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.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:17 pm (UTC)CheesyDramatic Narration Now voice.no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:22 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:31 pm (UTC)the perpetual question
Date: 2007-03-13 03:33 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:34 pm (UTC)Re: the perpetual question
Date: 2007-03-13 03:36 pm (UTC):P
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:43 pm (UTC)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).
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:45 pm (UTC)Also, bonus points for being the first person to comment about the rhinoceros rather than the penises :)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 03:52 pm (UTC)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????
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 04:07 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 04:09 pm (UTC)Also and unrelated, can you change the title of the boardgames.meetup to not-February? I just posted about it in
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 05:02 pm (UTC)They had magic tech- Opium.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 05:16 pm (UTC)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. . .
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 05:22 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 05:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 06:07 pm (UTC)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.
Re: the perpetual question
Date: 2007-03-13 06:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 06:47 pm (UTC)Look out, or you'll start to sound like me...
Re: the perpetual question
Date: 2007-03-13 06:55 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 06:55 pm (UTC)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).
Re: the perpetual question
Date: 2007-03-13 07:01 pm (UTC)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.
geysers
Date: 2007-03-13 07:31 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 07:57 pm (UTC)::coffeespew:: sorry, I just had the image of 1000 hoplites miming the Battle of Thermopylae.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 08:06 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 08:27 pm (UTC)Men of Thespiae perhaps?
Re: the perpetual question
Date: 2007-03-13 08:48 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2007-03-13 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 09:20 pm (UTC)Re: the perpetual question
Date: 2007-03-13 09:40 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2007-03-13 10:04 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2007-03-13 10:14 pm (UTC)Re: the perpetual question
Date: 2007-03-13 10:58 pm (UTC)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.
Re: the perpetual question
Date: 2007-03-13 11:04 pm (UTC)and possibly you calling me lass... }-)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-14 04:18 am (UTC)