StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I saw this on Andrew Sullivan's website:

Totally gay, according to this still-tingling viewer:

I caught 300 last night and thought I'd pass on my thoughts.

It is a deeply silly and deeply beautiful film. It's most silly when it's trying to be a movie, and it's most beautiful when it's trying to be a graphic novel. Fortunately, it mostly just tries to be a graphic novel. But, ah, the men Andrew. All those beautiful, beautiful men dancing around in briefs and capes. It almost brought me to tears. It is perhaps the gayest movie that I've ever seen that wasn't porn.

Those who try to deconstruct the movie into a statement on the current war, or who say that it is racist or (most glaringly wrong) anti-gay are utterly missing the point. Everyone (perhaps excluding the Queen) in the film is gay. You have the butch gym queens of Sparta (I mean can any chisled man run around in speedos and a cape and call himself straight?), and the pierced, shaved, and bejeweled bar queens of Persia. It's gay-on-gay violence, pure and simple. If I were to cast this film in any way (and it really is far too silly for this sort of analysis), I'd say it was portraying the libertarian, buffed and bearded Sullivanistas taking on the effete, decadent elites of the HRC. The movie is clearly on the side of the Sullivanista/Spartans, and so am I.

Here's to speedos, capes, and libertarian principles!

Sure, but no speedos!

My gaydar is weak but I saw a "making of" sneak preview on HBO and from what I saw, this review is right: If 300 was any gayer, it would think Margaret Cho was funny. A bunch of guys with shaved chests prancing around in speedos, posing and flexing their muscles... For the record, I'm not a homophobe -I actually went to a Village People concert, as well as midnight screenings of Showgirls and Mommie Dearest. It's just that listening to people talk about it, you'd think it was a great war movie or something when in fact it's just Baywatch for gay guys.

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 really funny is that war whores can't even come up with celluloid jingoism anymore. Maybe the humiliating experience of John Wayne's The Green Berets scared them off. I think it's progress of a sort when warmongering fucktards have to get their fix of movie house jingoism from movies like Rambo and 300 which are so overtly gay.

So how long until people start realizing that shows like WWE that feature men in spandex and sometimes only speedos rolling around on a mat with each other is far, far gayer than 300?

Elfdart wrote:It is a deeply silly and deeply beautiful film. It's most silly when it's trying to be a movie, and it's most beautiful when it's trying to be a graphic novel. Fortunately, it mostly just tries to be a graphic novel. But, ah, the men Andrew. All those beautiful, beautiful men dancing around in briefs and capes. It almost brought me to tears. It is perhaps the gayest movie that I've ever seen that wasn't porn.

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?

When did it become the fashion that viewing any healthy, good-looking, muscular male body is seen as "gay"?

Of course, there was considerable homosexual behavior in ancient Greece as well, but somehow I don't think much of it involved drag, dress-up, and these guys were not pansy pushovers. It's a pretty macho form of "gay".

You have the butch gym queens of Sparta (I mean can any chisled man run around in speedos and a cape and call himself straight?)

Why not?

As I pointed out, the speedos are a concession to modern sensibilities that, apparently, view a bare penis and scrotum with more horror than gory mass death.

And why "chiseled"? Does that mean a flabby, pot-bellied man running around in speedos and a cape is "straight"?

A bunch of guys with shaved chests prancing around in speedos, posing and flexing their muscles...

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.

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.

Um... the battle of Thermopylae WAS a groups of white folks (Spartans and weren't there some Thespians as well?) fighting the Persians and their allies who WERE darker skinned than the Greeks. I'm sorry, is someone having a problem with historical accuracy?

And I'm not sure why "heros" is in quotes - 300 men (give or take a few) holding a pass to the bitter end while outnumbered 1000:1 (more or less - as always, there is some disagreement on exact numbers) is hard to describe in any other manner. That is extraordinary. Which is why people are still talking about it thousands of years after the fact.

Maybe I'm just a freak, but I don't automatically think "naked man" = "gay".

It's gay in the sense that there's something in the movie for homosexuals (and straight women ...)- ie. the eye-candy. There's also something in it for heterosexual males who want to see some mass death. Not that homosexuals don't want to see that sort of thing, who doesn't love a good gory action flick?

A lot of reviews have referred to the film in a gay context, though. But then- they did the same thing with Troy.

Elfdart wrote: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.

'Cause the Greeks are soooooo white... the models of the Aryan nation... just like the ancient Romans








And before you start, I know Greeks come in all shapes and sizes, but for anyone to call Greeks (and southern Italians for that matter) "white" stretches the definition. Soooooo ridiculous...

Broomstick wrote:[

Of course, there was considerable homosexual behavior in ancient Greece as well, but somehow I don't think much of it involved drag, dress-up, and these guys were not pansy pushovers. It's a pretty macho form of "gay".

Didn't the Spartans historically have a frequent amount of man-on-man sex within the ranks to help build trust between the troops as it is?

I'm white as snow.

By white, they obviously mean European- not fricking ... English white.

General Zod wrote:Didn't the Spartans historically have a frequent amount of man-on-man sex within the ranks to help build trust between the troops as it is?

All ancient greeks did that.

It was the "purer" love than the love between man and woman, how things change.

General Zod wrote:

Broomstick wrote:Of course, there was considerable homosexual behavior in ancient Greece as well, but somehow I don't think much of it involved drag, dress-up, and these guys were not pansy pushovers. It's a pretty macho form of "gay".

Didn't the Spartans historically have a frequent amount of man-on-man sex within the ranks to help build trust between the troops as it is?

Yes.

However, men were expected to have heterosexual sex, take wives, and produce more Spartans. That's why I said homosexual behavior as opposed to using the modern term homosexual (the word by itself) to denote a preference or sex exclusively with other men. More properly, the ancient Greeks were mostly bisexuals, with a few individuals choosing one gender exclusively (which was seen as aberrant, if mostly harmless).

It's also an outgrowth of the fact that, at least in Sparta, men in certain age groups spent nearly all of their time with other men, with little or no opportunity to seek out women. In such circumstances, men with preferences for women will nonetheless have sex with other men. Especially if there is no social penalty for it.

Argh!

What the hell does it mean that a movie is "gay"? What are the criteria for declaring a movie "gay" or "straight"? What are the consequences of a movie being "gay"?

These are the questions you have to answer before classifying movies as "gay" or "straight" becomes even remotely worthwhile. If a movie is "gay", does it mean that straight males are not allowed to watch it? Or something else entirely?

And take note that from a woman's perspective it all turn on it's head.

Jesus, this is such a fucking pointless label that I get angry just seeing it.

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?

When did it become the fashion that viewing any healthy, good-looking, muscular male body is seen as "gay"?

When the camera lingers over the muscles like that it's clearly gay. It's no different from straight guys who buy the SI Swimsuit issue. We don't give a shit about how much Beyonce spent on her bathing suit. We want to look at her tits and ass. Or the other models. There's nothing wrong with it, just don't pretend it is anything more than eye candy.

And why "chiseled"? Does that mean a flabby, pot-bellied man running around in speedos and a cape is "straight"?

No, but it would be funny as hell -like the nude beach in Eurotrip.

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.

Aside from heroes and demigods like Heracles, Greek men in battle wore armor if possible.

Um... the battle of Thermopylae WAS a groups of white folks (Spartans and weren't there some Thespians as well?) fighting the Persians and their allies who WERE darker skinned than the Greeks. I'm sorry, is someone having a problem with historical accuracy?

The Achmaenid Persians were related to and descended from the Scythians, so they were as "white" as the Greeks. Darius and Cyrus were described as having red hair and grey or blue eyes. The 300 Spartans was more accurate on that score and every other I can think of. True, the Persians were a mixed bag ethnically, but the movie has the same "band of whites vs hordes of darkies" theme that was done to death in earlier movies.

And I'm not sure why "heros" is in quotes - 300 men (give or take a few) holding a pass to the bitter end while outnumbered 1000:1 (more or less - as always, there is some disagreement on exact numbers) is hard to describe in any other manner. That is extraordinary. Which is why people are still talking about it thousands of years after the fact.

One could say the same about the Japanese fanatics in the Pacific during WW2 -some of whom held out for 40 years after the war.

Calling the war between Greece and Persia a fight for freedom is absurd when Spartan youths weren't allowed to become men until they stalked and strangled a slave. Which society offered more freedom -including religious freedom? Persia by a huge margin.

Maybe I'm just a freak, but I don't automatically think "naked man" = "gay".

Neither do I. Just as I don't automatically think "naked woman" = "schwing!" But come on, a bunch of guys with six-packs and speedos is eye candy for gay guys, just as a bunch of chicks on the beach in thongs is eye candy for straight guys. The difference is, neither the late, great Andy Sidaris nor his fans ever tried to pass off his tit flicks as "art". War whores didn't try to use them to promote a war, either.

Calling the war between Greece and Persia a fight for freedom is absurd when Spartan youths weren't allowed to become men until they stalked and strangled a slave. Which society offered more freedom -including religious freedom? Persia by a huge margin.

I definitely liked how the Persian citizen, even though technically they were all slaves of Xerxes, could vote as to who the Persian ruler was and what policies he should persue.......oh wait.

Try again.

PeZook wrote:Argh!

What the hell does it mean that a movie is "gay"? What are the criteria for declaring a movie "gay" or "straight"? What are the consequences of a movie being "gay"?

These are the questions you have to answer before classifying movies as "gay" or "straight" becomes even remotely worthwhile. If a movie is "gay", does it mean that straight males are not allowed to watch it? Or something else entirely?

And take note that from a woman's perspective it all turn on it's head.

Jesus, this is such a fucking pointless label that I get angry just seeing it.

I enjoyed Can't Stop The Music.

KrauserKrauser wrote:

Calling the war between Greece and Persia a fight for freedom is absurd when Spartan youths weren't allowed to become men until they stalked and strangled a slave. Which society offered more freedom -including religious freedom? Persia by a huge margin.

I definitely liked how the Persian citizen, even though technically they were all slaves of Xerxes, could vote as to who the Persian ruler was and what policies he should persue.......oh wait.

Try again.

What difference does it make if a tiny number of people can vote on leaders when the state declares war on the serfs and slaves (helots-the vast majority of people in Sparta) every year and kills people for having a different religion? Cyrus was the first ruler of any state to make religious tolerance official government policy -something that was unheard of (with possibly a few exceptions) until @300 years ago anywhere else in the world. Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes and their successors only grabbed money from the people they conquered and demanded a number of soldiers from each territory in time of war. They didn't try to re-make each satrap in their own image, which almost always leads to multitudes of people being murdered. They were very hands-off with their subjects compared to the Spartans, which is why calling Thermopylae a victory for "freedom" is just so much ignorant wank.

So, you're saying the Spartans in particular were worse? What about the other greeks? If they're better than the Persians, then the fact that this is a victory for them would make this a victory for freedom.

Also, don't forget that the Spartans were vastly outnumbered by the 7000+ other greeks at the battle, along with the naval forces commanded by Themisticles (sp?) that prevented teh Persains from simply landing troops behind the Greek lines.

While the Spartans were not indicative of all of Greece, Xerxes, WAS Persia.

KrauserKrauser wrote:Also, don't forget that the Spartans were vastly outnumbered by the 7000+ other greeks at the battle, along with the naval forces commanded by Themisticles (sp?) that prevented teh Persains from simply landing troops behind the Greek lines.

While the Spartans were not indicative of all of Greece, Xerxes, WAS Persia.

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.

And what the fuck makes you think that women and slaves were politically enfranchised in the rest of Greece? All of Greece held slaves, all of Greeve treated women as property. The idea of the Greeks being portrayed as the champions of "freedom" because of the existence of a politically privileged class is a joke. The biggest difference in policy between Sparta and the other Greek states was the numerical ratio of slaves to citizens.

300 is "gay" to the extent that ancient Greek sculptures are. That is, a celebration of the human form.

All this "gay" and "straight" crap is a debilitating befuddlement.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:

Elfdart wrote: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.

'Cause the Greeks are soooooo white... the models of the Aryan nation... just like the ancient Romans

And before you start, I know Greeks come in all shapes and sizes, but for anyone to call Greeks (and southern Italians for that matter) "white" stretches the definition. Soooooo ridiculous...

No it's not. "White" != "blonde and blue eyed Anglo-Saxon".

Try telling a Greek that his people are non-white and you may find out.

Lord Zentei wrote:300 is "gay" to the extent that ancient Greek sculptures are. That is, a celebration of the human form.

All this "gay" and "straight" crap is a debilitating befuddlement.

Ancient Greek culture was pretty damned gay, remember?

Lord Zentei wrote:Try telling a Greek that his people are non-white and you may find out.

That's irrelevant to the point, which is that the film portrays them as whiter than the dark Persians. The Persians at that time were visually no darker than the Greeks.

Darth Wong wrote:

Lord Zentei wrote:Try telling a Greek that his people are non-white and you may find out.

That's irrelevant to the point, which is that the film portrays them as whiter than the dark Persians. The Persians at that time were visually no darker than the Greeks.

That is certainly true, though.

As a matter of fact, the depiction of Persians as a lot darker than the Greeks was one of the things that bothered me most about the movie, and incidentally, the graphic novel.

This isn't a historical movie. It's an artistic work, of, well, Spartan-wanking as people said.

That doesn't diminish it's artistic value, but it's historical value is the same as that of "Troy". It's an art fantasy loosely based on some historical event, all.

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

Hegel knew, as we may have forgotten, that had Greece become the westernmost province of Persia, in time Greek family famrs would have become estates for the Great King. The public building of the agora would have been transformed into covered shops of the bazaar and yeoman hoplites paid shock troops alongside Xerxes' Immortals. In place of Hellenic philosophy and science there would have been only the subsidized arts of divination and astrology, which were the appendages of imperial or religious bureaucracies and not governed by unfettered rational inquiry...The Greeks might later fine or exile their general, Themisticles; had the Persians dared the same with Xerxes, they would have ended up disembowled-like the eldest son of Pythias the Lydian, who was cut in half, his torso and legs put on each side of the road for the royal army to march between. Such was the price Pythias paid when he dared request from Xerxes military exemption for one of his five sons.

All other points aside while Thermopylae with the Spartans (and the nearly forgotten Thespians) is a wonderful defensive stand, a holding action to allow the rest of the force to be extracted, the war as a whole would see the rise of the landless oarsmen of Athens and their drive for subsequent political rights comensurate with their status. The victory as a whole, thus, would give rise to the Athens we know and plant the seeds of western ideology which would have been crushed had the war as a whole been lost.

Now that is saying nothing about the movie, which I haven't seen, but it is syaing something about the Greeks being the lesser of two evils which would give rise to most of the basic ideas of freedom we have today.

CmdrWilkens wrote:All other points aside while Thermopylae with the Spartans (and the nearly forgotten Thespians) is a wonderful defensive stand, a holding action to allow the rest of the force to be extracted, the war as a whole would see the rise of the landless oarsmen of Athens and their drive for subsequent political rights comensurate with their status. The victory as a whole, thus, would give rise to the Athens we know and plant the seeds of western ideology which would have been crushed had the war as a whole been lost.

Those kinds of "what if" scenarios are impossible to evaluate. If a victory for one side is good because it leads to changes in the politics of that side, who's to say what effect a loss would have had on the politics of both sides? Why assume that Persian culture would have remained unchanged forever if they had won?

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.

Why are people applying their own modern morality and ideas on two alien, extinct cultures? The Persians were perhaps more culturally egalitarian than the Spartans because they had a huge empire in the Middle East with thousands of religions and peoples, while the Spartans were very regional and insular, so they were naturally more given over to xenophobia - I also don't really understand the accusations of supposed racism when most of the Spartans in Frank Miller's original graphic novel looked quite dark skinned and swarthy anyway (but for some reason the high ranking Persian officials like the envoy pushed down the well, the assorted generals and King Xerxes looked more sub-Saharan African or Ethiopian rather than Iranian).

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

Explain why we should not do this.

The Persians were perhaps more culturally egalitarian than the Spartans because they had a huge empire in the Middle East with thousands of religions and peoples, while the Spartans were very regional and insular, so they were naturally more given over to xenophobia

There is a difference between an explanation and an excuse.

I also don't really understand the accusations of supposed racism when most of the Spartans in Frank Miller's original graphic novel looked quite dark skinned and swarthy anyway (but for some reason the high ranking Persian officials like the envoy pushed down the well, the assorted generals and King Xerxes looked more sub-Saharan African or Ethiopian rather than Iranian).

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