300: Reservations Confirmed

Last night I caught a screening of the new, big-budget adaptation of Men's Fitness magazine -- er, I mean, Frank Miller's graphic novel 300 -- and I can safely say that both our main page article on the source material's backhanded treatment of gay themes and my initial unease about the film based on the ad campaign and early buzz are entirely founded. It's too bad -- otherwise the film is pretty solid. And considering that the vast majority of Hollywood's attempts at films set in this period are snoozers, it's doubly disappointing to see that the film that finally got the packaging right is also needlessly disrespectful toward homosexuals.

Within the first 15 minutes, our hero Leonidas (a hyper-aggressive Gerald Butler, perhaps overcompensating after appearing in the ungodly Phantom of the Opera movie) makes a crack about the Athenians being "boy-lovers", for absolutely no reason other than to get a laugh out of the meatheads in the audience who find that kind of low-hanging insult to be clever. It's completely unnecessary and doesn't do anything to endear you to the character -- in fact, it makes him seem like a bit of an ass -- and considering that he makes some incredibly risky decisions as the film progresses, it's important that the audience understand this guy fairly early on. I understood him as a bully, and pretty much checked out from that point on.

Later, when villian Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) shows up, it's as though club legend Kevin Aviance has suddenly appeared to do a rendition of his hit song "Din Da Da" -- the guy has more makeup on than all the Pussycat Dolls combined and he lisps and clutches his pearls like a bad drag act in every scene. Subtle, guys. Interestingly, there seems to be little or no evidence that the real Xerxes was even remotely feminine or had gay leanings. It just suited Miller's archaic ideas about manliness, and made its way to screen.

The funny thing is, ninety percent of the rest of the cast looks like extras from a gay porno, but that's apparently alright -- since the guys don't show any hint of being attracted to one another (much less a touch of femininity, which would be cause for them to fall on a sword, of course), they can wear as many International Male togas as they want and no one has a problem with it. There's a very mild suggestion that two of the soldiers may have something going on between them, but it's so buried that you'd need a pick axe and night goggles to dig it up.

Why not make a possible gay relationship more obvious? Heck, if you're presenting what is essentially a castoff from The Birdcage as the ultimate villain, would it hurt to make the barely-suggested more positive examples a bit more noticeable? If you want to make a historical epic that portrays an intensely physical, nearly all-male world that is conspicuously free of homosexuality at all, then go ahead. But don't use gay elements at your leisure just to shock and horrify -- that's adding insult to... well, insult.

It's not like anything else about the film is even remotely subtle -- it's literally 300 guys in underwear defending a mountain pass for two hours. And honestly, do they not expect this film to attract some serious gay interest? Couldn't they have been just a bit more careful about how they might be insulting their viewers through these needless comments? I actually don't see how many straight guys will feel about sitting through an entire movie populated with bare-chested men sweating in slow-motion. Back when the Hong Kong action style was in vogue, the term "Pistol Opera" was used to describe the heightened sense of drama lent to the hyper-violent material. This is like a Pistol Opera without guns, or shirts (how about "Nipple Opera"?). Are the gay taunts there to make the fellas feel more comfortable about getting excited about watching physique models parade about for two hours?

Everything else the film celebrates is right-on -- honor, loyalty, respect, all that. And of course, it's gorgeous to look at, both in terms of its production design and its able-bodied cast (there are more painted abs than in a George Quaintance exhibit). But it's not worth walking out feeling as though you've been insulted. Can't we have a film about masculinity without throwing schoolyard taunts about gay sexuality? Sorry to break it to you, Hollywood, but it's not like the two are mutually exclusive. The fact that your film takes place thousands of years ago doesn't mean that your attitudes need to be stuck in the Dark Ages. I bet Ann Coulter has already gotten her tickets.