The great men of history achieved their “celebrity” status through their achievements in the martial fields and of state craftmanship. They didn’t become famous because their faces or bodies looked great – altough Alexander the Great was beautiful and Caesar’s face was the picture of perfect symmetry in masculine features.

To me, an actor who is tom play the role of one of the great men of history must have the following characteristics: he must be at least 40 years old and preferabley 50, he must look like a man and not a boy and he must be a character actor with superb interpretations skills. A 25 or 30 year-old might not be a youth anymore, but he doesen’t have the maturity and severitas to play the role of a great man. Why does Hollywood hate men so much? To make it in Hollywood, it seems like one must be either a woman or a pretty boy. Where are the days of superb actors who look like real men, like Alec Guinness and Rex Harrison? My choice for Hannibal would be Anthony Hopkins. He already played a Hannibal onscreen and he did an incredible job. The only problem is that, as a sexagenarian, he might be too old for the role. Otherwise, he’d be prefect.

Charlie Hunnam playing Antinous – what larks ! – Carry On Up The Catamite perhaps.

Jarman’s ‘Sebastiane’ is an interesting contrast to Hollywood’s view of ye ancient olde tymes.

I’m not going to apologize for it, but I do acknowledge the truth–that because women are at least half the audience for movies and TV shows, that’s why the macho, man-loving men of the past have been “feminized.” But it’s not my choice. If it were based on my preferences, I’d want to see it just as rough and hairy and maculine as it really was. Wouldn’t want to live then, though.

As a woman who thinks “homoerotic” is one of the sexiest words in the English language, I always enjoy getting the “straight” story on the same-sex culture of the past. No one does it better than you, Mark–keep it up! (Know you will.)