If you've seen it, your reviews here

[Nivek]

No, I dont think everyone here has seen it GSFOR, but I think the 5 people who didn't like it are drowning the new peoples posts out with all of their pointless grandstanding and endless talk about symbolism, metaphors, badgering (including insulting our intelligence now), or whatever stance they take to show their disappointment in the film (or it's fans, since we enjoyed it but cant see Spear=Penis).

 

[GSFOR]

No, I dont think everyone here has seen it GSFOR, but I think the 5 people who didn't like it are drowning the new peoples posts out with all of their pointless grandstanding and endless talk about symbolism, metaphors, badgering (including insulting our intelligence now), or whatever stance they take to show their disappointment in the film (or it's fans, since we enjoyed it but cant see Spear=Penis).

I'm not too worry about those who post negative comments. Like I said before we see what we wanna see. I think the movie was great, no complaints, I still watch the teaser Trailer. I can't wait for the dvd.

 

[juarez]

Umm no he's not. He's also portrayed as masculine. If you are gonna use quotes use all of it. Its also stated that in portraying Xerxes as a god king he is shown with all qualities.

Quick call GLAAD.
You are totally missing the point IMO.

In what way does this dispute what I'm saying in terms of Snyder constructing Xerxes as a creepy predatory homosexual stereotype? He admitted in the interview to portraying Xerxes as ambiguously feminine with the intention of using such ambiguity as a means to cause anxiety and discomfort in straight male audiences. I'm not sure why your point that Xerxes also possesses masculine qualitites undermines the inherent homophobia of this characterisation. Oh and because Xerxes is a "god king" it's ok that he is shown with stereotypical predatory homosexual qualities? Right, because such qualities are inherent in the depiction of "god-kings" and not at all a conscious choice on the director/writer's part to portray them so and make the lazy connection between homosexuality and villainy.

And it's good that you brought up GLAAD, seeing as they campaign against the defamation of gays in the media I'm willing to bet they'll be commenting on the homophobia of 300 soon. In the meantime why don't you look at the myriad of other gay anti defamation websites that are already pointing out the bigotry in this film such as www.afterelton.com.

 

[green]

In what way does this dispute what I'm saying in terms of Snyder constructing Xerxes as a creepy predatory homosexual stereotype? He admitted in the interview to portraying Xerxes as ambiguously feminine with the intention of using such ambiguity as a means to cause anxiety and discomfort in straight male audiences. I'm not sure why your point that Xerxes also possesses masculine qualitites undermines the inherent homophobia of this characterisation. Oh and because Xerxes is a "god king" it's ok that he is shown with stereotypical predatory homosexual qualities? Right, because such qualities are inherent in the depiction of "god-kings" and not at all a conscious choice on the director/writer's part to portray them so and make the lazy connection between homosexuality and villainy.

Because you are picking out one characteristic the character had and magnifying it to fit how you perceived he was portrayed. It's your opinion, you're entitled to it, I just dont agree.

And it's good that you brought up GLAAD, seeing as they campaign against the defamation of gays in the media I'm willing to bet they'll be commenting on the homophobia of 300 soon. In the meantime why don't you look at the myriad of other gay anti defamation websites that are already pointing out the bigotry in this film such as www.afterelton.com.

Yeah, I dont need to even go to the website to already tell you what they might be saying. As a gay man Im quite aware of how the community operates. I live in San Francisco, I dont think I need to tell you there are lots of homosexuals that live here. I have not spoken to one that feels the movie was homophobic. Homoerotic at times maybe but not homophobic.

 

[Manhunter]

...Oh and because Xerxes is a "god king" it's ok that he is shown with stereotypical predatory homosexual qualities?...

No need to live in fear your whole life juarez, just cause you don't wawnt to go to the party doesn't mean it's not nice to get invited. Take it as a compliment.t:

 

[juarez]

Because you are picking out one characteristic the character had and magnifying it to fit how you perceived he was portrayed. It's your opinion, you're entitled to it, I just dont agree.

Yeah, I dont need to even go to the website to already tell you what they might be saying. As a gay man Im quite aware of how the community operates. I live in San Francisco, I dont think I need to tell you there are lots of homosexuals that live here. I have not spoken to one that feels the movie was homophobic. Homoerotic at times maybe but not homophobic.

Did you miss the fact that Snyder has stated in an interview that he characterised Xerxes as gay in order to freak out straight audiences? What part of that aren't you getting? I am not arguing the character is homophobic because of something I perceive in the portrayal, I'm going off what the director has explicitly said. And of course many gay men are only going to read homoeroticism in the film, I'm sure all they're seeing is a visual buffet of man flesh. That doesn't dispute the intended homophobia by Snyder and Miller, nor the hetero-normative reconstruction of the spartans themselves. Hollywood has once again erased the gay past with this film, and to quote another critic it "makes homoerotica acceptable for homophobes".

 

[juarez]

No need to live in fear your whole life juarez, just cause you don't wawnt to go to the party doesn't mean it's not nice to get invited. Take it as a compliment.t:

Yes yes, you're absolutely right. I take it all back. I really ought to take it as a compliment that Hollywood has once again chosen to deny the existence of heroic gay figures and has given cinema another sinister sexually ambiguous villain. I'm giddy about it.....no, really.

 

[green]

Did you miss the fact that Snyder has stated in an interview that he characterised Xerxes as gay in order to freak out straight audiences? What part of that aren't you getting? I am not arguing the character is homophobic because of something I perceive in the portrayal, I'm going off what the director has explicitly said. And of course many gay men are only going to read homoeroticism in the film, I'm sure all they're seeing is a visual buffet of man flesh. That doesn't dispute the intended homophobia by Snyder and Miller, nor the hetero-normative reconstruction of the spartans themselves. Hollywood has once again erased the gay past with this film, and to quote another critic it "makes homoerotica acceptable for homophobes".

Miss the fact, Im the one that provided the link and the quote in this thread in the first place. Did you even read the whole article? Here Ill give you another quote from it.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20014479,00.html

''Some people have said to me, 'Your movie is homoerotic,' and some have said, 'Your movie's homophobic.' In my mind, the movie is neither. But I don't have a problem with people interpreting it the way they'd like to.'' As long as they buy tickets first.

Here's another quote fron Snyder
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9982

Now, I've also seen a handful of messages left on public message boards where people are saying that "300" promotes racist ideals, that it promotes white supremacy with the Spartans over the darker skinned Persians. So, how do you respond to those kind of accusations, especially now that the film is out, whether it's from the government of Iran or someone posting on a message board?

You know, when I see that, when I see someone use words like "neocon," "homophobic," "homoerotic" or "racist" in their review, I kind of just think they don't get the movie and don't understand. It's a graphic novel movie about a bunch of guys that are stomping the snot out of each other. As soon as you start to frame it like that, it becomes clear that you've missed the point entirely.

 

[Manhunter]

Yes yes, you're absolutely right. I take it all back. I really ought to take it as a compliment that Hollywood has once again chosen to deny the existence of heroic gay figures and has given cinema another sinister sexually ambiguous villain. I'm giddy about it.....no, really.

That wasn't what I was implying, but as long as your having fun.

But hey, when it's all said and done, if the villain doesn't want to be demonized, maybe they shouldn't invade in the first place?

 

[ゴジラ]

Symbolism..Does this mean WTC was about Feminism ? The Two World Trade Centers symbolized Two Phallic objects.While the planes if they are looked at upside down look like lower case v's.The v's symbolize Vaginas over taking the Phallic buisness world...Come on people.

 

[juarez]

Yes I read the entire article but his admittance of purposefully intending Xerxes as provoking a response of gay panic in straight males cancels out his denial of homophobia. Either Snyder doesn't know the definition of homophobia or he is just trying to cover himself from legitimate criticism and concern. Regardless of whether he believes his film to be homophobic or not in stating that he portrayed his villain as sexually ambigious to scare straight audiences the bigotry of Snyder and of 300 is painfully evident.

 

[juarez]

That wasn't what I was implying, but as long as your having fun.

But hey, when it's all said and done, if the villain doesn't want to be demonized, maybe they shouldn't invade in the first place?

And what does that have to do with the discussion of Snyder's characterisation of Xerxes as sexually ambiguous? Surely it is evident that Xerxes is the villain of the piece from the fact that he wants to invade and conquer a nation, what is of concern to me is that Miller and Snyder opted to emphasise his villainy by contructing him as sexually ambiguous, relying on gay panic and fear of the other to make audiences hate and root against him. The real Xerxes possessed no such characteristics so why did Miller and Snyder decide to portray him so? Because they consciously chose to demonise their villain with sexually ambiguous traits, connecting homosexuality with evil and thereby demonising gays everywhere.

 

[GSFOR]

And what does that have to do with the discussion of Snyder's characterisation of Xerxes as sexually ambiguous? Surely it is evident that Xerxes is the villain of the piece from the fact that he wants to invade and conquer a nation, what is of concern to me is that Miller and Snyder opted to emphasise his villainy by contructing him as sexually ambiguous, relying on gay panic and fear of the other to make audiences hate and root against him. The real Xerxes possessed no such characteristics so why did Miller and Snyder decide to portray him so? Because they consciously chose to demonise their villain with sexually ambiguous traits, connecting homosexuality with evil and thereby demonising gays everywhere.

I love this movie, I loved xerxes though he did seem a lil gay. I don't care ,his costume was crazy, and he was bad ass. I didn't hate him, I think the movie was well done. I will admit xerxes femenine side kinda was strange.However it was not enough for me to hate gays, and see them as bad people. If that's what you feel, then hey you're entitled. I am loving this flick, can't wait for the dvd...It showed how much of real man Leonidas was. He saw xerxes feminine side, yet it did not bother him to get up to his face, and tell him off. If you notice as xerxes rest his hands on his shoulders Leonidas listen, without a care in the world.I don't care who was gay, and who wasn't, I just want the dvd to come out already. I think I am going to see it in an IMAX theater after hearing all the buzz about the Imax theater.

 

[Nivek]

Is this just another screen name from another troublemaker who was banned, or is this guy just really, really missing the point?

 

[Manhunter]

And what does that have to do with the discussion of Snyder's characterisation of Xerxes as sexually ambiguous? Surely it is evident that Xerxes is the villain of the piece from the fact that he wants to invade and conquer a nation, what is of concern to me is that Miller and Snyder opted to emphasise his villainy by contructing him as sexually ambiguous, relying on gay panic and fear of the other to make audiences hate and root against him. The real Xerxes possessed no such characteristics so why did Miller and Snyder decide to portray him so? Because they consciously chose to demonise their villain with sexually ambiguous traits, connecting homosexuality with evil and thereby demonising gays everywhere.

First off, leave Snyder out of this, he's following Miller's characterization to a T. Secondly, Xerxes' androgynous, feminine qualities were probably hightened by Miller to convey the seductive nature of Xerxes power. He doesn't rule solely by fear and intimidation, his greatest asset for commanding loyalty is seduction, offering material wealth for obedience.

He's always offering a material trade off for loyalty, if Xerxes were a giant of a mongol with heavy brow and rippling man meat in appearance and mannerisms, he wouldn't fit the personality of a man who attempts to appear rational in his thirst for conquest by offering a beneficial trade off to those who ally themselves with him.

Xerxes is a trickster, a deceiver who seduces lesser beings into doing his bidding. These types of characters are almost always portrayed more feminine than your "crush all who oppose me", types.

 

[juarez]

First off, leave Snyder out of this, he's following Miller's characterization to a T. Secondly, Xerxes' androgynous, feminine qualities were probably hightened by Miller to convey the seductive nature of Xerxes power. He doesn't rule solely by fear and intimidation, his greatest asset for commanding loyalty is seduction, offering material wealth for obedience.

He's always offering a material trade off for loyalty, if Xerxes were a giant of a mongol with heavy brow and rippling man meat in appearance and mannerisms, he wouldn't fit the personality of a man who attempts to appear rational in his thirst for conquest by offering a beneficial trade off to those who ally themselves with him.

Xerxes is a trickster, a deceiver who seduces lesser beings into doing his bidding. These types of characters are almost always portrayed more feminine than your "crush all who oppose me", types.

Yes but it wasn't Miller who explicitly stated that the villain is purposefully sexually ambiguous to put the willies up nice, normal heteros in the audience was it now? T'was Snyder. But you're right, I am also under no illusion that Miller is anything other than a homophobe.

I understand what you're saying about the seductive, deceiver villain archetype, Xerxes is another in a long line of coldly malevolent rulers portrayed in cinema. However what I would take issue with is 300's depiction of him as steeped in "sexual perversion", as being part of a dangerous and freaky sexual aesthetic without boundaries, as represented in the scene in his tent featuring disfigured lesbians and sexually ambiguous looking characters. It's a juvenile conceptualisation of pansexuality, contrasting the "healthy", "normal" heterosexuality of the spartans (flying in the face of what history says) with Xerxes' "unhealthy" appetites.

And even if Xerxes is just another in a cinematic legacy of sexually ambiguous villains what does that say about the state of homophobia within cinema? You can't just say "oh well, there's always been feminised villains in film" to excuse it, because homosexuality has always been used as a shorthand for evil and monstrosity in cinema, and 300 is indulging in that bigotry.

 

[juarez]

Is this just another screen name from another troublemaker who was banned, or is this guy just really, really missing the point?

And why would you assume that I'm a banned troublemaker just because I'm contending that 300 features homophobic characterisations? Can't I do that or something? And Nivek, do please educate me on this point I appear to be missing, I bow to your superior wisdom.

 

[Nivek]

Not helping yourself here. 8 posts in and your getting up in my grill? Hmmm...

as for your attempts at making 300 sound (*gasp*) HOMOPHOBIC, the previous responces to you pretty much brought up alot I would've said anyway. Besides, it seems more like your lashing out than actually getting to any point.

 

[juarez]

Not helping yourself here. 8 posts in and your getting up in my grill? Hmmm...

as for your attempts at making 300 sound (*gasp*) HOMOPHOBIC, the previous responces to you pretty much brought up alot I would've said anyway. Besides, it seems more like your lashing out than actually getting to any point.

Since when does post count dictate subservience/silence on subjects one feels strongly about? Should I go sit at the back of the bus until my count reaches triple digits?

As for my point anyone could see that I've elucidated it clearly and with evidence/observation to substantiate it. It is evident from your post above however that you don't see any issue with a film being homophobic and offensive to gays so I wouldn't expect you to concur with my argument. Boo hoo. You're clearly this film's target demographic. Bully for you.

 

[Mr. Socko]

How is this movie offensive to gays?

 

[Nivek]

Hell if I know.

 

[Agentsands77]

How is this movie offensive to gays?

Some have claimed that the connection of homosexuality to the villain and the connection of heterosexuality to the heroes (who actually mock someone by calling them gay at one point) is homophobic. Zack Snyder's comments that he increased Xerxes' effeminateness (to the extent of adding transsexuals in his tent) to make straight males in the audience afraid of being raped by the character have also brought some heat down on the film.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Lolz

ya betta be scured of bein' raped by Xerxes, he's gona get ya in da butt!

 

[juarez]

Lolz

ya betta be scured of bein' raped by Xerxes, he's gona get ya in da butt!

Thanks so much for your contribution! You've really grasped the sensitivity of the subject of homophobia and in no way undermined or made light of the fact that homophobic rhetoric produced in the media dehumanises gays and encourages bigots to hate them! You're my idol....for reellz 1!! 11!!1!11

 

[dpbrave84]

Thanks so much for your contribution! You've really grasped the sensitivity of the subject of homophobia and in no way undermined or made light of the fact that homophobic rhetoric produced in the media dehumanises gays and encourages bigots to hate them! You're my idol....for reellz 1!! 11!!1!11

man you are such an idiot, i read most of your posts and OMG, why cant a movie just be a movie, why do things always have to have some kind of special meaning...braveheart showed more male ass than this movie