Post 84:
And yet between the two, only Sparta was well-known for being peopled with mostly gay men (who had wives solely for procreation).
Disparate memories from history class on Sparta, a Greek anomaly in many respects. It was mostly slaves doing the work for the small proportion of the citizens, only the male citizen was allowed to vote. The women had to just stay at home and their job was to have babies. This was different from other Greek states.
So in this history-rewriting that the filmmakers are consciously/not consciously doing, they are turning the board over: making Persia the aggressive nation, but also making Persians gay (to play to the christo audience who would never root for a nation of predominantly gay men), whereas at least Gerard Butler's main Spartan character seems to be in love with his wife. Until I watch the film (don't know if I'll bother anymore) I won't know whether this dude is merely bi or just straight then.
What a comedy. This anti-Persian thing in movies in recent times started at least as far back as Alexander and is now continuing straight on to 2007 with '300'. US movies often have a political angle, so does this have to do with turning Iran into a monster?
And an unrelated question, why does the western film industry like to change historical facts about ancient cultures that (for the most part) no longer exist today? Why aren't the Persians shown as the Zoroastrians? It was Zoroastrians that built Persia and their empire.
Much of history may be unknown, but Greece, Rome and even Persia are rather well-known I thought. Why change such things? I feel there is some purpose behind this too. In fact, it is negation of another living people's culture: there are still Parsees in India and Zoroastrians in Iran. Just like there are Hellenists and Nova Roma in Greece and Rome today.
And yet between the two, only Sparta was well-known for being peopled with mostly gay men (who had wives solely for procreation).
Disparate memories from history class on Sparta, a Greek anomaly in many respects. It was mostly slaves doing the work for the small proportion of the citizens, only the male citizen was allowed to vote. The women had to just stay at home and their job was to have babies. This was different from other Greek states.
So in this history-rewriting that the filmmakers are consciously/not consciously doing, they are turning the board over: making Persia the aggressive nation, but also making Persians gay (to play to the christo audience who would never root for a nation of predominantly gay men), whereas at least Gerard Butler's main Spartan character seems to be in love with his wife. Until I watch the film (don't know if I'll bother anymore) I won't know whether this dude is merely bi or just straight then.
What a comedy. This anti-Persian thing in movies in recent times started at least as far back as Alexander and is now continuing straight on to 2007 with '300'. US movies often have a political angle, so does this have to do with turning Iran into a monster?
And an unrelated question, why does the western film industry like to change historical facts about ancient cultures that (for the most part) no longer exist today? Why aren't the Persians shown as the Zoroastrians? It was Zoroastrians that built Persia and their empire.
Much of history may be unknown, but Greece, Rome and even Persia are rather well-known I thought. Why change such things? I feel there is some purpose behind this too. In fact, it is negation of another living people's culture: there are still Parsees in India and Zoroastrians in Iran. Just like there are Hellenists and Nova Roma in Greece and Rome today.