Yes, "300" is the most homoerotic action movie ever made

[Knorf]

[QUOTE=Cisco]
You must not have read the thread. The homoeroticism angle is discussed at length.
[/QUOTE]

I did read the tread.

As I wrote, that thread is not specifically about the homoeroticism of the movie, although it is one of several topics under discussion.

This thread is specifically about homoeroticism in 300, and by extension the appearance or discovery of homoerotic contexts in general.

Oh, and apparently there’s a side argument about your misunderstanding of the word “specifically.” Let’s move on.

[Ghanima]

[QUOTE=lissener]
My opininion is that there are far too *few *such people. More homoeroticism, people! From now on, for every scene, in every movie, where in order to move the plot forward it’s necessary for the heroine’s blouse to be torn off, there should be a corresponding scene involving leather man panties.
[/QUOTE]

I second. All in favor?

P.S. In order from from Gay to Gayest:

1. 300
2. Alexander
3. Jarhead

That is so not a bad thing.

[pravnik]

[QUOTE=lissener]
Um, no. Once you put the word “depict” into the mix, you acknowledge a third party’s–the filmmakers’–influence on the material.
[/quote]
I think you may have gotten whooshed on that one.

@lissener

And if you guys are claiming that **300 **is a historically accurate depiction, well, then, let me just tell you that you are lone voices crying in the wilderness. I really don’t think historical accuracy is gonna count for any kind of defense, of anything, with this one. I have rarely seen a movie where the filmmakers have with such gay abandon painted *“Fuck historical accuracy!” *with such a wide brush all over a movie.

Oh, ye gods no. The Spartans didn’t even have armor on.

[teela_brown]

Many years ago, early 80’s, I think, I and my husband-then-boyfriend went to a showing of Jason and the Argonauts at a theater in Hollywood. It only slowly dawned on us that I was the only girl in a theater full of guys. As the film went on, the guys all booed whenever a woman was portrayed onscreen, which wasn’t often. Most of the film was filled with scantily-attired, sweaty, well-muscled Greek sailors. My husband enjoyed the film because he has never seen Harryhausen special effects before, and forever after points out, “Hey, there’s that gay film” whenever he sees me watching a rerun.

[RickJay]

[QUOTE=Ghanima]

P.S. In order from from Gay to Gayest:

1. 300
2. Alexander
3. Jarhead

That is so not a bad thing.
[/QUOTE]

“Top Gun” remains, in my opinion, possibly the gayest movie ever made that was not actually gay porn.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=lissener]
Um, no. Once you put the word “depict” into the mix, you acknowledge a third party’s–the filmmakers’–influence on the material.
[/quote]

Um, so? Aren’t you also claiming the filmmaker intent is irrelevant? As such, whatever influence the filmmaker might have had can be waved away in favour of how the viewer chooses to interpret the work. Personally, I think this attitude renders all film analysis moot, but whatever.

In any case, contemporary depictions of Greek warriors shows them dressed pretty much as the characters in the film were, albeit with armoured breastplates, so the characters showing a lot of skin and muscles doesn’t strike me as far-fetched and in need of a search for a homoerotic subtext. Spears were used to kill people, so claiming a phallic significance is pointless since if its homoerotic for these characters to use spears, it must be equally homoerotic for every depiction of any spear-wielding warrior.

Of course 300 is wildly inaccurate. So what? Every war movie screws with history. It’s completely irrelevant to the issue of claiming it’s a highly homoerotic film. The flaws I alluded to earlier involve hammy acting, silly characterizations, leaden plot twists, internal inconsistencies and over-choreographed fight scenes with a tendency to go into “sword time” (the 5th-century BCE equivalent of Matrix “bullet time”) every thirty seconds. Had the 300 consisted of paunchy guys covered in armor, these flaws would remain.

[lissener]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Um, so? Aren’t you also claiming the filmmaker intent is irrelevant?
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m just saying that your conception of the filmmaker’s intent is not the trump card; nor is your conception of historical accuracy. I’m saying there are a lot more variables in the discussion. You keep positing a false dichotomy, and bouncing back and forth from one absolute to its opposite whenever I try to engage your point.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
As such, whatever influence the filmmaker might have had can be waved away in favour of how the viewer chooses to interpret the work. Personally, I think this attitude renders all film analysis moot, but whatever.
[/QUOTE]
How so? It renders film analysis more vital and interesting, because it admits of more variables and possibilities.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
In any case, contemporary depictions of Greek warriors shows them dressed pretty much as the characters in the film were, albeit with armoured breastplates, so the characters showing a lot of skin and muscles doesn’t strike me as far-fetched and in need of a search for a homoerotic subtext. Spears were used to kill people, so claiming a phallic significance is pointless since if its homoerotic for these characters to use spears, it must be equally homoerotic for every depiction of any spear-wielding warrior.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, chill. No one is claiming any such sweeping universality. You’re looking for “rules” that will be unchangeable in all contexts, with all representations. You’re suggesting that since people DID use spears, then any artistic representation of this fact, no matter the artistic framing of it, is therefore ipso facto by definition NOT EVER going to be homoerotic; historical precedence renders all artistic context impossible.

No one is making such sweeping generalizations. Well, you are. We are talking about THIS movie, and THIS MOVIE’S imagery. You can’t have it both ways: you attempt to “disprove” an artistic opinion you disagree by suggesting it’s a sweeping generalization, and then you “prove” your own opinion by . . . insisting on sweeping generaliztions.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Of course 300 is wildly inaccurate. So what? Every war movie screws with history. It’s completely irrelevant to the issue of claiming it’s a highly homoerotic film.
[/QUOTE]
Well then it’s a good thing that no one has made any such point. The only reason historical accuracy has been brought up is because YOU used it to “prove” that the movie couldn’t possibly be homoerotic. Seriously, yours is the most confused, self-contradictory argument I’ve seen here in a while. In any forum.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
The flaws I alluded to earlier involve hammy acting, silly characterizations, leaden plot twists, internal inconsistencies and over-choreographed fight scenes with a tendency to go into “sword time” (the 5th-century BCE equivalent of Matrix “bullet time”) every thirty seconds. Had the 300 consisted of paunchy guys covered in armor, these flaws would remain.
[/QUOTE]

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]

For the record, Zach Snyder said he included homosexual elements in Xerxes to scare the hell out of the target audience – young, straight males. “What’s more scary to a 20-year-old boy than a giant god-king who wants to have his way with you?””

[/QUOTE]

Wow, I just completely lost any kind of respect I might have had for the man.

[Scissorjack]

[QUOTE=RickJay]
“Top Gun” remains, in my opinion, possibly the gayest movie ever made that was not actually gay porn.
[/QUOTE]

If you don’t count Rambo III.

[F.U.Shakespeare]

It’s a source of much amusement (to me at least) that so many avowed opponents of homosexuality spend more time thinking about the details than most homosexuals probably do. (I will leave out here how much they think about lesbians, which apparently don’t count as homosexual).

I’m a heterosexual male, 47, and a lifelong civilian, who last year found myself deployed with a military unit to Iraq.

I was fascinated by the homoerotic tone to the hazing. Many’s the time I wanted to tell them, “This is the gayest conversation I’ve ever heard – and I’ve worked in musical theater.”*

• The Simpsons, “Brush with Greatness” (7F18), Monty Burns, “You’re the fattest thing I’ve ever seen – and I’ve been on safari”.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[Quote=lissener]

@Bryan Ekers

Um, so? Aren’t you also claiming the filmmaker intent is irrelevant?

No, I’m just saying that your conception of the filmmaker’s intent is not the trump card; nor is your conception of historical accuracy. I’m saying there are a lot more variables in the discussion. You keep positing a false dichotomy, and bouncing back and forth from one absolute to its opposite whenever I try to engage your point.
[/quote]

No, what you said was:

how or why [the movie] was made is utterly irrelevant: the act of writing and the act of reading are two separate acts entirely, and what one reacts to in a movie is none of the moviemakers’ business.

So is filmmaker intent relevant or irrelevant? Or either, when it needs to be?

How so? It renders film analysis more vital and interesting, because it admits of more variables and possibilities.

Doesn’t that carry a risk of simply following one’s pre-existing bias? I mean, if you want to see homoeroticism, or socialist propaganda, or a statement about the plight of migrant fruit pickers or anything, really, won’t you find them?

Dude, chill. No one is claiming any such sweeping universality. You’re looking for “rules” that will be unchangeable in all contexts, with all representations. You’re suggesting that since people DID use spears, then any artistic representation of this fact, no matter the artistic framing of it, is therefore ipso facto by definition NOT EVER going to be homoerotic; historical precedence renders all artistic context impossible.

Amid your failed attempt to be condescending, you miss the (heh) point. Spears have been used to impale people for a long, long time. It might be phallic symbolism if we see characters caressing them, or comparing them, or doing something other than their basic function of ramming them into people with the intent of causing serious death, which is pretty much all the Spartans of 300 do with them.

You can’t have it both ways: you attempt to “disprove” an artistic opinion you disagree by suggesting it’s a sweeping generalization, and then you “prove” your own opinion by . . . insisting on sweeping generaliztions.

I can’t and won’t even try to prove or disprove an artistic opinion. It would be like hitting smoke. At best, I can amuse myself by pointing out that a claimed basis for an opinion is crap.

Seriously, yours is the most confused, self-contradictory argument I’ve seen here in a while. In any forum.

Well, read slower, or something.

Had the elements that made the OP (rather stereotypically) yell “Gay!” been downplayed or eliminated, 300 would still be a flawed film.

[Cisco]

[QUOTE=Eyebrows 0f Doom]
Wow, I just completely lost any kind of respect I might have had for the man.
[/QUOTE]

Why? I think it’s funny.

[Zoe]

ArchiveGuy: What we’re talking about are films that are Hetero-to-the-Max, yet a scene or setpiece or relationship can’t seem to quite escape that rather conspicuous Homo-Erotic vibe.

Some of us still have to have it pointed out to us. The next time that you see Rita Hayworth’s Gilda, pay more attention to the comments between the men. It’s subtle, but it’s there.

[lissener]

I said the filmmaker’s intent was irrelevant to that specific point, in that specific instance; what in the screaming bloody huh? would make you think that that meant that I, a known hardcore moviegeek and defender of great directors, believe that director’s intent, is always, across the board, utterly irrelevant, in all contexts? Why would you extrapolate my response to a specific point to a generalization incorporating 100 years of cinema?

I specifically said that, in the point under discussion–a moviegoer’s emotional response to a film–what the director meant to do was not the point: we were talking about how people "read’ the film. How could you possibly take from this that I meant that what a director means is NEVER the point under ANY circumstances? Sheesh.

ETA: (This is a response to Bryan Ekers. My last I think.)

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=lissener]
I said the filmmaker’s intent was irrelevant to that specific point, in that specific instance
[/quote]

Yeah, and I said:

Um, so? Aren’t you also claiming the filmmaker intent is irrelevant? As such, whatever influence the filmmaker might have had can be waved away in favour of how the viewer chooses to interpret the work. Personally, I think this attitude renders all film analysis moot, but whatever.

Isn’t this discussion about “how the viewer chooses to interpret the work”?

what in the screaming bloody huh? would make you think that that meant that I, a known hardcore moviegeek and defender of great directors, believe that director’s intent, is always, across the board, utterly irrelevant, in all contexts?

For a guy with such lofty credentials about film, you could make an effort to stop wildly accusing people of going wildly overboard. What I’m saying simply isn’t that complicated. Is the use of a spear in a film always homoerotic? If not, what is it about spear use in 300 that makes it an example? That the spears were held by under-clothed men? Isn’t that a common costuming choice for African spear-wielding warrior characters in cheesy jungle flicks? If you want to speak of specifics, do so. Is 300 a film with a lot of homoerotic content? If so, what, specifically is said content and how is it different from films that are are in some ways similar but not homoerotic?

Of course, it’s not necessary for you justify your opinion. I’ll of course feel free to point out it is just opinion.

I specifically said that, in the point under discussion–a moviegoer’s emotional response to a film–what the director meant to do was not the point: we were talking about how people "read’ the film. How could you possibly take from this that I meant that what a director means is NEVER the point under ANY circumstances? Sheesh.

I don’t how you possibly thought I possibly thought that, so I figure it’s some pointlessly oblique attempt at a personal attack, straw-manning and such. Frankly, Illinois_Boy expressed the reasoned response before I came along and did a far better job than me.

[crowmanyclouds]

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
… “What’s more scary to a 20-year-old boy than a giant god-king who wants to have his way with you?” …
[/QUOTE]
A giant goddess-queen who wants to have her way with you!

CMC fnord!

[Snickers]

As a red-blooded female, I agree with the posters who say that the type of clothing exhibited in *300 *needs to be greatly expanded across all types of cinema. Homoerotic or no, I don’t particularly care, but I quite enjoyed the display.

[Lightray]

[QUOTE=Scissorjack]
If you don’t count Rambo III.
[/QUOTE]

And Tango & Cash

[Anaamika]

I think Lawrence of Arabia needs to be up in this category, too.

And I appreciate homoeroticness in movies. Forever it’s been OK for guys to look at girls and not for girls to do the same with guys. It’s about time it was considered normal!

[saoirse]

[QUOTE=Anaamika]
And I appreciate homoeroticness in movies. Forever it’s been OK for guys to look at girls and not for girls to do the same with guys. It’s about time it was considered normal!
[/QUOTE]

That’s the problem, though. No one calls the TV show Charmed homoerotic, even though it’s target demographic is women in their 30s and the show features women as naked as they can get on basic cable. It’s kind of hypocritical to use “homoerotic” as a way to put down “Those People” who think there’s something wrong with being gay. I suspect the real reason the filmmakers put in all the ugly homophobic crap in 300 is that they anticipated this kind of comment.