300

[featherynscale]

kittenpants, orcjohn, triadruid and I managed to see 300 last night. For the entire length of the movie, three of us sat there like Beavis and Butthead; "This is the coolest thing I have ever seen. huh-huh, huh-huh". Apparently, the thing was too comic-bookish for triadruid's tastes, and he was disappointed. The rest of us reveled in that.

Beautiful art direction, brilliant action sequences, explosions (the Persians had some black-powder bombs, which I'm not sure are correct to the period, but so what?), nice looking men, an excessively hot queen, revenge, glorious doomed gestures, and a rhinoceros. What's better than that? (Well, it would have been better if the captain's son and the blond Spartan he kept bantering with had actually had sex, instead of merely flirting, but that's apparently too much to ask for.)

The Persians were, on the whole, ridiculous. When I eventually grasped that the story was being told afterwards by a soldier to the council, it made a little more sense. I mean, that's what you'd say, right? "There were six million of them! They were monstrous and deformed, and came riding strange beasts. Giants walked among them. Xerxes himself must have been 12 feet tall, and advanced upon us on a golden throne borne by thirty thousand slaves..." All it lacked was the requisite introduction: "No shit, there I was...."

The big question in everyone's mind after the film (other than "Why is it okay to show that much blood and gore and corpses and naked women and transsexual amputees and all that, and you still get an R rating, but if you show a penis, it's NC-17?" and "Why did the Spartans call the Athenians boy-lovers?" and "Why no soldier-on-soldier sex, dammit?") was this:
At that tech level, how do you get a rhinoceros on a boat, *keep* the rhinoceros on the boat, and keep the boat seaworthy, i.e. with no holes in it from rampaging rhinoceros? Discuss.

Comments

[bloominglotus.livejournal.com]

You might enjoy this review of 300. My understanding is that it sums it up perfectly.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Yep, that just about gets it. Except that the reviewer is complaining about male nudity. Dammit, more male nudity, please. DIRECTORS: It's okay to just throw in random hotties of any equipment type!

[kaikias.livejournal.com]

The movie becomes much funnier (and makes much more sense) when prefaced with a "No shit, there I was" intoned dramatically by David Wenham in his I Do Big Cheesy Dramatic Narration Now voice.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

That would have been way better.

[ysathora.livejournal.com]

too comic-bookish

Um, yes. It was based on a graphic novel.

Also, total fantasy. Based on a historical event, but probably not meant to be historical.

Everyone noticed the flirting! I loved that part.

"Why did the Spartans call the Athenians boy-lovers?"

Probably the same reason teenagers call each other (and everything else) "gay." It meant to be an insult, which is insulting in and of itself.

Did I mention the part where this is a fantasy movie and not historical reenactment?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Oh, I knew the basis for the film, and wasn't expecting anything other than comic-bookish. And with the other thing, I got that it was supposed to be insulting to the Athenians, it just seemed like a curious insult to choose -- I mean, weren't the Spartan men also boy-lovers? Or were they only into screwing the other grown men in their companies?

[ysathora.livejournal.com]

My friends had a discussion about that, and it was decided that "boy-love" is considered unmanly versus "man-love" which is acceptable.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

If it's actually correct (at least in the context of the story) that in Sparta men were acceptable partners for men, but boys were not, that's fine and I can buy the line. I just wasn't clear that that was actually the case.

[ysathora.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I just took it as being "cheeky" and not all that serious.

[chronarchy.livejournal.com]

I was reading last night about the battle, and came across an interesting quote regarding homosexuality in Sparta. Apparently, it was actually uncommon, and monogamy was at a higher rate in Sparta than in the rest of Greece. This was remarked upon by outsiders, who couldn't figure out why Spartan marriages were so weird.

I wish I had the book here so that I could actually type in the quote. It was fascinating, and left me thinking, "Damn, I want to check his sources." But he seemed to back it up reasonably well.

I'll see if I can dig that up tonight.

The Thebians had the Sacred Band of Lovers (or whatever they called it). My first thought, when I heard that in the movie, was "didn't the Spartans have a band of them?" But apparently, it was just the Thebians. Who were, of course, at the battle. Not that the movie would let you know that. . .

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I was going to make my own post, but you beat me to it so I suppose I'll just reply here.

I've never read the Frank Miller graphic novel. Frankly, I'd have been MORE impressed if the story could have been told from within the claustrophobic confines of the Phalanx and the Hot Gates, but that's not Zack Snyder's style. Having Leonidas give a lesson on the inpenetrability of the phalanx and then burst out into an orgy of acrobatic supersoldiering rang false to me. A thousand men probably DID hold that pass for three days, and that is what I wanted to see. Not a bunch of slow-motion CGI and dramatic lighting.

Gorgo's outfits (she was the only female of record in the film) were ludicrous. Leonidas' inconsistency in how he related with his family was painful to watch, not because they shifted but because they shifted in unnatural, cartoonish ways. Gerard Butler chewed scenery like a dying man. There was no reason for Ephialtes to be a hunchback, especially of that exaggerated extent.

Delios was good; I always enjoy his performances. Theron (he's got a goatee, that's how you know he's the evil one) was absurd and awful. A politician should have been much better spoken.

Furthermore, the complete lack of penis was a vast disappointment. Greek red-figure pottery, hello????

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Eh. I am with you on the fact that the fighting style was not what the man described as the strength and valor of his soldiers, but, on the other hand, more phalanx time would have required the film to have more plot, being as it's not real exciting to watch. Plot was not really the strong suit, here. Presumably the Spartans were the good guys, in that they talked a lot about freedom, and presumably the Persians were the bad guys, because they were weird looking, but really, the story is about a big eff-off fight. And it's a lot more visually interesting to have them fighting all crazy than to have them fighting in a historically accurate and reasonable way.

Same again with the hunchback. There was no reason for it, except that it made it blindingly obvious that he wasn't going to fit into the Spartan Superman Army. Again, I think it's a choice made for more visual interest.

The goatee Spartan was not terribly impressive, so I am with you there. The outfits of the queen, yes, stupid, but that wasn't particularly offensive to me. Everybody seemed to be dressed to show off whatever it was that they wanted to have the character show off. It's really shallow, but again, comic book about big fight. I'm not coming into that looking for depth.

Gerard Butler chewed scenery like a dying man. Yes, and wasn't that the point?

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but he started long before he was ever in danger. ;)

Also and unrelated, can you change the title of the boardgames.meetup to not-February? I just posted about it in kansascity.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

For you, I do this thing.

[chronarchy.livejournal.com]

"A thousand men probably DID hold that pass for three days, and that is what I wanted to see"

triadruid, you need to rent the movie "The 300 Spartans" from 1961 (or maybe '62?).

Of course, the phalanx formation in that movie leaves a lot to be desired, but at least the script follows closer to the historical "truth" of what happened.

Just ignore the bad romantic sub-plot that's only slightly less wooden and ridiculous than Anikan/Padme, and I think you'll like the movie.

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I'll keep my eye open for it!

[zylch.livejournal.com]

A thousand men probably DID hold that pass for three days, and that is what I wanted to see.

Look out, or you'll start to sound like me...

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

In the hypothetical post I had composed in my head about the film, I included an explicit warning to you, sis.

[kellan-m-solan.livejournal.com]

I'm kinda with triadruid on this one, which is why I haven't seen the movie (though I probably will now). I don't have anything against "movies just for fun." In fact I think they are often the best kind simply because they don't take themselves too seriously (unlike say, most Hollywood flicks which have their own head awfully far up their ass). But it might be a sad commentary on our society that there is ONLY the "movie for fun, comic book version." There has never been a decent movie made about this historical event (edit: at least since 1962, apparently). Which of all historical events, probably lends itself to a little big screen heroism better than most. I would much prefer my escapism in this instance to come from a little romanticism about heroism and sacrifice and defying great odds than from mutants, giants, and wu shu.

Also, if memory serves there were something like 7000 Greeks plus a decent sized navy up until the last day when it was the Spartans and 700-1000 Thespians. So they held the pass alone for a few hours (if you consider being attacked from both sides, holding).

[zylch.livejournal.com]

700-1000 Thespians

::coffeespew:: sorry, I just had the image of 1000 hoplites miming the Battle of Thermopylae.

[kellan-m-solan.livejournal.com]

lol... meh, damn Thespis of Icaria and his etymological influence.

Men of Thespiae perhaps?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I'd pay good money to see that.

the perpetual question

[rio-luna.livejournal.com]

Why is it okay to show that much blood and gore and corpses and naked women and transsexual amputees and all that, and you still get an R rating, but if you show a penis, it's NC-17?"

Because the blood, gore, corpses and naked women are emanations of the power of the Phallus and refer to it obliquely--the blood and guts peice being the logical consequence of some penetrative action, and the naked women are, as all naked women are at any momnet in time, necessary to the Phallus's perpetual demand for either obeisance or placation. All of these refer to the power of some Phallus some where to either a) kick major ass or b)get jiggy with naked babe.

Like all embodiments of sociopolitical power, the Phallus must constantly mystify itself in order to foster the very far distance from the Phallus as Lord of This World and the inidvidual penis as a a fairly vulnerable piece of flesh and blood that can be subjected to violence and pain, and that is as sensitive and tender as it is powerful and hard.

To show an actual factual penis, disspells the myth, makes the mysticifiation evaporate as the viewer is confronted, not with 17 inches of steel and spike, but rather a very human, fleshly body part, that might even look a silly or unimposing, depending.

my dos centavos theory-wise. i ahve to practice for when i go back to it.

Re: the perpetual question

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

See, you're all women's studies on it, and I was just thinking maybe Gerard Butler had a little dick and it didn't look right in the shot. Same story, different language.
:P

Re: the perpetual question

[rio-luna.livejournal.com]

i was ging to say that too, but then Cherise vomitted.

there's also the issue of pure aesthetic. I mean, lots of actresses even during sex scenes, will refuse to be as undressed as the context of the scene demands.

6 feet under is a PERFECT example. Brenda is an Uber-slut but no matter what wacky illicit sex she's having, she is dressed in a Rated G manner. not even lingerie. what up with that?

Re: the perpetual question

[kellan-m-solan.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, men are silly gits with the tiny fragile egos of twelve-year-old whelps. Shielding themselves from themselves with the obfuscation and pettiness that is their hallmark. And pointing this out, with generalities that cannot be reversed in polite conversation is, evidently, what they call wit these days!

Re: the perpetual question

[rio-luna.livejournal.com]

first of all, i nevber said men, or individual man. my comments addressed a media iteration of issues of power, exposure and visual pleasaure without referring to men as individuals as silly, fragile ego'd or petty.

if anything I called attention to the metaphoric distance between stereotypical displays of 'masculine power' with the very real humanity of men as inidviduals, not as symbols of oppression.

no need to be nasty or insulting, dude--i didn't say anything to YOU, did I? check yourself and back the FUCK up.

Re: the perpetual question

[kellan-m-solan.livejournal.com]

In that case, you display an acute lack of awareness about what you are saying. I have re-read your post very carefully, as I do not wish to be inequitable. But presumably these 'media iterations' were not, in fact evolved by women. Certainly not women as educated on the matter as yourself. And so, yes you did very much say 'men.'

Also, barring the knife, we are not so easily separated from our penises and, physiologically speaking the penis cannot have a 'need.' Indeed it is not equipped to make demands at all lacking as it does any nerve bundles even remotely capable of such a feat. So when you speak of "the Phallus's perpetual demand for either obeisance or placation." You speak of a man's need, or men's need as you see fit.

Lastly, if I was insulting, it was to the ideas you so flippantly espoused in an otherwise light hearted thread, and not to you personally. It might also be worth pointing out that I am not the one cursing...

Re: the perpetual question

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I humbly beg of you two: switch to decaf. This thread is not that serious. In fact, it's only not the dumbest thread I have ever started because after I started this one today, I started another one where I asked people to compare Steven Colbert to a rhinoceros. Consider that, if you would.

Re: the perpetual question

[kellan-m-solan.livejournal.com]

laughs* you're journal, you're rules. Feel free to delete as necessary.

I'm afraid I'm the kind of person who will bite at flame bait, though I do try by vaguely upscale about it. This is, in fact a discussion I try to have when it comes up. I'm always mystified by the fact that these days a woman can say whatever she wants to disparage men and everyone just smiles or applauds the insight. On the other hand, even if I wanted to make such blanket comments about women (which I very much do not) I certainly could not do so without triggering a storm of controversies, not to mention destroying any future of mine in politics }-).

If we actually want better gender relations let us shoot for fairness and not a changing of the guard. Unless of course you lass's actually want to punish us for a few thousand years to get even. In that case, I guess I'll have to choose sides!

Also: if Colbert were a skinny-geeky rhinoceros, would he really be that different from now? I know I'd watch more.

Re: the perpetual question

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure, based on previous interactions with rio_luna, that her initial comment was fairly tongue-in-cheek. My request for an answer to the "Why no dick in film" question certainly was, and I was pretty sure that she was giving me a satirical answer.

As a rule, I don't care to hear/read/be around for any generalized disparagement of any gender. I don't even like to listen to people talk about what 'men are like' or 'women are like' even in positive terms. It doesn't seem terribly constructive or useful from any angle, nor is any of it likely be accurate to any given individual. In fact, I am told that I am too hardass on people about it, and that I should, in fact, calm the hell down. I'm still deciding whether or not I should comply with the request.

So, as distasteful as it is to see people get worked up about things that don't seem to warrant the outpouring of doom, it is doubly distasteful to me to see it happen about whether or not men are more evil than women or vice versa. I reject the very ground of the argument. (I also don't usually count myself as a lass, or as having any particular investment in establishing matriarchy, but that's another whole set of issues.)

Also, you are correct. The difference between Colbert and a rhino is perhaps not as wide as I had originally thought. It begs more consideration.

Re: the perpetual question

[kellan-m-solan.livejournal.com]

I will try to refrain from calling you 'lass' in that case. But you have to remember that a large portion of my memories of you involve your being dressed as a pirate, or dressing me as a pirate, and also a liberal amount of drink...

and possibly you calling me lass... }-)

Re: the perpetual question

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Also, I'm not deleting it, I'm just asking you to not continue it unless you are both having fun at it. It reads to me like you're not.

Re: the perpetual question

[kellan-m-solan.livejournal.com]

I'm always having fun. It is safe to assume, that if I'm engaged enough by something to be participating in it I'm enjoying it. This is especially true of discussion/debate/argument of any kind. Since there is always a chance I might learn something. Which is very exciting. And also, the tiny outside possibility that I might facilitate someone else's learning (I don't count on that one though).

I am very much the sort of person who walks away from things he doesn't like. At worst, I might walk back-wards to keep from turning my back... but still very much away. You should know this about me by now }-)

P.S. I would vote for non-compliance with that particular request. It seems like a right healthy view you have going.

[capriciouslass.livejournal.com]

I wondered that about both the rhino and the elephants. However, I chalked it up to the fact that they had LOTS of boats.
Maybe they kept the animals calm by the application of some type of sedatives? Either that or the God-King kept them calm, because, you know, he's a God and all that (even if he can be injured by a spear).

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Our vote was for lots of opiates. The dosage would have to be carefully monitored, because I'm imagining that cleaning up rhinoceros vomit is the worst job in the Persian empire.

Also, bonus points for being the first person to comment about the rhinoceros rather than the penises :)

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Do they actually show the rhinos getting off the boats? (The film isn't open here yet.) Because I recall that at least one of the Persian kings was supposed to have walked across the Hellespont on a bridge of boats.

Otherwise, I vote for strong ropes and a cork stuck on the end of the horn (or otherwise wrapped to blunt it). You might use a little opium or similar to calm it down, but I shouldn't think you'd want to use much -- any animal being hauled up from Africa would be a valuabe investment, and you wouldn't want to risk overdose.

[hekatatia.livejournal.com]

Clearly they slipped the rhino some drugs in a glass of milk before setting out!

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

What, like B. A. Baracus?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

He's a little like a rhino...

[diermuid.livejournal.com]

At that tech level, how do you get a rhinoceros on a boat, *keep* the rhinoceros on the boat, and keep the boat seaworthy, i.e. with no holes in it from rampaging rhinoceros?

They had magic tech- Opium.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

That was the best answer we could arrive at, too. Steady poppy diet.

[diermuid.livejournal.com]

Or a Rhino-Whisperer.

[chronarchy.livejournal.com]

Tina made two comments that I thought you'd appreciate, one during the movie, and one after.

The first comment, during the movie, was, "There's just not enough blood!" She later explained this by the fact that there weren't 6 ft. geysers of blood squirting out of the necks of beheaded folk. "Is it too much to ask for a movie to follow anatomical reality?" I told her that most people thought there was too much blood, and she was astounded. "But there should have been geysers!"

The comment after was, "I thought it was funny how the two guys kept flirting. Wish they would have just kissed and been done with it." And this I found particularly amusing because I never noticed that they were, in fact, flirting. I completely missed that both times I watched it.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

She's right. There should, by all rights, have been geysers. When the fellow gets ridden down and decapitated by the lone horseman he is paying no attention to, the whole area there should have drowned in blood. Instead, we got a lovely long shot of his beautiful headless body unstained by a single crimson drop. But what can you do?

Also, the flirting. How did you miss the flirting?
I mean, I'm pretty sure that you and I have dramatically different concepts of what flirting might consist of, but still.

geysers

[rfunk.livejournal.com]

Just what sort of demonstrations do they do in vet school labs, anyway?

I'm sure "just kiss and be done with it" is a common sentiment among those observing flirting of any sort. But it's often not as much fun for the participants.