Cargo ([info]cargoweasel) wrote,

our penises will blot out the sun

I MET a traveller from an antique land
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.

Share photos on twitter with Twitpic

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.

Share photos on twitter with Twitpic

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.

Share photos on twitter with Twitpic

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.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 59 comments

[info]pyat

March 10 2009, 15:50:59 UTC 3 years ago Edited:  March 10 2009, 15:52:21 UTC

You know, I believe Doc Manhattan's genitalia in the film are about three times bigger than they were in the comic.

Whatever that entails.

[info]cargoweasel

March 10 2009, 15:55:38 UTC 3 years ago

Dr Manhattan was a manly man. The Spartans are manly men. The abs and muscles and cocks so fetishized in 300 and in Watchmen are not in and of themselves gay. Snyder's war is against effeminacy, not masculinity. It's not even a problem with homosexuality per se. It's with GAYNESS.

[info]pyat

3 years ago

[info]dv_girl

3 years ago

[info]pyat

3 years ago

[info]joshuwain

3 years ago

[info]joshuwain

3 years ago

[info]axiomaxiom

3 years ago

[info]axiomaxiom

3 years ago

[info]lord_whimsy

March 10 2009, 16:08:57 UTC 3 years ago

You know, whenever I see one at a diner or gas station I think to myself, "I bet that sneering, richer-than-you faggoty gay overlord smells nice."

Then I punch him in the ass.

[info]postrodent

March 10 2009, 16:09:18 UTC 3 years ago

Haven't seen _Watchmen_ yet, but this has the sickening ring of plausibility. I couldn't believe that some very smart friends of mine missed the anti-gay (and several other things) subtext of 300... it practically seemed to leap off the screen at me.
Maybe I'll just reread the book. And then reread V for Vendetta, which was (also?) a thousand times better than the movie.

[info]cargoweasel

March 10 2009, 16:24:02 UTC 3 years ago

Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed 300, and I loved Watchmen and thought it was excellent, and also a very faithful adaptation of the book. Far better than V for Vendetta. I prefer to evaluate a movie as its own work, source material aside, in context with the director's other work.

[info]lord_whimsy

March 10 2009, 16:09:59 UTC 3 years ago

Bonus round: Do you think Patrick McDonald has a superpower? If so, what?

[info]cargoweasel

March 10 2009, 16:24:23 UTC 3 years ago

Patrick who?

[info]redregon

March 10 2009, 16:12:51 UTC 3 years ago

i can see the trend, but at what point do you have to accept Freud's statement that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?"

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.)

[info]toob

March 10 2009, 17:55:10 UTC 3 years ago

The problem is it's way too obvious a trend. I noticed all this independently of Cargo.

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.

[info]ilthuain

3 years ago

[info]toob

3 years ago

[info]pkrat

3 years ago

[info]axiomaxiom

March 10 2009, 16:31:50 UTC 3 years ago

Another problem: how much of this is in the nature of the narrative, being brought out by the director, and how much of it is in the nature of the narrative of Western film, comic books, graphic novels, literature, and so on?

A lot of ink has been spilled on these questions. An interesting read, Sodometries.

--Axiom

[info]cargoweasel

March 10 2009, 16:34:07 UTC 3 years ago

I haven't read Miller's 300 graphic novel, but I suspect Zach Snyder found these threads in both stories (buried a little in alan moore's) and brought them out more, highlighted them for the movie.

[info]dv_girl

3 years ago

[info]axiomaxiom

March 10 2009, 16:41:01 UTC 3 years ago

Notice in BOTH films, the losing, ultimately meaningless hero does one thing as a gesture: he makes the effeminate one's face bleed.

--Axiom

[info]cargoweasel

March 10 2009, 16:56:07 UTC 3 years ago

Cuts that pretty face!

[info]axiomaxiom

3 years ago

[info]axiomaxiom

3 years ago

[info]robyrt

March 10 2009, 18:27:19 UTC 3 years ago

I haven't seen either movie, but I will say that Frank Miller's 300 comic is, like all his other comics, hyper-sexualized with lots of Idealized Men and Sexpot Superwomen battling the nefarious effeminates and fat people. Alan Moore's Watchmen comic also has plenty of tawdry bits, but presents a much more nuanced approach. The more powerful a character is in Watchmen, the more asexual they are. If Zack Snyder is bringing his take on 300 to Watchmen, he could just be heavily misreading the original intent w/r/t sexuality.

[info]cargoweasel

March 10 2009, 20:26:44 UTC 3 years ago

The only place he added sexuality was making Ozymandias more obviously queer. Veidt in the comic was much more of a square jawed Aryan ideal. Rorshach still considered him "possibly homosexual, must investigate", but rorshach is a nutbar.

Dr Manhattan's nudity was asexual, much more a sign that he was increasingly distant from human concerns.

[info]thebitterguy

March 10 2009, 19:37:03 UTC 3 years ago

I just love the title of the post.

[info]cargoweasel

March 10 2009, 22:20:27 UTC 3 years ago

hah, that was the first thing that sprang to my typin fingers. :3

[info]ilthuain

March 10 2009, 20:09:26 UTC 3 years ago

"Cultured, bejeweled, muscular, throws lavish parties, and commands an army of flamey followers."

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.

[info]cargoweasel

March 10 2009, 20:27:52 UTC 3 years ago Edited:  March 10 2009, 20:31:41 UTC

I wouldn't call the screaming motherfuckers with spears and wicker shields "flamey".

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'.


[info]ilthuain

3 years ago

[info]ilthuain

3 years ago

[info]centauress

March 10 2009, 21:56:21 UTC 3 years ago

Although Oz wins. I rather saw him painted as Party Monster, from the clips of him at club 54 and such references.

[info]l_c

March 11 2009, 01:49:38 UTC 3 years ago

They certainly also played up Rorschach's homophobia... they also took away his bizarre idealization of the father he never knew. I don't know if this is an agenda on the part of the filmmaker or just canny awareness of his audience.

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.

[info]fredchook

March 11 2009, 10:40:41 UTC 3 years ago

Haven't seen the film yet. My thoughts on reading this post, over the past day, have been:

"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?

[info]cargoweasel

March 11 2009, 11:55:14 UTC 3 years ago

Ozy's the closest thing to a villian of the watchmen story.

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.

[info]fredchook

3 years ago

[info]axiomaxiom

3 years ago

[info]fredchook

3 years ago

[info]ceruleanst

March 11 2009, 11:19:07 UTC 3 years ago

Do you suppose Bubastis was made white to bolster a possible association with Siegfried and Roy?

[info]cargoweasel

March 11 2009, 11:48:50 UTC 3 years ago

That is a hell of a good catch. Yes, I think you're right.

[info]axiomaxiom

3 years ago

[info]pkrat

3 years ago

[info]ceruleanst

3 years ago

[info]iyu

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.

[info]kitncub

March 14 2009, 04:10:12 UTC 3 years ago

I think this is a secondary issue, to be honest. Although looks might have played a role in casting, Snyder would have been choosing between a few actors for Ozy and not, not being Doc Manhattan himself, shaping one to his specifications. Ozymandias is at base an old American comic/cartoon villain archetype, the intellectual with political power — who might be fine in France or Germany (note how he lapses into a more pronounced foreign accent in the film after he's "revealed" his plan) — but we in "America" prefer these forms of self-reliance, thank you: Mr. Fix-it (Nite Owl), Mr. Stoic Guy who's ultimately motivated by pure love of his woman once you scratch the surface (Jon), Mr. Talk to my Fist/Gun (the Comedian), and Mr. The School of Hard Knocks is the Only Real School (Rohrschach). He may or may not be gay in theory, but Snyder's Ozymandias felt to me more like the sort of guy who, if he is gay, has never bothered to act on it and has no sexual attachments whatsoever. The primary fear Snyder seemed to tap into is the primal American fear that intellectuals/theoreticians are necessarily cold-blooded ideologues and are thus never to be trusted. That's the feel the film had to me, anyway—the book obviously feeling more nuanced.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…