Flame? never. The racism of the film was disturbingly blatant, and the story itself was irritatingly distorted from the historical narrative, keeping only a paltry handful of original sound bites. And yes, the eye candy of the Spartans did at least almost make it worth viewing. I managed to see it with a friend & fellow casual historian, and I think both of us were running to the bathroom to rinse our eyes after watching the film because of how badly distorted the context was. I was pleased, though, that the flirting was left in at least. At least they left that much truth in. But seriously - A rhino?!!???! Elephants?!??!! Since when does the Barnum & Bailey circus have a military wing?
Race is such a charged subject that I tend to avoid it, considering it to be the "third rail" of civilized discourse. One needs to have an asbestos suit to hand if one is foolhardy enough to address it.
I'd gone into the film expecting to see jingoistic subtext as well as an anti-gay subtext, based on what I'd read about the movie beforehand, but I felt completely blindsided by the de facto racism of the casting decisions. I'm astounded that an issue hasn't been made of it in the media, given how PC Hollywood has tended to be in the past and how blatant it was in this production. Really, how can you not mention it, after seeing this film???
As for the critters, I can see the use of elephants, actually. After all, Hannibal did use them in his campaign against Rome and it is possible that Xerxes would have had access to war elephants from India, although the film ones had the larger ears of the African elephant, from what I recall. The rhino, however, was just plain stupid as a war creature -- they have very poor eyesight and would
( ... )
I do agree with your assessment of the racism - why it hasn't been more remarked upon I won't even guess at. My main objection to the elephants is one of simple geometry & facts as I've heard them. Yes, Xerxes would most likely have had some kind of access to Asian elephants, but a)he would have had great difficulty maneuvering them over his (completely ignored) pontoon bridge or get them in his ships for that matter, and b) as near as I can tell from the bits I've read, he didn't use them. Willing to look into the matter, but pretty sure the heffalumps sat that one out.
Comments 3
But seriously - A rhino?!!???! Elephants?!??!! Since when does the Barnum & Bailey circus have a military wing?
Reply
I'd gone into the film expecting to see jingoistic subtext as well as an anti-gay subtext, based on what I'd read about the movie beforehand, but I felt completely blindsided by the de facto racism of the casting decisions. I'm astounded that an issue hasn't been made of it in the media, given how PC Hollywood has tended to be in the past and how blatant it was in this production. Really, how can you not mention it, after seeing this film???
As for the critters, I can see the use of elephants, actually. After all, Hannibal did use them in his campaign against Rome and it is possible that Xerxes would have had access to war elephants from India, although the film ones had the larger ears of the African elephant, from what I recall. The rhino, however, was just plain stupid as a war creature -- they have very poor eyesight and would ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment