I think the reviewer is a modern writer projecting his own biases onto the film.

Of that, we can be almost tautologically sure ;-).

I haven't seen the film, so I can't say it doesn't reflect modern biases. (It probably does, as the Spartan leader apparently calls the Athenians "boy lovers" -- which would have been a very unlikely Spartan slur.)

I've not seen it either, but your parenthetical aside makes me wonder what you would have suggested for a Spartan insult that modern viewers would have immediately understood as a Spartan insult?

I think, as you suggest, that the refactoring of the Spartans, Athenians, and Persians into their various roles was an unavoidable bow in the direction of mass acceptance by modern viewers. Trying to get across the alien world view of Hellenes and still making them the heroes would have been a lot to expect. Likewise, making the Persians too human would have muddied the waters.

I think, in the end, when you make a movie out of a comic book, you have what you have.

what you would have suggested for a Spartan insult that modern viewers would have immediately understood as a Spartan insult?

I honestly don't know, but "fat-assed Athenian wusses" would seem more on the mark.

:)

You are, indeed, correct that the author was conflating homosexuality with femininity. Xerxes was depicted as being soemwhat effete; he was utterly smooth-skinned, adorned from head-to-toe with all manners of gold piercings and chains (even his loincloth was gold-colored), and had stenciled eyebrows and gold eyeliner. The only thing about him that seemed explicitly homosexual was the faint trace of a lisp. And this is more than countered by the fact that... well, I didn't see any men in his tent.

The Herodotean tradition suggests that Spartans regarded the Persians as effeminate, correct? This would make sense in the context of the story, given that it is all told in retrospect by a character who never even came into contact with Xerxes himself. It is quite clear that the character is taking artistic license with the story for political reasons.

Xerxes didn't strike me as 'gay', and in fact none of them did, although I & my gf were laughing a little at the homoerotic overtones of the film. But even that was more due to the obvious nods to greek art [as in vases, etc] than anything else.

As far as appropriate insults: There was a nasty ancient quote I ran across long ago, where the writer said "may my friends delight in boys, my enemies in girls". Possibly, there weren't taboos about any sexual conduct except the abuse of girls - but I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I could comment, somewhere?

re: "may my friends delight in boys, my enemies in girls..."

correct: the ancient greeks and romans did not categorize sexuality in the way we do today. however, there was an overt preference/celebration of the love between two men - as the highest form of love on earth, the most godlike, the most pure and unfettered expression of love possible between two beings. this opinion was largely held without regard to age, although ancient greeks and romans held the same preference for young flesh that we do today.

obviously this belief rests squarely upon a base of patriarchy, holding that women are inferior creatures and therefore are not capable of participating in such an bond.

therefore, consorting with women and girls was seen as backwards and degenerate, although permissable for necessary procreative purposes. time spent with your wife, when you could be holding enlightened discourse/hobnobbing/whatnot with men, was time wasted. daughters were seen as luxury items for the indulgent and weak - raising a girl was an endless outpouring of resources with no real chance for recoup.

in short: "delighting in boys" = to experience godlike bliss; "delighting in girls" = to have something wrong with you. again, permissible for duty's sake, but really, don't act like you enjoy it. much.

Hunh. I sorta thought it was more due to protecting the virginity of girls than anything else. Some values from antiquity were pretty awful, I guess.

'pederast'? ewww.

I know I'm repeating myself when I say that I find the idea of sex with children morally and personally repellent.

However, it should be remembered that the ancients distinguished sex with children from the young man/older man variety. An example was the Roman Emperor Tiberius, who was much detested for his alleged carryings-on with prepubescent children. Whether he really was into that or not is still a subject of debate (as these might have been rumors spread by his enemies) -- but the fact that he was hated for it speaks for itself.

With all due respect, Eric, of course the movie isn't historically accurate. Its source material -- the five-part comic series penned by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley in 1998 -- wasn't historically accurate either, nor was historical accuracy their goal. They wanted a graphic novel that captured the theme of Spartan epic heroism, which is why they're depicted in dress approximating the "heroic nude" versus historically accurate armour. Miller and Varley were never looking to produce something that would out-detail Herotodus.

The movie features a giant with lobster-claw appendages instead of hands, for goodness sake... Yet I don't see the Star rushing to have a biologist on record, pointing out that such a creature never existed.

Take it all such criticisms with a grain of salt. It's a movie based on a fun comic series. It's not aspiring to scholarly excellence.

Ooops. And feel free to remediate the typo'ed Herodotus in the above comment. =)