300 (spoilers)

[muscadine]

We saw 300 on DVD last night. I'm not sure what to make of it. As novelized history, and I hesitate to use the term, it is clearly more fiction than history. It was too preachy to just be an action flick. On the surface some of the ideology seems nice enough, but ends up pretty disturbing:

The Good                             The Other
freedom                              tyranny
underdogs                            overwhelming force
reason                               corrupt religion and ...mysticism?
white                                non-white
eugenics                             physical abnormality/alteration (unless produced in battle)
chiseled pecs/abs                    chiseled pecs/abs with lipstick, eye makeup, and jewelry
your wife taking it from behind o_o  your boy lover taking it from behind
self-discipline                      sensuality
soldiers                             pretty much any other profession, but especially:
                                     priests, politicians

The first three might be a potential starting point for an ironic critique of US/Christian empire, or even a healthy critique of fundamentalist Islam. The latter chance is ruined by a blatant racism and exoticism. The former possibility is also belied by these elements -- despite the subversive possibility that we might actually be an overwhelming force imposing our views and empire, the more resonant message of the film is that Western civilization is the underdog holding off the barbarians at the gate. Middle East, but also Asia and Africa (think Iran, but don't ignore anxieties around, say, China or India or what they represent). There is definitely some Western cultural critique as well, plenty of corruption to go around, but it is pointed and allegorical rather than ironic -- jabs against religion, politics, multi-cultural sensitivity, and debauchery.

For some reason I'm really disturbed by the antagonism towards mysticism.

Comments

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Well, its a fuzzy thing because pederasty would have been the institutionalized, accepted form of same-sex activity/relationship at the time, whereas a modern audience tends to (at the very least) conflate "boy love" with adult homosexuality. Where the homophobia comes in is that these uber-masculine Spartans are portrayed as casting aspersions on a decadent Athenian practice, when the reality is that Sparta seems to have also had a version of institutionalized pederasty and may actually have been the first Greek city-state to institutionalize it.

The other piece is the androgyny of Xerxes (which is not so much homophobia as transphobia, but some people argue these are often and perhaps always one and the same anyhow) and his pseudo-lesbian harem as symbols of decadence -- again, set against the uber-masculinity and heterosexual marital and reproductive purity of the Spartans.