How gay is 300?

[Darth Wong]

The rest of the world did not lack for great thinkers, of course. I think the idea of democracy would have flourished somewhere else, but it would have taken longer to establish and been harder to implement without the Athenian example.

You mean like the Native American system of democracy, which was heavily copied by the American founding fathers? I'm sure the American Natives were greatly inspired by Athens

Seriously, I don't see any reason to believe that any modern system of democracy owes anything to Athens, any more than napalm owes its existence to greek fire.

[Big Orange]

As flawed as the Greeks were, do you think they should be denigrated as culture, Darth Wong? In some ways the Greeks were slightly better than the Romans and far less damaging on Western development than the ancient Hebrews (even though Athens had founding myth just as preposterous and narcissistic as any Old Testament tale).

[Darth Wong]

As flawed as the Greeks were, do you think they should be denigrated as culture, Darth Wong?

Not especially, relative to other societies of the era. But simply bringing them down to the level of the Persians would be a major accomplishment, compared to the insane levels of Greece-wanking that go on in a lot of western intellectual circles.

[Surlethe]

I saw 300, enjoyed it in a "RAWR! ASS-KICKING!" sort of way. I didn't take any message in support of the war in Iraq, I didn't see any racist subtexts, and I didn't think it was gay, whatever that means (although I do feel the need to work out more; Christ, those are some impressive musculatures).

Looking through this thread, I seem to see the argument, "Group X takes message A from literature B. Therefore, the author of literature B intended it to convey message A." Is that the argument being made? If so, I don't see any reason it follows.

[Darth Wong]

I saw 300, enjoyed it in a "RAWR! ASS-KICKING!" sort of way. I didn't take any message in support of the war in Iraq, I didn't see any racist subtexts, and I didn't think it was gay, whatever that means (although I do feel the need to work out more; Christ, those are some impressive musculatures).

Looking through this thread, I seem to see the argument, "Group X takes message A from literature B. Therefore, the author of literature B intended it to convey message A." Is that the argument being made? If so, I don't see any reason it follows.

That is a subjective argument and totally irrelevant to the fact that this film dovetails perfectly with white-supremacist ideology. Is that by accident? Frankly, I don't really care. Anyone who knows my posting history will know that I actually recognize the concept of duty of care, so it's not enough to say there was no malice aforethought.

[Surlethe]

That is a subjective argument and totally irrelevant to the fact that this film dovetails perfectly with white-supremacist ideology. Is that by accident? Frankly, I don't really care. Anyone who knows my posting history will know that I actually recognize the concept of duty of care, so it's not enough to say there was no malice aforethought.

How does this film breach the filmmakers' duty of care? I don't think I fully understand the ethical concept, but based on my current knowledge, I don't see how by making a movie that dovetails with white-supremacist ideology the filmmakers are causing harm.

[Big Orange]

As flawed as the Greeks were, do you think they should be denigrated as culture, Darth Wong?

Not especially, relative to other societies of the era. But simply bringing them down to the level of the Persians would be a major accomplishment, compared to the insane levels of Greece-wanking that go on in a lot of western intellectual circles.

I don't see what was so uber important about Greece - Persia seemed to be a much bigger empire and the cultural sophistication appeared to be very similar, yet for some reason the movie makers for 300 wanted the Persian Empire having obese Ogres with bone-blade arms and Uruk-Hai populating the Persian royal guard (even that drastically deviates from Frank Miller's original comic book version).

[Darth Wong]

That is a subjective argument and totally irrelevant to the fact that this film dovetails perfectly with white-supremacist ideology. Is that by accident? Frankly, I don't really care. Anyone who knows my posting history will know that I actually recognize the concept of duty of care, so it's not enough to say there was no malice aforethought.

How does this film breach the filmmakers' duty of care?

The same way a movie glorifying serial killing would. The same way Hollywood movies do when they show all of the sexy people smoking cigarettes. The same way TV stations do when they air commercials from beer companies in which people are programmed from a young age to subconsciously associate partying, sex, and a good time with beer. It seems to me that there's a double-standard about when you're allowed to accuse a movie of being irresponsible.

I don't think I fully understand the ethical concept, but based on my current knowledge, I don't see how by making a movie that dovetails with white-supremacist ideology the filmmakers are causing harm.

Correct. You don't understand the ethical concept. Duty of care is not about plausible deniability; it is about one's duty to actively prevent harm.

[Darth Wong]

As flawed as the Greeks were, do you think they should be denigrated as culture, Darth Wong?

Not especially, relative to other societies of the era. But simply bringing them down to the level of the Persians would be a major accomplishment, compared to the insane levels of Greece-wanking that go on in a lot of western intellectual circles.

I don't see what was so uber important about Greece - Persia seemed to be a much bigger empire and the cultural sophistication appeared to be very similar, yet for some reason the movie makers for 300 wanted the Persian Empire having obese Ogres with bone-blade arms and Uruk-Hai populating the Persian royal guard (even that drastically deviates from Frank Miller's original comic book version).

Persia was actually a much better analogue for modern-day America than Sparta was. Think about it: multicultural, incredibly wealthy, seat of power, world-leading in many categories, fond of using economic clout before direct military intervention, likes to sabre-rattle, has the world's most impressive military but doesn't use it intelligently, ruled by an unchallenged monarch ...

[Surlethe]

The same way a movie glorifying serial killing would. The same way Hollywood movies do when they show all of the sexy people smoking cigarettes. The same way TV stations do when they air commercials from beer companies in which people are programmed from a young age to subconsciously associate partying, sex, and a good time with beer. It seems to me that there's a double-standard about when you're allowed to accuse a movie of being irresponsible.

At what point would you draw the line past which you can accuse a movie(maker) of irresponsibility?

Correct. You don't understand the ethical concept. Duty of care is not about plausible deniability; it is about one's duty to actively prevent harm.

So moviemakers need to actively (would "go out of their way" be an appropriate expression?) work to prevent reinforcing stereotypes like the white supremacist ones present in the movie.

[Darth Wong]

The same way a movie glorifying serial killing would. The same way Hollywood movies do when they show all of the sexy people smoking cigarettes. The same way TV stations do when they air commercials from beer companies in which people are programmed from a young age to subconsciously associate partying, sex, and a good time with beer. It seems to me that there's a double-standard about when you're allowed to accuse a movie of being irresponsible.

At what point would you draw the line past which you can accuse a movie(maker) of irresponsibility?

Why is it that some people always expect there to be a clearly defined line? Are you really so set on finding a way to divide up the world into black and white categories?

Correct. You don't understand the ethical concept. Duty of care is not about plausible deniability; it is about one's duty to actively prevent harm.

So moviemakers need to actively (would "go out of their way" be an appropriate expression?) work to prevent reinforcing stereotypes like the white supremacist ones present in the movie.

You disagree with this?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I'm sure the typical moviegoer would not notice any stereotypical overtones in the movie but I have a feeling that it's because it has been done so many times already. It's another freedom wanking movie that only reinforces in a subtle manner what is already there. While I did find the movie highly entertaining, I couldn't help by wince slightly by the queen's mention that "freedom isn't free". I've heard that line one too many times.

[Surlethe]

Why is it that some people always expect there to be a clearly defined line? Are you really so set on finding a way to divide up the world into black and white categories?

I appreciate that reality's nuanced; if I really wanted to divide the world into black and white, I'd be a solipsist. So, let me rephrase my question: obviously in some cases, movies are grossly unethical; in some cases, movies are not unethical in the least. Where's the gray area?

You disagree with this?

No. I don't grasp the ethics of duty of care, so I'm checking to make sure that particular conclusion follows from it.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, if one is going to take the position that the filmmakers wrote all kinds of "FREEEDOM" wanking into the script and somehow failed to notice the parallels to current right-wing political rhetoric, then one is basically arguing that the filmmakers are drooling imbeciles who have been living in a cave for the last 5 years.

Granted, they could have gone even farther, like having King Leonidas standing on a trireme with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him. I guess we should be glad for their restraint

[Big Orange]

I don't see what was so uber important about Greece - Persia seemed to be a much bigger empire and the cultural sophistication appeared to be very similar, yet for some reason the movie makers for 300 wanted the Persian Empire having obese Ogres with bone-blade arms and Uruk-Hai populating the Persian royal guard (even that drastically deviates from Frank Miller's original comic book version).

Persia was actually a much better analogue for modern-day America than Sparta was. Think about it: multicultural, incredibly wealthy, seat of power, world-leading in many categories, fond of using economic clout before direct military intervention, likes to sabre-rattle, has the world's most impressive military but doesn't use it intelligently, ruled by an unchallenged monarch ...

Well that's essentially the selling pitch for Tom Holland's Persian Fire, a great history book I'm having fun reading through right now:

"In the fifth century BC, a global superpower was determined to bring truth and order to what it regarded as two terrorist states. The superpower was Persia, incomparably rich in ambition, gold and men. The terrorist states were Athens and Sparta, eccentric cities in a poor and mountainous backwater; Greece. The story of how their citizens took on the most powerful man on the planet is as heart-stopping as any episode in history."

[Honorable Mention]

(although I do feel the need to work out more; Christ, those are some impressive musculatures).

Ask and ye shall receive.

[Darth Wong]

Somehow, I doubt the "ripped muscles" physique would have actually gotten you far in the classical era. Very low body-fat content does not produce good real-world physical endurance.

[Elfdart]

Well that's essentially the selling pitch for Tom Holland's Persian Fire, a great history book I'm having fun reading through right now:

"In the fifth century BC, a global superpower was determined to bring truth and order to what it regarded as two terrorist states. The superpower was Persia, incomparably rich in ambition, gold and men. The terrorist states were Athens and Sparta, eccentric cities in a poor and mountainous backwater; Greece. The story of how their citizens took on the most powerful man on the planet is as heart-stopping as any episode in history."

When you finish that one, try Creation by Gore Vidal, a novel told from the point of view of Zoroaster's grandson raised in the Persian courts at Susa and Persepolis. Link

[Stark]

What real democracy? And would it supposedly be game over for Western civilisation if the Persians won, even though a lot would change?

Sigh. I *know* the Greeks had nothing like modern democracy: my point was that the 19th century was full of people who identified with them, not that they gave us the Westminster system. I *never* said 'real democracy'. And yes, from what I've read people during that time would have considered a Persian victory a terrible loss for 'European culture' and all that rubbish.

My point is that culturally (since I grew up in the British Commonwealth) many have identified with things like Greece or Rome etc, even though the links are tenuous at best, simply for reasons of projection. Of *course* it's fantastic and romantic and heroic that the Spartans won: *we're* the Spartans! They're our football team! Greece is the cradle of democracy, yadda yadda yadda! I think much of common attitudes towards certain cultures - Greece and Rome in particular - are coloured by the fact that there's a history of 'cultural identification' with them. As an example, it's rare to see a neutral or Persian-friendly account of the war (or even Persian history at all) in pop history or bookstores. These attitudes of us= historical 'good guys' is somewhat relevant to the movie, if the movie indeed made the Persians even more twisted evil darkies than the comic (and of course Miller's own imagery, drawn from a 1962 movie).

EDIT - I'm not being very clear, for which I apologise.

[Rye]

So moviemakers need to actively (would "go out of their way" be an appropriate expression?) work to prevent reinforcing stereotypes like the white supremacist ones present in the movie.

You disagree with this?

Yeah, why not just stay true to the artistic vision rather than sanitising it because some people will see messages in it that weren't intended? If something is so racist as to actually matter in the world, they'll be hung by their own actions. If it's a blatantly and intentionally mythologised portrayal with ample room for interpretation, fuck it, it's better to have a few people interpreting it as racist than to make it contrived and extra diverse.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, why not just stay true to the artistic vision rather than sanitising it because some people will see messages in it that weren't intended? If something is so racist as to actually matter in the world, they'll be hung by their own actions. If it's a blatantly and intentionally mythologised portrayal with ample room for interpretation, fuck it, it's better to have a few people interpreting it as racist than to make it contrived and extra diverse.

Since when is "artistic vision" a "get out of jail free" card? This isn't art school where you can wank about the importance of art and everyone will just back off. Nor is the "mythologized" nature of the re-telling a "get out of jail free" card either.

It seems to me that your argument is based on the notion that you can just wash your hands of responsibility for something if it is either "artistic" or "mythological". Please explain why this is so.

[Rye]

Because it really does not actually matter? Seriously, name one thing that will come of this film that will harm society in any sort of real fashion. Since fuck all will happen as a result of it, there is no responsibility to piss and moan about. I don't see why the film makers should feel compelled to force diversity messages into a film for no result other than the film feeling more "sanitised" to the [maybe] 5 people worldwide that would have it actually influence their thinking.

[Darth Wong]

Because it really does not actually matter? Seriously, name one thing that will come of this film that will harm society in any sort of real fashion. Since fuck all will happen as a result of it, there is no responsibility to piss and moan about. I don't see why the film makers should feel compelled to force diversity messages into a film for no result other than the film feeling more "sanitised" to the [maybe] 5 people worldwide that would have it actually influence their thinking.

Films don't work by influencing your conscious thinking. They work by creating and reinforcing associations. That's how all of the goddamned beer commercials in the world work, genius. Do you think anyone watches beer commercials and consciously thinks "aha, if I drink beer, then I will automatically get girls and have a good time"? But that association is made anyway, partially due to the ubiquity of the message and partially due to the failure of the industry to produce material that contradicts this association. The same holds true here; thousands of years of "western civilization" wanking have created a powerful association that people have considerable difficulty breaking. Does one single film make a powerful impact in this regard? No, but it's part of the problem, just like any given particular beer commercial campaign is part of that problem.

[Thinkmarble]

Well, as everyone knows Triumph of the Will, Jud Süß or Birth of a Nation were just movies without any impact on public discourse what so ever.
(The violence occuring after showing Jud Süß ? Just coincidence I am sure)

I sometimes wonder to which extend 24 has influenced the positions of the american electorate in regards to torture.

I do not know about how gay the movie is, and I am actually not wondering about it because I have no fucking idea what a gay movie is.
I do wonder about how homophobic the movie is, afterall the Spartans were big butt buggerers, that being cut and instead having them disparage the Athenians for the same thing, does point in that direction.
I should probably wait before I pronounce judgement til after I watched the movie, but that translates to never.

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, just knowing it's based on Frank Miller's stuff is bad enough. I've seen enough of Frank Miller's stuff to know that he's basically Shep with artistic talent.