ‘station’.
So what are we talking about really here?
What makes a man?
His Phallus? Domination and Conquest? Is that all he is? If so, how disappointing.
I know good men who are far more than that. Thankfully.
I wish we were not treated as fools. I crave stories that capture the depth of humanity so that I could believe the story that they are telling. The good, bad, wise, foolish, ugly, beautiful and downright disgusting.
Alexander was a brutal conqueror. Might is right, you could say. I think it’s a fair comment that conservatives have historically admired Alexander, Caesar etc more than leftists.
Also on Netflix and much worse: Cleopatra. Here, we are educated in the New Geography and informed that “no matter what you may be told in school, Cleopatra was black” while also being told that Cleopatra was not Egyptian, “she came from Macedonia.” Which apparently is now located in Africa.
Just try to tell the truth as best as it can be discerned and be humble about what is unknown or unclear… Otherwise just create good fiction and weave your narratives the way you like…
We stopped watching this series after the first episode due to the program maker’s obsession with Alexander’s sexuality. This was simply irritating as it diverted viewers attention from the historical narrative.
In this day and age, sexuality IS more important than anything else Alexander achieved! Surprised he hasn’t been portrayed as trans, if I’m honest!
“Surprised he hasn’t been portrayed as trans”
Wait for a sequel 🙂
If this series is successful, the next will be about his son transitioning to a girl and becoming a fiercely successful she-warrior.
The thing about Alexander’s son…
Presumably it would have been a bit difficult to play down Alexanders’ now unfashionable penchant for imperialism, so I assume they’ve left that in?
I don’t think it’s a conservative or homophobic issue. I’m as pro-gay as they come, but I resent being taken out of the story and hit over the head with someone’s agenda.
I had the benefit in Third Form (9th Grade) of an enthusiastic history teacher who led us on a journey through Classical Greece and Rome. I was absolutely fascinated, and remain a devoted student of the Classical Greco-Roman era for over half a century. An avid reader, I discovered Mary Renault’s books about ancient Greece at the same time. Classic Greece’s amalgam of Eastern and Western influences directed my understanding of Greek and Macedonian cultures.
The upshot was that by age fifteen I understood certain aspects of ancient Greek culture included occasional behaviors that today we would consider homosexual. The Sacred Band of Thebes being one rather overt example.
Consequently, homosexuality showing up in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders struck me as peculiar.
We have always sifted the historical record to find things upon which to found both our highest aspirations and our basest motivation. Such is life. The current trend of crafting stories about the past to support present mores is sheer banality, and bespeaks more the lack of formal education in our society’s artists than anything else.
Personally, I thought the miniseries actors in the latest Alexander series rather mechanical, presenting their lines in rote form. I will always try to watch such historical fiction, if for no other reason than to see in the mirror what it is reflecting of our society (I refused to look at the latest Cleopatra bio simply because it had already telegraphed its egregious foolishness in the trailer).
As for one passionate kiss by Alexander and Hephaestion I suggest those offended build a bridge, and get over it.
The notion of “historical fiction” is a logical fallacy.
Something you may wish to “get over”.
I disagree. Rome from 2005 is one of the best TV shows of the millenium.
“Those who value the scholarly pursuit of history” don’t get their history from Netflix.
I watched the BBC series ‘Cranford’ last night. A charming series to watch and, refreshingly no irrelevant or inappropriate ethnic person shoehorned into it as is usual nowadays. Such a change and it was made in 2007. How far have we fallen in such a short time?
Say thank you to Obama
Leonid Brezhnev used to give Erich Honecker a big smacker on the lips whenever they met. (No tongues though.)
I guess it’s just a cultural thing.
The Academy establishing DEI eligibility guidelines for films is antithetical to the very idea of art. Though I’m no artist myself, I’m given to believe that the best art is that which expresses a candid and heartfelt message and stems from the passion and intuition of the artist(s). Any work which must first answer to the decrees and dictates of a committee or governing body is hardly deserving of the title. Film that caters to popular taste or the whims of the establishment rather than advancing original and thought-provoking ideas is more propaganda than art, I’d say.
Who cares about the sex life of Alexander the Great? Boring.
Someone’s race, religion, “gender”, sexual preferences? Boring.
Boring people need validation apparently. He’s not remembered for anything that didn’t have to do with conquering, which ain’t boring.
If a “single kiss” by Alexander of Hephaestion, who was undoubtedly emotionally important to him, is all that is being objected to, it seems to me in this case that US conservatives have been overreacting. Unfortunately that’s what happens with polarisation.
The main objection I have with films such as Napoleon was it’s entire invention of historical episodes which never happened. And whatever the nature of the love between Bonaparte and Josephine, she didn’t ultimately have that much hold over him. He divorced her because she did not bear him children. This is entirely consistent with the time honoured laws of power and inheritance – yes these were “patriarchal” – much as they motivated Henry VIII. So in that respect the ‘feminist’ reappraisal is bunkum.
I’m a gay man. I’m fed up with Pride becoming ubiquitous and seemingly lasting most of the year! I have my civil rights and no, I cannot force people to love or even accept me, not should I wish to.
However it is also true that homosexuality, which even exists in animal behaviour, and certainly within social constraints in various human societies including Ancient Greece, was previously hugely downplayed or denied in western tradition. Which isn’t inconsistent with saying that of course it might be hugely overemphasised today.
Hollywood has reduced itself to generating artistically flat culture-war propaganda.
I was rather more bothered by the ahistorical depiction of Darius’s wife at his side, joining in military discussions and offering advice. In reality, she would have spent her time shut in the harem. I took this to be an attempt by Netflix to be inclusive of women, without regard to historical accuracy.
An historian refusing to acknowledge when he is living! Try doing this (below) and economically serving in 2024, pretending that there isn’t a war doesn’t mean that you will not be shot.
“Instead of capitulating to these divisive narratives by reflexively praising or lambasting them, relative to our position in the culture wars, it is incumbent upon those who value history to seek out and support narratives that strive for a balanced, informed, and careful exploration of the past. It’s an exceedingly difficult task in 2024, but not an impossible one.”
I welcome the author’s emphasis on the texture and nuance of the historical canvas – too many “historical” portrayals simply erase the historical reality and treat history as a blank canvas on which we project our modern concerns.
All too often, those modern concerns are one-dimensional, focussing on one attribute only, thus reducing a fascinating story to an identitarian pastiche.
In fairness to audiences of all kinds and of all times, one thing every human intuitively understands is the complexity of the human condition. One-dimensional stories are boring and will therefore die a natural death.