How gay is 300?

[salm]

If all the Spartans were female and running around in bikinis would it be lesbian? Probably not. While this movie does offer an aweful lot of eye candy i guess it´s more targeted at the female audience because the female audience is a lot more numerous than the gay audience.

[The Original Nex]

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.

Ah, havent read the graphic novel. Must have ended up on the virtual cutting room floor.

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.

Hmm, I thought he said something to the effect that they should search their hearts to do the right thing, or something of the sort, though it may have been another one of the "remember us and our sacrifice" schpeals. It's completely possible I misinterpreted the meaning of the line.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

If all the Spartans were female and running around in bikinis would it be lesbian? Probably not.

You'd probably have critics calling it sexist.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, the importance of Greek thought in western civilization varies depending on where you live. It is true that many of our political systems are derrived from Roman Republicanism, but we took the idea of participatory democracy from Greek traditions.

It's true, though, that the system we use today is not the system used in Greece. Our "Democratic" system isn't the Greek Tradition. Although, at earlier points in European and American history we were a lot closer when the concept of limited democracy. Athens, for example, is tauted as a primary progeniture of Democracy, but only roughly 15% of the entire Athenian populace consisted of free individuals who had the franchise.

I would agree that some people do place too much emphasis on Greece, but it was, to an extent, an important bedrock and platform off of which ideas began and later were modified and improved upon. Civics, for example, was heavily developed by Greece, as was participatory democracy, even though we don't have the same types of democracy they had.

To an extent, the American Founding Fathers borred from both Roman and Greek sociopolitical ideals, both direclty and indirectly via the French Philosophes, who themselves tended to borrow from both periods of antiquity. The Renaissance, though, is a bit more obvious insofar as the Greeks and Romans influenced human thought. Much of the Renaissance Humanism was derrived from Greek Humanism and individualism, as many of the thinkers of the period desired to return to the philospohical, scientific, and rational roots of the independent Greek. That's not to say they didn't look at Rome, though. That would certainly be wrong. The Renaissance, though, was a rebirth of the classical world including all the major groups, but Greece and Rome in particular.

I guess you might be able to call the Greeks and the Romans springboards. I like how someone mentioned the idealization. The Enlightenment thinkers, as well as those in the Renaissance, did tend to take the best aspects of Greek society and ideas and idealize their society, much like the Greeks themselves held idealized views of man that didn't match reality. That's a good observation you made. Perhaps it is a type of nostalgia that many people are guilty of. I guess they were longing for a time that believed was genuinely better than what had existed after the fall of classical civilization. During the Dark Ages, anything probaby looked better. That's one reason why so many were looking backward because the future, prior to high middle ages to the Renaissance, was fairly bleak to the populations.



Edit: I would also agree that their science and philosophy had many flaws. Much of it I can't say we use to day, but there were a food good contributions that set the stage for later scientific and philospohical inquiry. I think we can all be thankful that the Sophists were bitchslapped and that a culture began to turn away from mysticism and mythopoetic thinking, instead focusing on the primacy of rational discourse. That was very different from much, but not all, that went on in Mesopotamia. Their culture of Agones within Arete, though, was also an important contribution to western society, as we all borrow from that as well as their concept of civic virtue.

They also have made an important ethical contribution, as from what I have studied, they were one of the first and most prolific writers of a genuinely secular ethical system instead of the divine order that was characteristic of the Delta and the Fertile Crescent.

In some way or another, western society has inherited the small building blocks of philosophy, science, drama, modern political systems, and patterns of thought. But, they were surely not "the" only influences or genuine reflections.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

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]

I cannot remember the specifics of the battle, but did not the Spartans, on their way, lasso up some Thebians who really didn't want to go? In the Persian conflict, there were a variety of states who actually sided with the Persians to an extent. I think Argos and Thebes were two of them. According to my old text, they claimed that the Spartans dragged them along (the Thebians)

[Adrian Laguna]

The 700 Thespians stayed willingly, 400 Thebans who were forced to stay by the Spartans. Unlike the Spartans and Thespians, who made their last stand on a hillock, the Thebans tried to fight their way out of the pass and surrendered when they found themselves unable to do so. On the last day, a little under 1400 men stayed behind to cover the retreat of the other ~6000 hoplites.

[Elfdart]

If all the Spartans were female and running around in bikinis would it be lesbian?

No, but I might watch it -on cable.

Probably not.

Depends on how hot they are.

Come to think of itWhile this movie does offer an aweful lot of eye candy i guess it´s more targeted at the female audience because the female audience is a lot more numerous than the gay audience.

If Leonidas was helping his queen pick out curtains, agreeing to watch chick flicks with her, telling her how much he loves her in front of other people, and how he can't wait for the next Sarah McLachlan CD and cuddling after sex, maybe.

[Vympel]

Anyway- let's say 300 is gay- or perhaps more accurately, definitely appeals to gay men because of the cast/style.

So what? That's sure as fuck not going to stop me from watching it. By most reports I've heard it kicks ass. It is a good war/action movie, if it follows the comic (which I own) as faithfully as I've seen.

[Ghost Rider]

Anyway- let's say 300 is gay- or perhaps more accurately, definitely appeals to gay men because of the cast/style.

So what? That's sure as fuck not going to stop me from watching it. By most reports I've heard it kicks ass. It is a good war/action movie, if it follows the comic (which I own) as faithfully as I've seen.

Pretty much. The movie follows the graphic novel, just no naked, and they add a subplot for the terminally stupid(and the add more scenes with the Queen to justify her existence).

[Big Orange]

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

Explain why we should not do this.

Because most aspects of Persian and Greek culture would be outdated or abhorrent to our modern sensibilities, so naturally the Persians and Greeks would be ethically despicable by our standards.

There is a difference between an explanation and an excuse.

You cannot make a real excuse for a very bad culture like Sparta but you cannot condemn individual Spartans who were born into a society where arbitrary state sponsored death hung over them from the cradle to a early grave (which could explain why the Spartan elderly were respected). And while you could scoff at Athens' pseudo-democracy and Greek slavery, do you think the Persian Empire did not practice slavery either? And what about their absolute monarchs with absolute power corrupting absolutely? At least the Greeks had mildly more progressive government systems with Athens' fairly open aristocratic plutocracy with no real dictator in charge and even Spartan having no real absolute monarch (they had figure head kings who were constantly watched).

How can you not understand the accusations of racism when you go on to illustrate precisely why the film is obviously racist?

It's supposedly racist that a non-Caucasian is the emperor of a vast imperial superpower that commands seemingly endless wealth, power and people? And looking at Frank Miller's graphic novel, I noticed that many Spartans or other assorted Greeks didn't look that much different to the average Persian.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Yes, this movie was very "gay" as was a lot of classical Greek culture. And I'm not complaining one bit. I was particularly fond of the Captain's son.

[The Original Nex]

Persian territory encompassed blocs of Africa did it not? Therefore the presence of dark-skinned Persians is to be expected. Xerxes himself was portrayed as no darker than Leonidas, or at least, not appreciably so.

[Cos Dashit]

I don't see how this movie is gay. Yes, there were half-naked fit men in capes running around, but this was Greece people. They also fail to mention the virtually-naked female "Oracle", a decidedly heterosexual sex scene, and the scene with Xerxes and about ten scantily clad/naked women dancing and even making out with each other. Couple this with the violence and blood, this film is definitely for heterosexual guys.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Persian territory encompassed blocs of Africa did it not? Therefore the presence of dark-skinned Persians is to be expected. Xerxes himself was portrayed as no darker than Leonidas, or at least, not appreciably so.

The Persian Empire encompassed territories raning from Anatolia to Egypt to Mesopotamia, up near India.

[Darth Wong]

If all the Spartans were female and running around in bikinis would it be lesbian? Probably not.

If it was targeted at female audiences, then yes, I would definitely say that it carries some heavy lesbian overtones.

I don't see how this movie is gay. Yes, there were half-naked fit men in capes running around, but this was Greece people. They also fail to mention the virtually-naked female "Oracle", a decidedly heterosexual sex scene, and the scene with Xerxes and about ten scantily clad/naked women dancing and even making out with each other. Couple this with the violence and blood, this film is definitely for heterosexual guys.

Of course, because it must be one or the other! It's not as if there's a term for people or themes that include both homosexuality and heterosexuality, right? Or is there? There certainly seem to be a lot of similar terms, like binary, or bilingual, or binomial, or binoculars ...

To be honest, I don't have a huge problem with the idea of homosexuality in "300", because the actual Spartan warriors fucked each other up the ass all the time. But the film isn't honest about it. It tries to appeal to macho historical revisionism while simultaneously carrying the look of a male strip show.

Because most aspects of Persian and Greek culture would be outdated or abhorrent to our modern sensibilities, so naturally the Persians and Greeks would be ethically despicable by our standards.

So? How does that even vaguely address my original point that the much-ballyhooed moral superiority of Greek civilization over Persian civilization is a bunch of bullshit? If anything, you're agreeing with me.

It's supposedly racist that a non-Caucasian is the emperor of a vast imperial superpower that commands seemingly endless wealth, power and people?

It's racist when they're made out to be villains who "coincidentally" tend to have darker skin, when there is no real reason to believe that there was any particular moral superiority on the part of either side (or that the Persians even had darker skin).

And looking at Frank Miller's graphic novel, I noticed that many Spartans or other assorted Greeks didn't look that much different to the average Persian.

I must have missed the memo when it was declared that you can excuse a movie's flaws by pointing to the graphic novel which inspired it. As if I should be expected to do comic book research before I watch a movie in order to put in proper context.

[Jadeite]

I saw

I think it's funny how war whores are trying to grab onto the movie since it depicts white "heroes" fighting against hordes of Persian darkies. That smarmy putz Michael Medved practically blew a load over the movie last Friday.

What's sort of amusing about that is leftists are doing the exact opposite.

A Movie Only a Spartan Could Love
The battle epic 300.
By Dana Stevens
Posted Thursday, March 8, 2007, at 7:15 PM ET

If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war. Since it's a product of the post-ideological, post-Xbox 21st century, 300 will instead be talked about as a technical achievement, the next blip on the increasingly blurry line between movies and video games.

Directed by Zack Snyder, whose first feature film was the 2004 makeover of the horror classic Dawn of the Dead, 300 digitally re-creates the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., where, according to classical history and legend, the Spartan king Leonidas led a force of only 300 men against a Persian enemy numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The comic fanboys who make up 300's primary audience demographic aren't likely to get hung up on the movie's historical content, much less any parallels with present-day politics. But what's maddening about 300 (besides the paralyzing monotony of watching chiseled white guys make shish kebabs from swarthy Persians for 116 indistinguishable minutes) is that no one involved—not Miller, not Snyder, not one of the army of screenwriters, art directors, and tech wizards who mounted this empty, gorgeous spectacle—seems to have noticed that we're in the middle of an actual war. With actual Persians (or at least denizens of that vast swath of land once occupied by the Persian empire).

In interviews, Snyder insists that he "really just wanted to make a movie that is a ride"—a perfectly fine ambition for any filmmaker, especially one inspired by the comics. And visually, 300 is thrilling, color-processed to a burnished, monochromatic copper, and packed with painterly, if static, tableaux vivants. But to cast 300 as a purely apolitical romp of an action film smacks of either disingenuousness or complete obliviousness. One of the few war movies I've seen in the past two decades that doesn't include at least some nod in the direction of antiwar sentiment, 300 is a mythic ode to righteous bellicosity. In at least one way, the film is true to the ethos of ancient Greece: It conflates moral excellence and physical beauty (which, in this movie, means being young, white, male, and fresh from the gyms of Brentwood).

Here are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with the "bad" (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown people. Disfigured people. Gay men (not gay in the buff, homoerotic Spartan fashion, but in the effeminate Persian style). Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians. Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws. Elephants and rhinos (filthy creatures both). The Persian commander, the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is a towering, bald club fag with facial piercings, kohl-rimmed eyes, and a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him.

Meanwhile, the Spartans, clad in naught but leather man-briefs, fight under the stern command of Leonidas (Gerard Butler), whose warrior ethic was forged during a childhood spent fighting wolves in the snow. Leonidas likes to rally the troops with bellowed speeches about "freedom," "honor," and "glory," promising that they will be remembered for having created "a world free from mysticism and tyranny." (The men's usual response, a fist-pumping "A-whoo! A-whoo!" sounds strangely fratty.) But Leonidas is not above playing the tyrant himself. When a messenger from Xerxes arrives bearing news Leonidas doesn't like, he hurls the man, against all protocol, down a convenient bottomless well in the center of town. "This is blasphemy! This is madness!" says the messenger, pleading for his life. "This is Sparta," Leonidas replies. So, if Spartan law is defined by "whatever Leonidas wants," what are the 300 fighting for, anyway? And why does that sound depressingly familiar?

Another of the Spartans' less-than-glorious customs is the practice of eugenics, hurling any less-than-perfect infant off a cliff onto a huge pile of baby skeletons. Unfortunately for the 300 at Thermopylae, this system of racial cleansing isn't foolproof: One deformed hunchback, Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), manages to make it to adulthood and begs Leonidas for a chance to serve Sparta in the 300. Sure enough, when he's turned down, the hunchback confirms his moral weakness by accepting Xerxes' offer to join ranks with the Persians.

Meanwhile, back home in Sparta, Leonida's wife, Gorgo (Lena Headey), engages in some plot-padding political intrigue with the evil Theron (The Wire's Dominic West, looking particularly risible in classical drapery). Theron wants to persuade the Spartan council not to send reinforcements to the desperately outnumbered 300 (what is he, a Democrat?). The noble and sexy Gorgo finally gives herself to Theron in exchange for a chance to persuade the council. "This will not be over quickly," the villain warns as he pins her against a temple pillar. "You will not enjoy this." It might have been Zack Snyder himself whispering in my ear, and he would have been right.

In a classic example of the epic understatement known as litotes, Variety's reviewer observes that the picture's vision of the West as a heroic contingent of sculpted badasses and the East as a cauldron perversion and iniquity "might be greeted with muted enthusiasm in the Middle East." Replace the words "muted enthusiasm" with "a roadside bomb," and you've got yourself a tagline for the Baghdad premiere.

In other words: It's bad because its whites against brown people, and because its a war movie that isn't anti-war.

[salm]

I didn´t mean that the whole movie was targeted at the female audience. I meant that this particular fact, them being allmost naked, is one thing that targets women (Probably also gay men but then on this level there´s no big difference). On the other hand the whole violence and gore is targeted at young men (gay or not) and the whole style in which it is filmed and the theme makes it look, artsy meaning that it won´t be ripped appart by critics as a mindless blood, sex and gore fest. Seems like a brilliant concept.

Now i´ll only have to go and see it, in order to find out if i´m right. To be honest i only know it from the few trailers that were floating around.

[Stark]

So would reviewers like the one Jadeite quoted like it if it was even LESS historically accurate? Oh no, Sparta was ruled by absolute monarchs, this is a bad part of the movie regardless of how true it might be.

Hilarious.

[Lord Zentei]

And looking at Frank Miller's graphic novel, I noticed that many Spartans or other assorted Greeks didn't look that much different to the average Persian.

Bullshit. The Persians were depicted as subsaharan African. The Greeks were depicted as mediterranean white.


And people, south Europeans are white. Get over these retarded US "anything not north European is not white" ideas.

Persian territory encompassed blocs of Africa did it not? Therefore the presence of dark-skinned Persians is to be expected. Xerxes himself was portrayed as no darker than Leonidas, or at least, not appreciably so.

The Persian Empire did have a slice of Africa, specifically Egypt -- the Egyptians are and were not subsaharans. Moreover, the preponderance of dark skin in the Persian camp is not explained thereby.

[Vympel]

A Movie Only a Spartan Could Love
The battle epic 300.
By Dana Stevens

Oh for fuck's sake- it's just a very, very simplistic war movie/ comic book. It's got no bloody underlying political message. Few stood against many and kicked ass and saved their country. Their country sucked. Big shit.

I mean really, was there dipshit commentary like this when Braveheart came out? How many times did William Wallace shout "freedom" in that bloody movie? The meaning of "freedom" in both Braveheart and 300 is the same- freedom from foreign domination.

Or were people so fucking stupid they thought William Wallace wanted to start a democracy in Scotland?


That's not to say I don't approve of some of the obvious choices in the comic and film- ie. darkies vs whites, the traitor Ephilates being a twisted Spartan reject who somehow survived the attempt to murder him- as if you'd have to have a twisted form to have a twisted mind, but all this made-up bullshit about "club gays" grates on the nerves (yeah, Xerxes is an effete club gay- that's why he's ripped as hell and is 7 feet fucking tall ...)

But I digress. These attempts to divine some deeper political meaning from such a simple bloody movie are pathetic. It's a ... bisexual gory action sword-and-sandals bombastic blood fest making glorious myth out of shitty historical fact. Sign me up, please.

[Darth Wong]

I mean really, was there dipshit commentary like this when Braveheart came out?

Are you saying that you disagree with all of the people who said that Mel Gibson has displayed a consistent anti-English bias in his films?

That's not to say I don't approve of some of the obvious choices in the comic and film-

So why do you categorically reject the notion of any political intent behind them? Do you think they accidentally made Greece vs Persia into "white vs black"?

[Big Orange]

And looking at Frank Miller's graphic novel, I noticed that many Spartans or other assorted Greeks didn't look that much different to the average Persian.

Bullshit. The Persians were depicted as subsaharan African. The Greeks were depicted as mediterranean white.


And people, south Europeans are white. Get over these retarded US "anything not north European is not white" ideas.

I realise the Spartans were broadly Caucasian but so were most of the Persian grunts - only the Persian aristocrats seemed to be subsaharan Africans which merely seems unrealistic. And in my mind Jews, Arabs, Persians, Indians and Berbers have always been mostly Caucasian as well.

Persian territory encompassed blocs of Africa did it not? Therefore the presence of dark-skinned Persians is to be expected. Xerxes himself was portrayed as no darker than Leonidas, or at least, not appreciably so.

The Persian Empire did have a slice of Africa, specifically Egypt -- the Egyptians are and were not subsaharans. Moreover, the preponderance of dark skin in the Persian camp is not explained thereby.

In Ancient Egypt many Nubians could've likely been Sub-Saharan blacks or East African blacks similar to modern Ethiopians or Somalians - and what about the River Nile going right into Sub-Sahara Africa?

[Vympel]

Are you saying that you disagree with all of the people who said that Mel Gibson has displayed a consistent anti-English bias in his films?

No way- but that's not the commentary I'm referring to- I mean the scoffing about use of the word "freedom" and prattling about "tyranny" as if it can only have the meaning we want in the review I quoted in my reply .

Braveheart also had an anti-gay bias, IMO. Edward Longshanks son was portrayed as a useless, foppish homosexual, who couldn't/wouldn't please his hot French wife, so manly Scot Mel Gibson impregnated her instead and gave her the love she needed (Longshank's son gets absolutely no sympathy- heck, the death of his lover is a source of amusement for the audience).

But I digress!

(As an aside, it also says something about the stupidity, and perhaps racism-born-from-ignorance, of the reviewer that she implicitly conflates Baghdad with Persia. Persians are not Arabs and the Middle East isn't a monolithic bloc of brown people as she implies)

So why do you categorically reject the notion of any political intent behind them?

Because the story of the comic is nothing but a very simple-minded myth-making fantasy. It's all gory art with a smattering of dialog to break it up. If there's an underlying racial message, I certainly don't see it. So I find it hard to believe that in adapting it for film Zack Snyder divined some sort of clearly visible racial-political intent out of it and sought to turn it into some sort of political statement. Heck, the outright confusion of the reviewers trying to divine greater meaning out of it seems to make this movie be all things to all people, message-wise.

Do you think they accidentally made Greece vs Persia into "white vs black"?

Sure (though I wouldn't say black, I'd simply say dark). Accidentally isn't the word I'd use, however- unconcious, though, quite possibly. Hell, it could still have been conciously or unconciously racist choice (ie. simply assume that the Greeks as Europeans should be white and Persians should be dark, because that's what the casting director's stereotypes were) but that doesn't mean it's a political/racial tale in and of itself.

Of course, I could be totally wrong- I'm expecting to see this movie and have it be a bombastic simple gore fest. I'll have to wait after I watch it to see if it followed the comic as much as it's said to (the comic had no weird freaks and monsters, though ...), but "this movie says brown people are evil!" smells like BS for now.

[Darth Wong]

No way- but that's not the commentary I'm referring to- I mean the scoffing about use of the word "freedom" and prattling about "tyranny" as if it can only have the meaning we want in the review I quoted in my reply.

And if most of Scotland's population was slaves at the time, you don't think people would have found the film's use of the rallying cry "Freedom" more offensive than they did?

Because the story of the comic is nothing but a very simple-minded myth-making fantasy.

So? You could say the same thing about all of the old 1930s action movies and serials, yet nobody hesitates today to say that many of those old films were racist.

It's all gory art with a smattering of dialog to break it up. If there's an underlying racial message, I certainly don't see it.

So the fact that physical male (and coincidentally light-skinned) beauty is depicted as directly correlational with righteousness doesn't strike you as a message? What is it, then?

So I find it hard to believe that in adapting it for film Zack Snyder divined some sort of clearly visible racial-political intent out of it and sought to turn it into some sort of political statement.

Who gives a shit if he sought to make a political statement? The makers of all those old racist 1930s movies weren't trying to make a political statement either. It was simply instinctive to them to think that dark skin = barbaric.

Heck, the outright confusion of the reviewers trying to divine greater meaning out of it seems to make this movie be all things to all people, message-wise.

I don't see much confusion. Virtually all of the reviewers who say they dislike the messages of the film say the same two things:

1) The movie resurrects the primitive medieval notion that ugliness = evil, and that the pinnacle of human perfection happens to be a white man. This notion was most recently resurrected by the Nazis, so they make that connection as well.

2) The movie resurrects the primitive medieval notion that war is a glorious thing, rather than an ugly brutish affair.

I don't see any "confusion" on this.

[Vympel]

And if most of Scotland's population was slaves at the time, you don't think people would have found the film's use of the rallying cry "Freedom" more offensive than they did?

Not really, no- well, well-informed people who would comment on this sort of thing, anyway. Heck, most of Scotland's population were indentured peasantry being lorded over by nobles, and you had one such noble (William Wallace) trying to put their own autocrat on the throne rather than someone elses. Some freedom. It's not so different.

So? You could say the same thing about all of the old 1930s action movies and serials, yet nobody hesitates today to say that those old films were racist.

It depends on the movie/serial in question- I know it's not in the date order, but let's take Zulu. Whites triumph over blacks. But I don't think it's racist- it's not the point of the movie- it's a tale of military heroism that takes place in a period of British history that was of course shockingly racist.

To be clear, I'll say the casting (if the reviwers are right, in any event) of the film is racist.

So the act that physical male (and coincidentally light-skinned) beauty is depicted as directly correlational with righteousness doesn't strike you as a message? What is it, then?

No, because the leader of the enemy is even more physically imposing than Leonidas. He towers over him and is just as "beautiful", to use that word. Sure, he's depicted as more exotic and his sexuality is somewhat ambiguous (I have no idea about inter-gay prejudices, I didn't know what the hell a "club" gay was until I heard about this storm in a teacup).

This is mixed up with what I think is (let's leave aside whether it's right or not for the moment) a message of the film- ie. "free" men (in their own twisted and barbarous idea of it) defending their lands from an invading army advancing under the lash of their absolute monarch (which Spartan kings were most certainly not). Xerxes literally is Persia. Shouldn't Xerxes be some sort of weak, small mewling foppish poof, if the message of the movie is that muscular/beautiful = righteous?

Who gives a shit if he sought to make a political statement? The makers of all those old racist 1930s movies weren't trying to make a political statement either. It was simply instinctive to them to think that dark skin = barbaric.

Granted- I said as much in my last post.

I don't see much confusion. Virtually all of the reviewers who say they dislike the messages of the film say the same two things:

1) The movie resurrects the primitive medieval notion that ugliness = evil, and that the pinnacle of human perfection happens to be a white man. This notion was most recently resurrected by the Nazis, so they make that connection as well.

Agreed, as I said earlier, but at the same time I don't think we're meant to approve of the Spartan's barbarous ways as described in the comic and the film, which is what I think Ephilates depiction was meant to tie in with. It is IMO unfair to say that 300 (the comic, in any event) unequivocally equates ugliness with evil.

In the comic, when Ephilates comes to Leonidas, dressed in Spartan garb and asking to join the fight- one of Leonidas' Captain's scorns him and tries to beat him- a real asshole. Leonidas tells him to lay off and takes Ephilates with him to talk. Ephilates shows him what he can do- a powerful spear thrust- but he can't lift his shield high enough to be of any use in a phalanx. So Leonidas apologizes and says he can't use him. Ephilates, grief stricken, throws himself off a cliff, but lives and goes to the Persians, bitter at his rejection.

I still hate the idea behind it, but there you are.

2) The movie resurrects the primitive medieval notion that war is a glorious thing, rather than an ugly brutish affair

I'd have to watch the movie before I decide on that one- the Spartan's stand was glorious, but the war was sure as shit depicted as ugly and brutish.

I don't see any "confusion" on this.

I was referring more to the confusion between right wing and left wing commentators on the political message to take from this (ie. Bush is Xerxes! Bush is Leonidas! Hordes= US! Spartans = US! Spartans are gay! Spartans are straight! Xerxes means gays are evil! etc and so on)