300: Homophobic Propaganda for Bush’s Upcoming Invasion of Iran?
The movie 300, based on the Frank Miller graphic novel, has earned $70 million at the box office, breaking some records. But if you read some of the commentary out there you might not be too interested in seeing it.
All the villains are gay. All the good guys are white and the bad guys are black. The whole thing is just Frank Miller's thinly-veiled cheering for Bush to invade Iran. Etc.
Now, 300 is definitely not a historical documentary. But I don't think the criticisms mentioned above are completely true-although I can certainly see why many people may have jumped to them.
First off, any movie about war coming out in the year 2007 will inevitably be seen as a commentary or allegory for the current War in Iraq. That's understandable, but probably not reflective of the intent behind this particular movie.
In fact, 300 (the novel) came out in 1999, well before the current Bush presidency. Ah, but isn't Frank Miller known to be somewhat right-wing, and couldn't he have updated the movie to better reflect his clash-of-civilizations views today? Miller has said that 300 is largely director Zack Snyder's film. Although he seems more-or-less pleased with the result, he plans on directing any movies based on his books himself from now on.
Second, it is hard to equate 300 Spartans repelling an invasion of their homeland by a technologically and numerically superior force of Persians with the current Iraq War or any planned invasion of Iran. That is, unless you switch the metaphorical teams. The United States is clearly the superior, invading force in the Middle East.
Leonidas personally leads his Spartans against Xerxes' forces and is able to succeed because of superior tactics and knowledge of the terrain. This has been the exact opposite of the current administration's handling of war. Insurgents have used their knowledge of the neighborhoods of Baghdad to their advantage, and are using asymmetrical warfare tactics with unfortunate success. Where was the scene of Leonidas getting into the Laconian Air National Guard and avoiding combat?
The charges of homophobia are largely based on two things - the "boy lovers" crack about Athens and the notion that Xerxes was portrayed as gay. Many have pointed out that the Spartans most likely had just as much pederasty as the rest of Greece at the time, so the joke didn't even make sense to anyone with a little historical context.
True enough. But I would like to point out that sexual relationships between men and young boys are not the same as homosexual relationships between consenting adults. You can condemn child molestation without being homophobic - in fact, many gay organizations make this point themselves.
As for how whether or not Xerxes was gay - I can see where that interpretation comes from, but I guess I didn't interpret it that way. Critics cite the makeup and jewelry, but that to me seemed like obvious symbols of decadence and Xerxes' facade of otherworldliness (and therefor godhood). There is one scene where Xerxes puts his hand on Leonidas' shoulder which some have said looks like a come on - to me, the scene looked more like an attempt at paternalism on Xerxes' part. He was, after all, offering Leonidas control of Greece in return for acknowledging Persia's rule, as you would offer your son the keys to the car if he respects your curfew.
This is all not to say that 300 was a perfect film. My biggest criticisms were:
1) Although the vast majority of 300 is an almost miraculously successful translation of comic art to live action, the freakish characters like Ephialtes were overdone and looked a little ridiculous. Why would the Immortals look like the orcs from Lord of the Rings? What was with the giant fat guy with axes for hands?
2) All the mentions of fighting for freedom were a bit much. I get the point, that the Greek city-states fought dearly for their freedom from external rule, but most modern viewers will think the Spartans were talking about the modern idea of freedom - that is, personal political and economic freedom. Sparta wasn't exactly a shining example of this kind of freedom, built on the slavery of serfs working the land. There was some democracy, but only for the few.
3) One of aspects of the story of this battle that made it interesting was the fact that Leonidas knew he was doomed. According to Herodotus, an oracle had told the Spartans that they would either lose their kingdom, or lose their king. So beyond the incredible odds, Leonidas would have gone knowing there was no chance of return. In 300 instead they draw a distinction between the mysticism of Persia and the rationality of the Greeks. It's an interesting choice, but I kind of missed the fatalism of Herodotus' telling.
4) I thought the scenes back in Sparta of Gorgo's attempts to get support for sending the whole army were a good addition, but it was more than just 300 Spartans fighting this war. Thespians and Thebans fought and died with the Spartans and Athens was busy preparing to fight Persia at sea. Adding a bit of larger context, even indirectly could have made this a better movie.
Any film worth watching will inspire different interpretations and criticisms, but I recommend you watch 300 before taking some viewer's criticisms (including mine) to heart.
I know that you are all bored waiting for the movie 300 to come out whilst surrounded by the sub par offerings of entertainment Hollywood has thrown you like spoiled meat to a bad dog. There is a movie out there to quench your thirst. I guarantee that you will appreciate the homicidal goodness that is the movie Zodiac.
Now, I do not pay attention to pop culture like most other people in America. I didn't have any idea what this movie was about or even that one of my top hotties of all times Jake Gyllenhaal was in this movie. I just know that we were bored on a Sunday night in suburbia and decided to go and see a movie. I don't watch TV at all, I get all of my tasty tidbits of entertainment from the internet, so I have not seen any advertisements for this movie. I do go to the movies sometimes, but and I had not seen any previews for this movie, either. Basically my point is that I don't feel that this movie got the advertisement that it deserved. I don't know how much you know about the Zodiac Killer, but this movie will fill you in on all the details. I know you worry about the length. Don't. It says it's three hours long but it really doesn't feel like it at all. At least until I had to pee, then it felt kinda long. But it is three hours long, that's an incredible amount of time for me to hold my bladder, being a woman of small bladder capacity.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays Robert Greysmith, a cartoonist working with the San Fransisco Chronicle who decides to write a book on the Zodiac Killer after no suspects are ever apprehended. This is a true story based off of the book by Robert Greysmith by the same name. This movie is intense and the acting is superior. I don't know what else to say here, except that I have heard that David Fincher is perhaps as obsessive as Robert Greysmith and that he is incredibly meticulous when he directs his films. Which is maybe why we get such fantastic films from him such as this movie, Fight Club and The Game.
Also, I guess that I am able to forgive James Vanderbilt for Darkness Falls now that he has screen written such a good movie, but he is not completely in the clear as there was already a book written for him to mooch off of. I am just saying some of the shame has cleared his name with this gem, just not all of it. I mean, how seriously can you take a horror movie where the bad guy is the Tooth Fairy? The Tooth Fairy is grounded, yo. 
Basically, if you go to see this movie, which I highly recommend you do, I just suck at saying why, you will leave the theater feeling like that is one of the best movies you have seen since Children of Men. Unless you didn't see Children of Men, in which case you need to go out and rent/buy it when it's available (yes, I am aware that there is currently no release date set, but I hear from internal sources that it's due to come out March 27) since you happened to miss one of the very best movies of 2006.
My grade for Zodiac is 8.9 out of 10
Reasoning: Very good. A little too long. Phenomenal acting. True and scary story.
Look At My Striped Shirt - Confessions of People You Love To Hate
by The Phat Phree
1. Give the gift of convenience. It is the year 2006, and yet you cannot fly around town on a hoverboard, jet pack, or even a flying car. Luckily, we do have robots to do menial household labor. 
3. Give the gift of power. Not everyone is a 
4. Give the gift of brains. Publisher O'Reilly is well-known for their technical books and their fun "Hacks" series. 
5. Give the gift of cool. Like most people, you are probably sick of boring old ice cube trays. Wait, you say you haven't given ice cube trays any thought in your entire life, and that my premise is specious?