StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Personally, I think the contribution of the Greeks to the idea of "western civilization" is seriously overrated. The idea of democracy was pretty much trampled underfoot for well over a thousand years. When it finally returned, there's no real reason to believe it had anything to do with Ancient Greece.

I agree. Not only did it have nothing to do with the religious, slave-owning and racist Greek society, and far more with secular, anticlerical "Titans of Enlightement", but neither is the Greek "democracy" spreading Western values.

Sure, Spartans fighting Persian empire. It was a long freaking time ago, and making super-extrapolations from it sounds just off.

SancheztheWhaler wrote: 'Cause the Greeks are soooooo white... the models of the Aryan nation... just like the ancient Romans
-snip-

Portuguese, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, southern French, Pakistanis, are all part of the mediterranic stock, yes, so have a browner skin (I call it healthier) than the average northern European. But whatever the cretinous "white" label may mean, they belong to it by default. There's no "mediterranic white" or "white but less white". Show those pics you posted to white (or black) supremacist racists and I'm positive they'll agree.

Colonel Olrik wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote: 'Cause the Greeks are soooooo white... the models of the Aryan nation... just like the ancient Romans
-snip-

Portuguese, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, southern French, Pakistanis, are all part of the mediterranic stock, yes, so have a browner skin (I call it healthier) than the average northern European. But whatever the cretinous "white" label may mean, they belong to it by default. There's no "mediterranic white" or "white but less white". Show those pics you posted to white (or black) supremacist racists and I'm positive they'll agree.

The point I was trying to make is that labeling certain groups "white," such as Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, etc., and grouping them with northern Europeans, such as Norwegians, English, and Germans, when they are clearly darker skinned, is silly. Whether intentional or not, Frank Miller continues to support the stereotype that the Persians were evil darkies and the Spartans were virtuous whiteys. I could go into a diatribe about how short, dark-skinned Romans and tall, pale-skinned German barbarians are improperly presented in almost all movies and literature, but I think you get the point.

Stas Bush wrote: I agree. Not only did it have nothing to do with the religious, slave-owning and racist Greek society, and far more with secular, anticlerical "Titans of Enlightement", but neither is the Greek "democracy" spreading Western values.

Saying it had nothing to do with ancient Greece is just as much an overstatement. The Reneissance and ending of the dark ages was characterized by a vested interest in classical culture. Those "Titans Of Enlightement" you speak of held idealized, unrealistic ideas about what Greek culture was, but those ideas fostered in their heads in this unrealistic form, over centuries giving rise to what we now know as "western culture".

Not to mention little things medieval, like Republican Italian city-states, which were directly descended from Rome in tradition, which in turn was itself an offshot of Greek culture.

There a lot of Greek footprints, and while they didn't build western culture by themselves, they contributed a solid foundation to it. Even though their society was, all things considered, pretty backwards by our standards.

Those "Titans Of Enlightement" you speak of held idealized, unrealistic ideas about what Greek culture was, but those ideas fostered in their heads in this unrealistic form, over centuries giving rise to what we now know as "western culture".

Quite so, i.e. the ideas of "Titans" were related to Greek culture, but not it's real form, more to a fantasy about how it would be like.

Yes, perhaps "Greek culture" would be a better term, Enlightment made great interest in their culture, mostly art, but not the realities of their society.

Stas Bush wrote:

Those "Titans Of Enlightement" you speak of held idealized, unrealistic ideas about what Greek culture was, but those ideas fostered in their heads in this unrealistic form, over centuries giving rise to what we now know as "western culture".

Quite so, i.e. the ideas of "Titans" were related to Greek culture, but not it's real form, more to a fantasy about how it would be like.

Yes, perhaps "Greek culture" would be a better term, Enlightment made great interest in their culture, mostly art, but not the realities of their society.

Of course. Their art and science were the appealing things, after all, and late medieval society was in some instances more socially progressive than Athens, the paragon of freedom and democracy.

Couldn't women own property and inherit wealth in some medieval countries? I think I read it somewhere, but medieval history is not exactly my forte.

CmdrWilkens wrote:The difference lies, and I'll quote Victor David Hanson from the "What If" series:

Werther hits the nail on the head when it comes to Victor Davis Hanson:

http://www.counterpunch.org/werther09072005.html

Werther wrote: What Victor Davis Hanson Does to History
Bard of the Booboisie

By WERTHER*

Let us stipulate straightaway: Victor Davis Hanson is the worst historian since Parson Weems. To picture anything remotely as bad as his pseudo-historical novels and propaganda tracts, one would have to imagine an account of the fiscal policies of the Bush administration authored by Paris Hilton.

Mr. Hanson, Cal State Fresno's contribution to human letters, is the favorite historian of the administration, the Naval War College, and other groves of disinterested research. His academic niche is to drag the Peloponnesian War into every contemporary foreign policy controversy and thereby justify whatever course of action our magistrates have taken. One suspects that if the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute were suddenly seized by the notion to invade Patagonia, Mr. Hanson would be quoting Pericles in support.

Once we strip away all the classical Greek fustian, it becomes clear that the name of his game is to take every erroneous conventional wisdom, cliche, faulty generalization, and common-man imbecility, and elevate them to a catechism. In this process, he showcases a technique beloved of pseudo-conservatives stuck at the Sean Hannity level of debate: he swallows whatever quasi-historical balderdash serves the interest of those in power, announces it with an air of surprised discovery, and then congratulates himself on his boldness in telling truth to power.

Why are people applying their own modern morality and ideas on two alien, extinct cultures?

Nobody enjoyed being killed, raped or enslaved back then any more than they do today. Of course we can and should compare ourselves to people back then, and not just over things like advances in plumbing.

As to the supposed hoyay quotient in it, this gay man finds men who are shaved bare as Ken dolls about as sexually stimulating as women or children...yuck.

Elfdart wrote:

Broomstick wrote: Uh, right, because if they were historically accurate it would be NAKED shaved men prancing around. The Ancient Greeks DID know how to use razors, you know?

In battle?

Actually, yeah. They would cleanse their body in preparation for death (washup).

True, they would cleanse themselves, but they would still be wearing their cuirass, which if they are not doing so in the movie, doesn't speak much to the historical accuracy. Luckily since this is movie-ifacation of a graphic novel and not a historical rundown of what happened in the actual battle, they can shy away from historical accuracy in my opinion.

The movie would have been much gayer if they had stayed truer to the novel and had them sans pants at all non-combat points.

Frank Hipper wrote:As to the supposed hoyay quotient in it, this gay man finds men who are shaved bare as Ken dolls about as sexually stimulating as women or children...yuck.

Bah, you and your hair fetish.

PeZook wrote:Not to mention little things medieval, like Republican Italian city-states, which were directly descended from Rome in tradition, which in turn was itself an offshot of Greek culture.

Culturally later Roman Empire may be offshot of the Greek culture , but politically not so much. Roman institutions were mostly local , derived from Latin and other tribes' traditions and Etrusks not so much from the Greeks. And I think our current political institutions are much more similar to the Roman than Greek.

When the graphic novel came out, I remember talking about it with a friend in college. The friend-- of Latino descent-- commented that Frank Miller "really revealed himself," i.e., came out of the closet with all the naked men in the original novel.

Lord Zentei wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:As to the supposed hoyay quotient in it, this gay man finds men who are shaved bare as Ken dolls about as sexually stimulating as women or children...yuck.

Bah, you and your hair fetish.

No fur fetish here, I just prefer a man 100% natural.

Body shaving is for pleasing girls.

It's a Frank Miller story: it's about as 'historically accurate' as a 'Greek' themed RTS army, and isn't meant to 'serious'. Since everything Miller writes seems to be an excuse to draw a) women with huge tits, b) hugely muscled retangular men or c) 50s cars, it doesn't really surprise me that the movie has so much love for the He-Man aspect.

Frank Hipper wrote:

Lord Zentei wrote:Bah, you and your hair fetish.

Body shaving is for pleasing girls.

Eh, speak for yourself.

Sidewinder wrote:When the graphic novel came out, I remember talking about it with a friend in college. The friend-- of Latino descent-- commented that Frank Miller "really revealed himself," i.e., came out of the closet with all the naked men in the original novel.

Has he actually said anything to that effect himself?

anybody_mcc wrote:

PeZook wrote:Not to mention little things medieval, like Republican Italian city-states, which were directly descended from Rome in tradition, which in turn was itself an offshot of Greek culture.

Culturally later Roman Empire may be offshot of the Greek culture , but politically not so much. Roman institutions were mostly local , derived from Latin and other tribes' traditions and Etrusks not so much from the Greeks. And I think our current political institutions are much more similar to the Roman than Greek.

Good point. I seem to forget how many ancient nation-states were republics or pseudo-republics in their first days. Still, Polish local government from roughly XVI-XVIII century was heavily influenced by both Greek and Roman ideals (or rather - it's creators were institutionally fascinated with Greek and Roman times, an obsession often shared by much of Europe at that time) so you can make a case for Greeks leaving a distinct, lasting footprint on European political thought.

Have you seen Greek art of the period? Apparently there were a lot of warriors "prancing" around in nothing. They were heterosexual enough to keep the population up.

Which is not how the warriors ACTUALLY went to battle. It's a romantization by the period artists. Greeks went to battle with chest plates and perhapse some sort of arm cover. They didnt run around in naught but their speedo pants and a cape let alone nothing but their Corinthian Helmet and their Birthday Suit.

Darth Wong wrote: Did this film show the other 7000 greeks at the battle? No. Is it called "300+7000"? No. It's a Spartan-wanking movie, plain and simple. And yes, it's definitely gay. There's no other excuse for ignoring historical accuracy to depict Spartan soldiers going into battle bare-chested in Speedos.

They did show the Spartans banding up with a larger contingent of Arcandians and mentions Phocians. This could imply that the other Greek nations were present. But the film certainly wanked the Spartans, depicting the holding action on the 3rd day as Spartan honor, when more likely Leonidas was acting to cover the retreat of the main Greek force, where in the film he treats the Arcadians with disdain for leaving.

The film also fails to feature the 1000 Thesspians who ALSO stayed behind and were slaughtered with the 300 Spartans.[/quote]

Well in the book they only get a few panels as they are summarily slaughtered to show the evilness of Xerxes.

Too bad they don't have that in the film, I guess one can hope for it in the DVD.

The Original Nex wrote:They did show the Spartans banding up with a larger contingent of Arcandians and mentions Phocians. This could imply that the other Greek nations were present. But the film certainly wanked the Spartans, depicting the holding action on the 3rd day as Spartan honor, when more likely Leonidas was acting to cover the retreat of the main Greek force, where in the film he treats the Arcadians with disdain for leaving.

The film also fails to feature the 1000 Thesspians who ALSO stayed behind and were slaughtered with the 300 Spartans.

The fall of the 700 Thespians was shown in the graphic novel, however. Also, Leonidas did not show the Arcadians any particular contempt as they left; just the uncompromising "a Spartan never retreats! A Spartan never surrenders!" line.

Lord Zentei wrote:

Sidewinder wrote:When the graphic novel came out, I remember talking about it with a friend in college. The friend-- of Latino descent-- commented that Frank Miller "really revealed himself," i.e., came out of the closet with all the naked men in the original novel.

Has he actually said anything to that effect himself?

MY FRIEND commented that Frank Miller "revealed himself" in '300'. (Bear in mind, this friend claimed to be a popular porn star, due to his ability to have erections at will, and offered to set me up with a female porn star-- in other words, he fulfills the ideal of a "macho man" perfectly.) I didn't read any of Frank Miller's comments regarding the graphic novel, with the possible exception of authors comments in the book itself.

Sidewinder wrote:MY FRIEND commented that Frank Miller "revealed himself" in '300'. (Bear in mind, this friend claimed to be a popular porn star, due to his ability to have erections at will, and offered to set me up with a female porn star-- in other words, he fulfills the ideal of a "macho man" perfectly.) I didn't read any of Frank Miller's comments regarding the graphic novel, with the possible exception of authors comments in the book itself.

Yeah, I got that it was your friend that made the comment.

I was only wondering whether anyone had heard of Miller having made any noises to that effect himself (though I doubt it).

I would definately say the movie is itself not a 'gay' movie. It includes many shots of oiled up men slamming other men to the ground with spears and swords, penetrating deeply as they conquer every body they see....


...but that's about the end of it. Yeah, you can turn it into gay porn if you want to try to make some kind of Freudian assessment of it. I would definately say that you can look at the movie from a mancandy aspect to the decision to have them all be shirtless (the Spartans that is, not everyone) but I think that's more of a "I'm a badass Spartan. Look at my rippling muscles! I don't fucking armor, I'm the spawn of Hercules" type of thing. It's not like the other Greeks ran around nude in this movie. It's just the Warriors, and they are not depicted as being gay.

I'd say this movie is, therefore, no more gay than Men's Swimming in the Olympics. They wanted to give the women something to look at, and given that there's a lot of lady nipples in the movie as well, it's basically just an orgy all around for everyone. I think that's closer to the fact. It's certainly less gay than the Greeks were, and no more gay than any spandex'd hero with his piles and piles of unnatural bulging muscles doing battle with other sweaty spandexed men... either in a comic book, on TV, or in a wrestling match.

I prefered This review

Much has been made of the allegorical potential of "300." Could Leonidas be some President Bush stand-in? Might the Persians be, well, the current Middle East? The movie could be all things to all people. For me, the fight is unfair. "300" is about a bunch of hot white metrosexuals -- those pecs, those abs, that hair -- against a million freaky nonwhite club kids. In other words, the gays. King Xerxes's hangout is full hookah-puffers, derelicts, and girls making it with girls (let's call them lesbians). His army is full of monsters seemingly from the Troma Films creature shop.

The dreaded Xerxes himself (Rodrigo Santoro) appears to be a 9-foot-tall Yul Brynner . His skin glitters. His head is totally shaved. His nails are manicured. His body is pierced and gold chains run from his scalp to his ankles. It's Yul, the mystical Miami nightclub version! During their big mano-a-mano attempt at negotiation, Xerxes tells Leonidas nothing would bring him more pleasure than for the Greek king to kneel down before him in submission. Leonidas recoils. So did the dudes next to me in the theater when Xerxes started to make his move.

According to this outrageously flagrant movie, the Spartans didn't just die for Glory, Duty, and Destiny. They died to keep the Hot Gates from turning into another gay disco.

[/url]

I like that Zack Snyder was asked following an early screening by one reporter if Leonidas was supposed to be an allegorical representation of President Bush...only to be asked by another reporter if Xerxes was supposed to be an allegorical representation of President Bush.

Anything can be allegorical to the contemporary if you throw enough darts and make the board big enough. That's not to say that a homosexual subtext isn't there, because come on, it's about the Spartans...