300

[ScottSA]

Whether you notice the poop when you step in it has nothing to do with whether the poop exists or not. Suffice to say that what may have homoerotic undertones has little to do with having anti iranian undertones, they are not mutuallly excusive. How any film stylists could make a movie about the Spartans, given that the spartans despite their overt macho persona were queerer than a 3 dollar bill, how thay could stylize a movie without making them into eye candy for the pink world would be quite a heroic feat in itself......

I treated the two overtones, anti-Iranian and homoerotic, as two different categories. Hence the two seperate paragraphs. But I'll try to make it clearer next time

As you correctly point out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so if the critics became engorged it is their own doing and speaks of them rather than of the movie. Obviously the movie is not attempting to recreate the barrack scenes an historically correct movie might attempt; its focus is male heroism, and the rather hysterical outcry and mockery of the movie speaks volumes about the folks who don't like to see old fashioned male heroism celebrated.

[Black Dog]

I saw 300, and there was nothing remotely "homoerotic" about it. Critics who watched it might have been eroticized, but that really says more about the critics than about the movie. Perhaps they become inflated at the sight of abdominal sixpacks, but that's not the movie's fault.

Methinks you don't quite understand what "homoerotic" means.

If it had propagandistic anti-Iranian overtones to it, guess what? Iran is doing everything it can to put itself in international crosshairs, so it's no surprise that some consider it the enemy. I certainly do.

"300" (the graphic novel..okay, comic book) was put out in 1998. Any parrallels between recent events and the contents of film are, at best, superficial and, at worst, reflective of some tendancy to see every pop culture product through the lens of post-9/11, "war against terror" society. Shit, I've read some liberal critiques that are outraged at the pro-W.O.T. rhetoric, which misses the point. Folks shouldn't be concerned that the dialogue from a movie based on a comic book is reminiscent of the President of the U.S.A's rhetoric: they should be concerned that the President's rhetoric sounds like a comic book.

300 was a movie about unabashed male heroism, and it's about time Hollywood started making movies like that again. Effete self-flagellatory pseudo-intellectualism has been in vogue with the left for a couple decades, and it used to be trendy to scoff at maleness and its associated characteristics like honor, duty and the like, but they are re-emerging again and I must say its long long overdue. Feminization of society is sooooo 90s...

Yeah because god knows gender-based sterotypes are hard to come by these days. :eyeroll:

Anyway, I saw the movie last night. The only lingering impression was due to the headache it caused (it is a loud movie). Mostly it was a brainless, adolescent popcorn flick and good enough for what it is.

[ScottSA]

I take it you didn't like it? Whyever would you have gone to see it in the first place, knowing what it was about?

Remember what I was saying about effete self-flagellatory pseudo-intellectualism? Thanks for the illustrative example!

[Black Dog]

I take it you didn't like it? Whyever would you have gone to see it in the first place, knowing what it was about?

I enjoyed it for what it was.

Remember what I was saying about effete self-flagellatory pseudo-intellectualism? Thanks for the illustrative example

I can only aspire to acheive the heights of discourse characterized by your analysis, summed up thusly: "If you think buff, scantily clad men carousing with each other is gay that means it is you who is teh gay!"

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

[ScottSA]

I take it you didn't like it? Whyever would you have gone to see it in the first place, knowing what it was about?

I enjoyed it for what it was.

Remember what I was saying about effete self-flagellatory pseudo-intellectualism? Thanks for the illustrative example

I can only aspire to acheive the heights of discourse characterized by your analysis, summed up thusly: "If you think buff, scantily clad men carousing with each other is gay that means it is you who is teh gay!"

Pretty much. Your analysis is summed up by "eeewwwww, macho", if we're gonna get reductionist...

[Black Dog]

Pretty much. Your analysis is summed up by "eeewwwww, macho", if we're gonna get reductionist...

Not "ew". More of a Muntzian "Haw-haw!" I mean, it's pretty hard not to see machisimo (that is: the celebration on maleness and the rejection of feminity) for what it really is: unconcious homosexual desire. It's just funny/sad that macho behaviour is often accompanied by misogyiny and homophobia.

[ScottSA]

Pretty much. Your analysis is summed up by "eeewwwww, macho", if we're gonna get reductionist...

Not "ew". More of a Muntzian "Haw-haw!" I mean, it's pretty hard not to see machisimo (that is: the celebration on maleness and the rejection of feminity) for what it really is: unconcious homosexual desire.

Is it? According to the upside down streetcorner psychology of the 90s, I suppose, which posits the ridiculous notion that any distaste of homosexuality must be indicative of latent homosexuality. That worked to silence traditionalists for a couple of decades, but its wearing thin these days. Get with the new millenium. Anti-male bias is yesterday's game, son.

[Black Dog]

Is it? According to the upside down streetcorner psychology of the 90s, I suppose, which posits the ridiculous notion that any distaste of homosexuality must be indicative of latent homosexuality.

Um... is that any different from your basement psychological analysis of reviewers? Anyway, you've got it wrong. It's not "distaste for homosexuality" that is indicatiove of latent homosexual urges. It's the simultaneous rejection of all things associated with women (for instance, using "effete" as a perjorative), celebration of "male" attributes and preference for the company of men (often in situations involving physical exertions). It's the total package. Not that there's anything wrong with that....

That worked to silence traditionalists for a couple of decades, but its wearing thin these days.

IOW: "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

Get with the new millenium. Anti-male bias is yesterday's game, son

It's really not "anti-male bias," but anti-dull stereotype bias.

[August1991]

[aside]

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

I don't think you get away with a line like that now.

[/aside]

[ScottSA]

Is it? According to the upside down streetcorner psychology of the 90s, I suppose, which posits the ridiculous notion that any distaste of homosexuality must be indicative of latent homosexuality.

Um... is that any different from your basement psychological analysis of reviewers? Anyway, you've got it wrong. It's not "distaste for homosexuality" that is indicatiove of latent homosexual urges. It's the simultaneous rejection of all things associated with women (for instance, using "effete" as a perjorative), celebration of "male" attributes and preference for the company of men (often in situations involving physical exertions). It's the total package. Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Using the term "effete" is a rejection of women? I didn't much notice a rejection of women in the film, and in fact I thought his wife was portrayed as rather an heroic figure, didn't you? The fact that Spartan armies didn't have equal gender opportunity doesn't exactly put it in a class by itself in the 5th century BC, does it? Good grief, this is fun! Next?

[Black Dog]

sing the term "effete" is a rejection of women?

It is when you use it as a perjorative.

I didn't much notice a rejection of women in the film, and in fact I thought his wife was portrayed as rather an heroic figure, didn't you? The fact that Spartan armies didn't have equal gender opportunity doesn't exactly put it in a class by itself in the 5th century BC, does it?

Welp, if we're striving for factual accuracy from our popcorn films, I didn't notice any mention of Spartan pederasty either. What is your point?

[ScottSA]

sing the term "effete" is a rejection of women?

It is when you use it as a perjorative.

How else would one use it? It is inherently a perjorative, like "poopoohead" or "whelp", so you're in effect saying that any use of it is indicative of latent homosexuality. That's silly.

Welp, if we're striving for factual accuracy from our popcorn films, I didn't notice any mention of Spartan pederasty either. What is your point?

But we're not talking about factual accuracy except insofar as you're trying to show that portaying Spartan armies consisting solely of men is in some way homoerotic. Lets try to focus on the point at hand.

[M.Dancer]

My favourite homoerotic scene from a movie set In a bygone age was in Spartacus (which coincidentally was about gladiators and heroic males....) which saw Laurence Olivier questioning slave boy Tony Curtis (who is bathing Olivier) about his fondness for oysters and snails. Tony likes oysters but doesn't like snails. Olivier asks him if his dislike of snails was based on morality....Tony says no, he did not like snails because they were immoral....Olivier says then, they are a matter of taste, then he turns around to find that Slave Boy has run away as fast as his effete feet would take him

[Black Dog]

How else would one use it? It is inherently a perjorative, like "poopoohead" or "whelp", so you're in effect saying that any use of it is indicative of latent homosexuality. That's silly.

oh fer fuck's sak

Anyway, you've got it wrong. It's not "distaste for homosexuality" that is indicative of latent homosexual urges. It's the simultaneous rejection of all things associated with women (for instance, using "effete" as a perjorative), celebration of "male" attributes and preference for the company of men (often in situations involving physical exertions). It's the total package. Not that there's anything wrong with that....

But we're not talking about factual accuracy except insofar as you're trying to show that portaying Spartan armies consisting solely of men is in some way homoerotic. Lets try to focus on the point at hand.

No. The Spartan armies were homoerotic because the men had sex with other men (well, actually, boys).

Do you even have a point here? Or are you just making stuff up as you go?

[M.Dancer]

No. The Spartan armies were homoerotic because the men had sex with other men (well, actually, boys).

No the spartans had sex with men, usually the man on the right. The Athenians had sex with boys.

[ScottSA]

No. The Spartan armies were homoerotic because the men had sex with other men (well, actually, boys).

Do you even have a point here? Or are you just making stuff up as you go?

Yes, I have a point. My point is that the movie is not homoerotic. Having apparently conceded that point, you seem to have moved on to an entirely different point: that historical Sparta itself was homoerotic. I agree, but that's not the point we were talking about a minute ago. The movie doesn't have anything to say about homosexuality, except for a scornful accusation that Athenians like bumming boys. Not being a homosexual, I wouldn't know if pedophilia is homoerotic, but I suspect the homosexual lobby doesn't publicly endorse it.

So are we going to let the argument slip sideways into new territory, or are you going to just admit that the movie isn't in any way homoerotic?

[Wilber]

Why?

What about Saving Private Ryan? Like that one?

It depicts war in a more realistic light, it doesn't show it as something glorious.

Good movie but the ending never made sense to me.

[Frankie]

Well, I finally saw the movie, and I don't know why it's been such an issue for people. It's a fairy tale, no more controversal then Lord of The Rings or Starwars. If you wanna see something remotly based on facts, watch "The 300 Spartans" from 1962. And if the half naked men get you excited, then either you're a woman, or you're gay. It's not their fault. Although, the movie could have done without the slight occurances of side boob, nipples, and ass poundings.

[M.Dancer]

No. The Spartan armies were homoerotic because the men had sex with other men (well, actually, boys).

Do you even have a point here? Or are you just making stuff up as you go?

Yes, I have a point. My point is that the movie is not homoerotic. Having apparently conceded that point, you seem to have moved on to an entirely different point: that historical Sparta itself was homoerotic. I agree, but that's not the point we were talking about a minute ago. The movie doesn't have anything to say about homosexuality, except for a scornful accusation that Athenians like bumming boys. Not being a homosexual, I wouldn't know if pedophilia is homoerotic, but I suspect the homosexual lobby doesn't publicly endorse it.

So are we going to let the argument slip sideways into new territory, or are you going to just admit that the movie isn't in any way homoerotic?

Like I said, they would have to be mental gymnasts not to make a movie about spartans homoerotic...There's this artist who did a series of painting about skinheads...the skinheads didn't seem to mind, he made them look all ....ummm....butch....the arist himself was gay and the symbolism used was decidely erotic....but the subjects didn't think so....doesn't matter whether you felt the movie wasn't homoerotic, it's whether the stylists and the director did.....I haven't seen the movie, but form the trailer, I expect it was intentional.

[Black Dog]

Yes, I have a point. My point is that the movie is not homoerotic

That wasn't so hard, was it. Now, the discussion went from that to a general discussion about machismo and homoeroticism, which was marked by your tangents about anti-male behaviour and such. If we wanna just talk about the hot man action that is 300, we can get back to that.

To that point: it's gay. It's gay in the tradition of other homoerotically-charged historical pieces like Spartacus, Ben Hur and Top Gun.

[M.Dancer]

Top Gun...yeah, that's gay

[ScottSA]

Yes, I have a point. My point is that the movie is not homoerotic

That wasn't so hard, was it. Now, the discussion went from that to a general discussion about machismo and homoeroticism...

No, you tried to slide the argument in that direction, by implicitely calling me a homosexual, so I had to correct you a couple times. Now that I've redirected you to the point at hand, your response is to argue by fiat: simply claiming the movie is "gay". No its not.

[moderateamericain]

I find that most people that I have talked to about this movie, and the only thing they have to comment about was the half naked men, either A missed the boat on the warrior code or the pride a man feels as a soldier, or B are insecure about there masculinity and make fun of things like wrestling (not wwf wrestling, i mean real wrestling). Wrestling is a grueling tough sport and to keep competitively in it you have to be in very good shape. But this just goes to show that the de-masculization of men has taken such a strong hold in North America. I can't tell the women apart from the Men half the time anymore. Since when has it been okay for a guy to wear pink or drive a yellow car. Some of the fellas i see put more time into getting ready then some of the girls. I dunno, i guess I'm the last of a dieing breed who would rather dive in the mud then get a manicure.

And if you intellectual types view macho ism as homosexual, I'd hate to tell you what we think of the weaker more girlish physiques. I'd rather go have a drink with a bunch of buddies then go shopping or anywhere with mixed company. Makes for a better time. And yes I have a lady.

[ScottSA]

I dunno, i guess I'm the last of a dieing breed who would rather dive in the mud then get a manicure.

Naw, you're in the vanguard of resurgent male pride. The feminization of society is on its way out. Pretty soon the whole ethos of the "sensitive man" will look as stodgy as hardbitten old feminists sitting around complaining that missiles are shaped like penises.

[guyser]

. Since when has it been okay for a guy to wear pink or drive a yellow car. Some of the fellas i see put more time into getting ready then some of the girls. I dunno, i guess I'm the last of a dieing breed who would rather dive in the mud then get a manicure.

Pink ....I have worn pink shirts for many years. In the 80s pink Lacoste were all the rage . And I ALWAYS get a manicure after the mud dive. (We are talking therapeutic mud baths arent we?)

Nobody has called me gay. ..............at least not to my face.