Who said:—Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
-- PB Shelley
"A homosexual with power... that's scary." - Harvey Milk
[this post contains spoilers for both Watchmen and 300. please be advised.]
So I've been reflecting on it for a few days and I think I found the common thread between Zack Snyder's versions of Watchmen and 300. (I quite liked both films and found them engaging and well executed)
Gay panic pervades both films. Fear of gay power most of all.
Look at the villains. In the comic, Ozymandias is a square-jawed, Aryan ideal. A kingly man in his upper thirties or forties. In the movie, Snyder made him a chinless, effeminate David Spade-alike that you wanted to punch in the face, wearing a shiny purple sport coat and a butterfly/flower lapel brooch. Jesus.
Oh, and there's Veidt's skyscraper, with a big glowing purple triangle looming over the city of New York. And in the opening credits, the first time we see Veidt, he is walking into Studio 54 accompanied by glam rockers and the Village People (seriously). When Rorshach and Nite Owl are investigating Veidt's computer, there's a folder in his hidden file directory named "BOYS". One might surmise that Veidts' tastes run to the classical greco-roman in many things. Veidt is enormously rich, could buy and sell General Motors and Chrysler in this world. A modern corporate Alexander the Great, as he calls himself. And his fighting ability is unparalleled, he kicks Rorshach's and Nite Owl's butts in hand to hand combat and they're no slouches.
And then there's King Xerxes in 300. Why, it's another ambiguously gay powerful classical king. Cultured, bejeweled, muscular, throws lavish parties, and commands an army of flamey followers. Preaches tolerance and acceptance to the disenfranchised, such as the crippled wannabe who was rejected from the Spartan army. Xerxes takes the reject under his wing and tempts him into betraying his own countrymen, with promises of riches and sex.
And what do both of these villains want? World peace. Unity. Tolerance. Coincidentally under their rule. Veidt is a 'pacifist' and 'vegetarian' ('like Hitler', sneers Rorshach). The other corporate heads clearly consider him a liberal do-gooder, with his 'free energy'. ("another word for communist", sneers one business-suited CEO).
And both these classically-inspired, over-cultured gay kings end up winning in the end. The Spartans are crushed by overwhelming force, and the gay pride parade of Xerxes' army rolls over them - but in the long run, as the movie's closing points out, the ideals of the noble, manly Spartans win (incidentally the historical Spartans had nothing to do with 'democracy' or 'freedom' of any kind). Veidt wins in his nefarious plot to nuke several cities, killing millions, to blame it on Dr Manhattan and unite the world in peace, but Rorshach's journal at the New Frontiersman makes it clear that this 'hippy dippy love fest' isn't going to last too long.
The audience is left overwhelmed by the action spectacle, angry at the sneering, richer-than-you faggoty gay overlord, and sympathizing with the rag tag opposition.
Added note:
It's important to note that the abs and muscles so fetishized in 300, and Dr Manhattan's own body and his big naked wang, are part of this undertone. Dr Manhattan is a manly man, we SEE it flat out, as is Rorshach, the Comedian, and even flabby Nite Owl (once he comes around and rediscovers his sexuality by fucking Silk Spectre in the owl ship). I did not read the Spartans as gay in the slightest when I saw 300. They were idealized MEN.
Snyder's problem is certainly not with the male physique. He has a problem with effeminacy. Watchmen and 300, the filmed versions, put manly, nearly-perfect ideal MEN up against immensely powerful, wealthy, effeminate, less-than-manly villains. And then the manly men lose, but the thread is left open for us, the presumably manly men viewers, to take up the fight.
March 10 2009, 15:50:59 UTC 3 years ago Edited: March 10 2009, 15:52:21 UTC
Whatever that entails.
March 10 2009, 15:55:38 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
March 10 2009, 16:08:57 UTC 3 years ago
Then I punch him in the ass.
March 10 2009, 16:09:18 UTC 3 years ago
Maybe I'll just reread the book. And then reread V for Vendetta, which was (also?) a thousand times better than the movie.
March 10 2009, 16:24:02 UTC 3 years ago
March 10 2009, 16:09:59 UTC 3 years ago
March 10 2009, 16:24:23 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
March 10 2009, 16:12:51 UTC 3 years ago
though, with Dr. Manhattan, to be honest, yeah, i was curious to see his wang (and wether or not they'd censor it out) but past that, i agree with what Kindar stated... that maybe this whole bugaboo about seeing full frontal male nudity might be considered moot? i mean, up until now, they've always been in a sexual context... and yet, here is Dr. Manhattan, probably the most asexual character i've seen with no modesty... basically seeing it as it is... just a body part and not some sexualized thing which will OMG ROB OUR CHILDREN OF THEIR INNOCENCE!!! (i hope you can see the irony of that particular statement.)
March 10 2009, 17:55:10 UTC 3 years ago
And then you have the insidious things Snyder pulls -- like the Spartans in 300 sneeringly referring to the Athenians as weak "boy-lovers." A bit of historical revisionism there, since that was a notorious and distinctly Spartan practice.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but when your cigar comes with a mushroom head, veins, and a pair of nuts hanging from one end, it is acceptable to have your suspicions about the cigar-maker.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
March 10 2009, 16:31:50 UTC 3 years ago
A lot of ink has been spilled on these questions. An interesting read, Sodometries.
--Axiom
March 10 2009, 16:34:07 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
March 10 2009, 16:41:01 UTC 3 years ago
--Axiom
March 10 2009, 16:56:07 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
March 10 2009, 18:27:19 UTC 3 years ago
March 10 2009, 20:26:44 UTC 3 years ago
Dr Manhattan's nudity was asexual, much more a sign that he was increasingly distant from human concerns.
March 10 2009, 19:37:03 UTC 3 years ago
March 10 2009, 22:20:27 UTC 3 years ago
March 10 2009, 20:09:26 UTC 3 years ago
I wouldn't call the screaming motherfuckers with spears and wicker shields "flamey".
Also, dude invites naked broads to his parties. He's a bad gay.
"(incidentally the historical Spartans had nothing to do with 'democracy' or 'freedom' of any kind)"
They did! First, "freedom" was at the forefront of classical rhetoric as the best reason for war. This wasn't freedom for all citizens, but freedom of the city-state to decide their own fate. Not too many years after the Greco-Persian war the Spartans were fighting Athens over their empire of supposedly willing subjects, arguing that Athenian imposition of democracy by the tip of a spear wasn't freedom at all. This wasn't the real reason for the war, of course, but powerful messaging that succeeded in winning over other cities to their cause.
Also, re: democracy. Sparta's political system, compared to the other powers in their world (save Athens), was very progressive and included a constitution which guaranteed rights to citizens and a degree of representation through ephors and The Gerousia (proto-senate). Wasn't perfect, but compared to the alternatives, it was pretty cool.
March 10 2009, 20:27:52 UTC 3 years ago Edited: March 10 2009, 20:31:41 UTC
Flamey in the sense of their fancy masks and jewelry, not to say they weren't lethal. but they were not the stripped-down bare-chested machismo of the spartans. Also, they were all pretty much queer or pansexual, naked broads are fine, the moral degeneracy was more highlighted. As I said in an above comment, it's not even homosexuality per se is the problem, it's transgressiveness, effeminacy, and values like 'tolerance' or 'free energy' instead of values like 'ass kicking'.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
March 10 2009, 21:56:21 UTC 3 years ago
March 11 2009, 01:49:38 UTC 3 years ago
I must say though that I was more annoyed by what they did to Silk Spectre than any of this. Ten years younger and much less interesting. Again I think it is reflective of Snyder's assumptions about his audience that he plays on their homophobia and doesn't challenge them with an older, even semi-feminist lead actress.
March 11 2009, 10:40:41 UTC 3 years ago
"There are heroes and villains in Watchmen now? And if there were heroes, they're RORSCHACH?"
"I'm not surprised they changed Ozymandias's look - wasn't designed to stand the test of time, that one, probably deliberately - but the new one looks worse."
"If anything, the main divide between O and R is utilitarian vs absolutist morality. Tangent: Dr Manhattan looks like a predeterminist, but his knowledge of the future is purely material, and thus limited. Which is interesting, because he says he LEARNED to reassemble himself - through an act of will. Really, the whole story is the reunion of these two elements of his consciousness - the divine union of material and spiritual, transcending life as we know it."
"...holy SHIT. Swiss Moment. Rorschach's big shtick is his clinging to his father's patriotism in his support for Truman and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's not until Ozymandias does he EXACT SAME THING for THE EXACT SAME REASON that Rorschach questions his own morality. Bloody hell."
Any of this resonate with the film's portrayal?
March 11 2009, 11:55:14 UTC 3 years ago
The question of Rorshach's morality wrt. his patriotism and Truman/Nagasaki was not mentioned. In fact I hadn't even picked that up from the book.
Damn that's a good point though. Truman destroyed cities to end war and save lives. Ozymandias did the same thing. He committed an act of global vigilantism. Rorshach's whining at the end about utopia being built on a pile of bodies was kind of disingenuous, considering the mound of corpses he stands upon for his own morality. His only recourse was to beg Dr Manhattan to kill him.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
March 11 2009, 11:19:07 UTC 3 years ago
March 11 2009, 11:48:50 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
March 12 2009, 23:50:57 UTC 3 years ago
On the flip side...
You couldn't get much straighter than the Comedian and he was horrible... A horrible, horrible man.March 14 2009, 04:10:12 UTC 3 years ago