300 was one of my personally most painful movie watching experiences. I went in expecting a historical drama about one of the most incredible true stories in the history of the world. What I got was some homoerotic computer generated version of He-Man or something. Why did they need so many slow-motion sequences? I understand the slo-mo in Baywatch, but in a war movie?
Why did so many straight guys like this? It's basically 90 minutes of nonstop half-naked men with digitally enhanced abs. How is that anything but gay soft-core?
I have nothing against homosexuality and am in no way homophobic, but this movie made me feel like I accidentally bought tickets to some gay fantasy film and not a movie about an event that actually happened.
And why were they so racist against the Persians? What was with the monsters? Zack Snyder is such a horrible director...he directs movies like they're Video Game trailers. He makes me almost respect Michael Bay as a director.
But the OP was right though. Yes a male body is not homosexual in nature but if a camera is lingering on tight abs and showing them flex in slow motion, the that is gay as hell. It's been done to actresses for a long time. Have the camera slowly going up their body, having the camera fixate on their abs flexing or their thighs.
But the OP was right though. Yes a male body is not homosexual in nature but if a camera is lingering on tight abs and showing them flex in slow motion, the that is gay as hell. It's been done to actresses for a long time. Have the camera slowly going up their body, having the camera fixate on their abs flexing or their thighs.
Just because you and your oblivious (or closeted...) husband didn't think it was incredibly homoerotic doesn't mean that it wasn't the most homoerotic movie in history.
The following publications all agree that it's incredibly homoerotic: BBC, Wired, The Atlantic (written by a gay man), The Village Voice, NPR, Pajiba...I could go on.
Heterosexual women like it because it's 90+ minutes of half-naked oiled men in slow-motion continuously stabbing one another with their phallic objects. Men who like it are obviously harboring homosexual desires, because it's not exactly an exciting action film with all the slo-mo and absolutely ridiculous "dialogue". I simply couldn't wait for this horrible movie to end so I could get out of there.
So gay men like looking at good looking men... I never would have guessed that! lol. In my experience however, most gay men are not that into fighting, violence and the hacking to bits of people. >.> So while I could see your point of good looking men, as far as the movie content I don't see that it would be that appealing as a general rule.
I suppose my husband *could* be in the closet. *shrugs* I would suggest however, that perhaps those people who see look so hard to find such things might in fact be the ones attempting to hide. ^.^
You DO realize this movie is based on a graphic novel correct? Should I also assume that you believe that any woman who likes Sin City must be a closet lesbian?
Probably...Sin City is not a movie which appeals to 99% of women. Most women prefer movies like your typical Jennifer Aniston pap or the heavy Meryl Streep type dramas. Sin City is a highly stylized movie with a whole bunch of really gorgeous women in very little clothing, lots of violence and film noir qualities. Sin City is also a vastly superior film than 300. Hence the reason why females 45+ ranked Sin City at a very low level (2.5 points below its rating by the aggregate).
Just because 300 is based on a graphic novel doesn't make it any less homoerotic. It could have been based on a graphic novel without using the digital enhancements on the men and the countless scenes of slow-motion. Road to Perdition was also based on a graphic novel and it's not at all stylized. Same goes for A History of Violence.
Interesting. I am a woman, and I liked both movies. My husband is a man, and liked both movies. I still don't see how that makes either of closet anything lol :P As a woman I have no issue looking at a good looking woman and saying "Wow, she is beautiful!" How exactly does that make me a lesbian? ^.^
I do agree however that there was much more depth to Sin City, but the visceral combat of 300 did appeal to me as well. I own both movies.
Interestingly enough Road to Perdition and History of Violence were ALSO excellent movies that I enjoy and own. Watchmen too; what does indicate? I think the highly stylised art would have been out of place and unneeded in either of these films, as they stood quite well on their own dramatic merit.
My Jennifer Aniston/Meryl Streep-watching sisters (in their 20's) saw Sin City and really liked it, even though they also found it icky and twisted. 300, on the other and, they didn't like.
Re the stylisation - I really liked it in both of these movies. Certainly much more memorable than the cinematography of Road to Perdition or A History of Violence.
Probably...Sin City is not a movie which appeals to 99% of women. Most women prefer movies like your typical Jennifer Aniston pap or the heavy Meryl Streep type dramas.
I know I'm late to the party, but what on earth would you know about what appeals to 99% of women? I'm a straight, 24-year-old female & I loved Sin City, loved 300 (the half-dressed men weren't the reason though, I just love war movies -- I thought it was great the shape the actors were able to get in, but I didn't find it very sexualized in the context of war-- weren't the athletes often completely nude in the Olympic games (in Ancient Greece)?) And I've never particularly liked Aniston, certainly not Streep.
reply share
Yeah, I wouldn't presume to know what "most women" like when it comes to films...but speaking on the homosexual content (veiled or not) in 300, historically the Spartans were pretty gay, weren't they? Of course it wouldn't have been identified as such back then. Those pornographic vases etc from the time showed them 5ucking just about everything...
Short answer would be no, you got it completely wrong. Especially in case of Sparta, one of the most conservative societies at the time...but also about Greeks in general.
I can give you the long answer as well if you like.
Yeah, I'd be interested to hear the long answer, actually. Always like learning something new. I obviously know sweet eff-all about history! (There ARE erotic vase-type things from around that period though, aren't they? Or are they Roman? Yeah, long answer would be good, please...!)
There are indeed erotic vases from Greece, mostly Attic, showing every known kind of sexual intercourse (including toys). Also including scenes of older men ''courting'' younger boys/men, and even, though very rare, having sex with them. However, none come from Sparta, and I will show why below. And I will address homosexuality issue in Greece in general just so we can have some context.
Spartan art is usually concerned with myth, economy, religion, marriage and war. Only one known pictorial depiction of actual intercourse was found in Sparta, and shows somewhat bizarre, probably ritual scene where one of four women is penetrated from behind while being flogged. On the same scene is a satyr with enormous penis pursuing another woman who is lifting a modest garment merely covering her waist area, and probably urinating (or even sweating, being sexually aroused (moist) or less likely - defecating), and two more, semi naked women watching and waiting nearby.
Ivory reliefs from Sparta often show man and woman holding wreaths, symbolizing their romantic connection or marriage. More than half of dedicated lead artifacts (cca 3000) at one of two most important Spartan sanctuaries are exactly those kind of wreaths. Same goes for 6th BC reliefs of husband and wife sitting on a throne like chairs.
Somewhat more explicit are sculptures of women with spread legs, around a dozen were found in Sparta. They are not unusual in ancient art, same as sculptures with erect penis are common motif, but their % in Sparta is notable.
One surviving Spartan stone relief also shows male and female sexual organs.
No other kind of artistic representation of sex or sexual themes exists in Sparta. And as we have seen, all these show heterosexual relationship.
Before I return to Sparta, and literary sources, a word on social aspect of homosexuality in Greece. While it is true there was no word for homosexuality, the concept was well known, and wasn't any more (or arguably less) socially acceptable than today, nor there was a consensus about its acceptance as we are lead to believe. Its acceptance depended on social circles, geography, century etc. but it being widespread in general society, even more than today, is a big no.
Even though not a word for homosexuality as a phenomenon or a sexual orientation, Greeks had a term cinaedus, which would be a derogatory term for male homosexual - a *beep* in modern English. There were other terms as ''wide anused'', ''gaping as*ed'', ''ditch as*'', ''he who is f*ed'', ''one who is bent over'' etc. that were also insults to homosexuals.
Especially the adult homosexuality and 'passive' part of it in particular, was frowned upon, being connected to male effeminacy, one of the most universally hated phenomenons at the time. Aristotle saw wishing to be penetrated in anus as a deformity either from nature of abuse, and even Plato, actually having pro pederastic views, describes male homosexuality as ''shameful'' and ''unnatural''. ''Treating one's body like a woman's'' was considered a ''self abuse'' according to Hyperides.
It isn't that homosexuals who wanted relations with their peers, not just teens, didn't exist. They always do. But they were obviously forced to hide. Graffiti inscriptions on remote rocks on Greek island of Thera/Santorini, mentioning in stereotypically proud (yes, I am alluding to gay pride) yet playful tone, how that is the place one man was ''ridden'' by another, or saying (I) was f*ed here by (name), and even counter graffiti calling them *beep* suggest exactly this need to hide, and are very similar to those gay graffiti in public toilets.
What seem to be more socially acceptable, is pederasty. But apparently only in certain circles, and/or cities (below). And only the 'educational' kind. Using services of boy prostitutes and slaves who would serve only for pleasure was also something that was frowned upon. However, even ''educational'' pederasty was often seen as one of causes of hated effeminacy, and resented upon by general public (homosexual pederastic relations were apparently more of an upper class thing). The fact it often comes up in speeches and satires, directed at wider audience, in mostly negative context, and as a serious accusation that produces shame and undermines someones credibility, often connecting it with prostitution, is indicative of the general (negative) feel towards any kind of homosexual behavior.(Though, as today, lesbians seem to get away with it much easier, even though 'masculine women' did not exactly won hearts of Greeks).
Returning to Sparta. Early Spartan lyric poet, Alcman, wrote songs about Spartan girls admiring their beauty. Spartan state, before being famous for their warriors was famous for the beauty of their women according to one Delphic oracle. Herodotus took interest in more gentle side of Spartans as well, not only warlike, telling us a moving story of a Spartan king, the father of famous Leonidas, who stubbornly refused to remarry, even after his wife was unable to get pregnant. He did succumb to the pressures of other governing bodies in Sparta, and got another woman pregnant, but his wife stayed in his home, and he didn't just divorce her as would be expected. Karma took care of what happened next, and both new and old wife soon gave birth to sons. Notable is also his son Leonidas' relationship with his wife, Gorgo.
Also, somewhat earlier, Spartans went to war with neighboring Messenians over young Spartan women, attacked and possibly raped by Messenians. Nothoi and/or mothakes, bastard children of (unfaithful?) Spartans with helot/slave women are also noted, and existed in considerable number, enough to be given a distinct name.
However, no homosexual or even pederastic relationship was ever mentioned in case of Spartans, despite all these juicy sexual episodes and love intrigues...Except in the following case:
Xenophon says this about ''intimacy with boys'':
''In other Greek states, for instance among the Boeotians, man and boy live together, like married people ; elsewhere, among the Eleians, for example, consent is won by means of favours. Some, on the other hand, entirely forbid suitors to talk with boys.
(In Sparta) The customs instituted by Lycurgus (early Spartan lawgiver, one of the foundations of Spartan society) were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he BANNED the connexion as an ABOMINATION ; and thus he purged the relationship of all IMPURITY, so that in Lacedaemon (Sparta) it resembled parental and brotherly love.''
So even the only acceptable homosexual relationship in (some parts of) Greece - between a teen boy and mature man, was banned in Sparta by law (and we know how strictly they held to their laws), as impure and seen as an abomination. That is why no artistic or any other kind of representation of any kind of homosexual relation exists from Sparta. And that is why some claims of Spartan homosexuality are groundless, and mere ideological or political tools for some present struggles.
Thanks very much for going to the trouble of typing all that out just to educate one ill-informed poster! It's appreciated!
That was really interesting. Narrative art from all epochs is something I find quite intriguing and I believe I've seen a few of the examples you mention.
May I just ask, is Lacedaemon the "contemporary" name for Sparta (I mean, what it was called at the time by such as Lycurgus) or was it a province or other part of Sparta?
Once again, thank you very much, all the best to you :)
You're welcome. Nothing is hard when you are passionate about something.
There is, as you will quickly realize yourself, no simple or definitive answer to that, or almost any Sparta related question.
Both are contemporary terms. The discussion is harder than it seems, and no definitive answer can be found with the available evidence - it may not exist even, as Greeks weren't exactly crazy about definitions and consistency in naming things, but there is a consensus today that Lacedaemon was a name of a Spartan ''state'', i.e. the ''city'' of Sparta (actually a collection of relatively close villages) and the territory it controlled, including scattered rural settlements and its inhabitants. By that logic Lacedaemonians are both full Spartan citizens, but also all other inhabitants such as periokoi etc...So when they say Lacedaemonian army, we are to presume periokoi were there as well. When sources say Spartans, they mean Spartans only.
Things are not that clear cut though, and sources do contradict themselves, naturally. Even Spartans themselves didn't do anything to make our life easier. They (full citizen Spartans) refer to themselves on a number of preserved inscriptions both as Lacedaemonians and Spartans, even at the same time/era.
So for the sake of understanding let's just say all Spartans were Lacedaemonians, but not all Lacedaemonians were Spartans.
Thanks again for your extremely erudite and interesting reply and the follow up. For one who gleans (most) of his infinitesimal knowledge of history from BBC documentaries it's refreshing to have this wonderful information passed from an expert! Do you "specialise" in this particular time and location? Once again, thank you!
You're welcome. Imdb is truly an interesting place where you can unexpectedly meet all kinds of people and, as I did, learn a lot of interesting things from them. Interestingly enough, it is all somehow connected to movies, a passion we all share, obviously.
Yes, Archaic Greece (up to 470's BC) is a topic of my thesis, but not so much Sparta, as some more general sociological phenomena in ancient Greek society. Sparta is a passion,though, and I was actually both very sad and very happy when I realized we know so little about them during their heyday. Our knowledge of Sparta in her full glory (before Classical era) can be compared with a black and white photo of a person sitting in a dark, only dimly lit room. We know he is there, we know his general shape and form, maybe even some face features and indications of his style, but no details beyond that.
They truly were and will remain a mystery, despite the fact enormous scholarly efforts were made in an attempt to shed some light on that intriguing society, even going so far as to desperately use and adopt very late writings about Spartans(most of what we know about them is actually too late to be considered a fact beyond any doubt) as facts.
You're a bloody good writer. I get the feeling that English isn't your first language yet you write so well in it! Apologies if I'm wrong but there's something about your grammar etc that leads me to believe it's not your primary tongue. Anyway, your descriptions are so evocative...I'm sure you will ACE your thesis! I am passionate about films but my real love is comics--so called "alternative" or "underground" or "art" comics, not the superhero stuff (tho' I retain a soft spot for the comic book exploits of the costumed crusaders of my childhood), I much prefer personal work created by one person, not for financial gain, just the sake of expression. I DID buy 300 (the comic) when it came out and think it's the last decent thing Frank Miller has done. But his insistence (a la Sin City) in replicating the comic panel-for-panel, shot-for-shot on film seems utterly pointless, to me...I know the idea of medium specificity is somewhat frowned upon these days in academic circles but ALL media have certain qualities or effects that simply cannot be achieved by any other artform. The film "Tree of Life" is a good cinematic example--it's effects are inherently "cinematic" and most (not all) would be unable to achieve with a novel or a play or a painting...so Miller/Rodruiguez's slavish adherence to panel composition etc seems utterly superfluous (though Sin City is the worst offender in this respect by far). But that's just my opinion. Thank you once more for your beautifully-crafted responses--I feel honoured that you took the time to explain to me in terms a layman such as myself could easily comprehend! I wish you all the best for the future! You would make an utterly wonderful teacher!
Oh, one thing I certainly can't agree with is my writing abilities. No, English is not my first language, not even close (and I assume the struggle is obvious), but regardless, my writing is often convoluted and full of long sentences. At least that is my mentor's opinion. However, thank you for the kind words and a nice discussion. If I ever do get to teach I will remember those words. I wish all best to you as well.
Well, I think you would make a fantastic teacher. And the only reason it's apparent that English isn't your first language is that some of your "turns of phrase" are those of a "non-native" speaker. But that's not to say that you don't write well in English, far from it! I remain very impressed by your erudition. I know it's frowned upon academically but I LIKE to read "meandering" prose with lots of digressions and stuff...maybe that's a reflection of my tastes in literature, though :) Once again, best wishes to you and thanks once more. Hope to encounter you on the boards again!
Woman here, and neither myself nor my husband found anything homoerotic about it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by mjones1313
Well sadly, it is ordained that Idaho will be the last place to figure out what "homoeroticism" is.
Men going to war, wearing just speedos and capes. Nothing homoerotic about that at all.
I don't think the wandering historian would have told the story about oiled up half-naked men with digitally enhanced six-packs continuously thrusting long, pointy objects into one another in slow-motion.
The movie is just so shallow and glossy and I can't imagine how anyone can watch it and not want to shoot themselves. Really, that experience of watching "300" in the theater was the most painful movie-watching experience of my life...and I watched "Hope Floats" with my mother as she was going through her divorce.
I didn't find the movie to be homoerotic and I'm a straight male. The movie and story itself was told in the style of a heroic epic, in which the strength, physique, and abilities of the heroes involved are greatly over-exaggerated. I didn't find it to be homoerotic though, to be honest the only naked or half-naked bodies I even paid much attention to were the females, it's not like I looked at the dudes abs and couldn't help but stare at them and think about gay porn. If anything, the people who complain that they find this movie to be overwhelmingly homoerotic probably aren't very secure with their own sexuality and may just possibly be plagued with a stream of gay thoughts in their own mind.