Friday, March 09, 2007

Teh Gayz

So, just asking: Does every single review of 300 talk about how gay the movie is? Has anyone read a single review of this movie that hasn't used the word "homoerotic" in some way?

I mean, I get it: oiled men, spear thrusts, etc. And let's not even mention the whole Greek aspect. But reading the reviews, you'd think we're lining up for Brokeback Mountain II: Persian Boogaloo.

8 comments:

Gar said...

I have not seen it, but maybe the substext is so close to text, that it really is the first thing that strikes you about the movie. My local rag had one of the few favorable reviews I've seen, and he still used the word "homoerotic".
Sometimes cigar not only is NOT just a cigar, it is obviously not just a cigar.

celestialspeedster said...

You forgot to mention that the Spartans act as virtual butt plugs in their strategy to block the Persian from entering the narrow confines of the Gates of Hell (or Gates of Hello! according to the Village Voice reviewer).

john said...

What bothers me is this: Is it actually that overt, or is it simply that -- and I feel silly even writing this -- we can't watch a movie about dudes killing each other anymore without thinking "gaaaaayyyy".

I haven't seen it yet, but the previews don't seem to support the all-gay interpretation.

celestialspeedster said...

In none of the reviews does it say that the killing is what makes this film 'gay'.
The homoeroticism comes from the predominance of scantily clad, overly buff men and the way the camera pans lasciviously over their glistening bodies. There is no other film equivalent for this except in gay porn.
That's why when reviewers watch 300, they think "Gayyyyyy!"

Oberlinblogger said...

A wonderful blogger iocaste, who I think disappeared from the blogosphere, wrote a great post on the "male gaze." The idea is that everyone, even women, watches media with the subconscious understanding that it should be viewed as a man. That is why, when we see one of a thousand movies with hot scantily clad women, we there is no lesbian subtext. Even if it is about lesbians, it is still assumed to be about a male fantasy. And similarly, when we see movies with hot scantily clad men, we assume that it is for gay men.

It has always made sense to me.

-Sam L

celestialspeedster said...

The only reason there is a subconscious understanding that the media is directed towards a male point of view is because the media is run by men. To be more specific: heterosexual, white men.

It's understandable but it doesn't make sense to me.

Niles said...

Anything Frank Miller has done (and he has a long established rep) has an overt hyper-masculinity to it, not to mention the equally annoying inability to portray women as anything but overt whores. The film is more 'live action rotoscoped to have the penciled in feel' started in SinCity. Homoerotic, maybe not, but homosociable definitely (ie: you only associate with women for teh sex. Everything meaningful is done in the company of men and violence is the acceptable bonding). Maybe he thinks he's comic book (sorry, graphic novel) genre's answer to Papa Hemingway.

I'm always going to wonder about what he's repressing when the reason given for replacing Spartan style leather 'skirts' with what are essentially leather Speedos is because it's more masculine.

Cyrus said...

I haven't seen 300 yet, but I've seen the same discussion as everyone else, and I've got the impression that some people are focusing on homoeroticism because it beats focusing on politics.