Oh my English lit sensibilites

[green_dreams]

I would like to thank history_spork for saving me hours of viewing time, even if they made my eyes bleed to do it.

They review movies with a purportedly historical setting, and kibbitz the historical bits. Like, for example, Tristan + Isolde. Paraphrased dialogue:

Tristan: It cannot be!
Isolde: Interesting you only came to that conclusion after screwing me six ways from Sunday.

Anyway, there is a scene with Isolde reading stuff to Tristan.

Poetry.

From a book.

Made of paper.

Containing works by John Donne.

Oh my head-explody brain.

(They did 300, too. There is enough interesting stuff in there that I was previously unfamiliar with--like the murder of slaves as an initation rite (and a way to keep the slaves from getting too uppity), and Sparta having two kings, and the ephors playing mediator between the two kings and being elected by the people, and the two councils, and the lack of a concept of adultery--that I'd actually make time to watch a movie about the battle of Thermopylae that was historically accurate. And did not consist of the great white slave-keeping hope single-handedly battling for freedom against the sexually degenerate dark-skinned folk.)

Comments

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Did 300 claim to be historically accurate?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Not as far as I know. (It *did* claim to be about the great white hope single-handedly battling for freedom against the sexually degenerate dark-skinned folk, though. Why they tacked the names "Sparta" and "Xerxes" onto this is beyond me. Did you know Leonidas became king after his older brother died in peculiar circumstances? Died of mutilations. It was ruled a suicide. Not a well-liked man. Apparently both that and murdering slaves was a less rah-rah chunk of history than stabbing a giant wolf. In the snow. Poor puppy.)

The slave-keeping thing is simply one of those obscure pieces of information that is never spoken of and was merrily hand-waved away, being as how it's only available to those who have navigated the treacherous byways of an American eighth-grade history class.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

I really don't see what them being sexually degenerate (portraying the "bad guys" as "bad" is fairly common) or dark-skinned (would you have preferred white Persians?) has to do with it. 300 seems to be a movie where typical - if simple - storytelling conventions have been employed: make the protagonist above reproach and the antagonist beneath sympathy, no matter what you have to leave out. In a documentary, this would be worth commenting on. In a film based on a comic book based on a film based on an event, not so much.

I don't see why an entire breakdown of Spartan culture is required to tell a story that is by-and-large fiction. I didn't walk out of Pirates of the Caribbean believing that people who roamed the seas killing people and stealing their stuff were actually wacky and playful Keith Richards-esque rogues or bemoaning the fact that the movie didn't highlight the brutal nature of realworld piracy enough.

[sivi-volk.livejournal.com]

I personally would prefer Persians who were... um, Persian. Not African.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Ah, but then we'd still have the "evil dark-skinned folk" problem, which is what I was commenting on. My point was that, no matter what, the Persians were going to be dark skinned (or at least should be).

[torrain.livejournal.com]

No, you wouldn't. The Persian soldiers were lighter than the Greeks.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

And going with the whole thing about there being period history noting that they were lighter-skinned than the tanned Greek soldiers would just have been an entirely different thing.

(I mean, seriously. Xerxes looks cool. He does not look like Xerxes.)

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> I really don't see what them being sexually degenerate (portraying the "bad
> guys" as "bad" is fairly common)

Liking sex and thinking Leonidas is hot is "bad"?

Man, I *knew* I was sympathizing with the "wrong" people in that movie...

> or dark-skinned (would you have preferred white Persians?)

You mean, lighter than all the tanned people running around half-naked? White like the way the Greeks referred to the Persians, when they compared the white-skinned Persian soldiers to the darker-skinned Greek soldiers?

Yes. Yes I would.

> has to do with it. 300 seems to be a movie where typical - if simple -
> storytelling conventions have been employed: make the protagonist above
> reproach and the antagonist beneath sympathy, no matter what you have to
> leave out.

I know. I mean, you look at the portrayal of the Spartans--'cause a modern outlook is *totally* going to see heroic elements in killing the messenger and "no, *we* were born to do this but *you* aren't physically fit enough to do want you want to do, and it doesn't matter how much you want to" and women only getting listened to in society if a man has or allows them to speak--

--wait.

S--t.

Look, I'll grant you the crudeness of the storytelling techniques, at least.

> In a documentary, this would be worth commenting on. In a film based on a
> comic book based on a film based on an event, not so much.

In a documentary, I could see why they'd use the names of people they were supposedly talking about. In a film based on a comic mini-series based on another film (really? Which one?) based on a historical event, you'd think they'd've gotten around to stripping out the irrelevancies somewhere in there.

(Personally, I *like* the commentary. It's like liking Mark Twain's essay on James Fenimore Cooper. Did you know that the whole homosexuality thing between boys and men was ideally expected to not involve sex, and that a similar coming-of-age convention was in place for girls and women?)

> I don't see why an entire breakdown of Spartan culture is required to tell
> a story that is by-and-large fiction.

And yet, they completely broke down the Spartan culture in order to tell a story that was by-and-large fiction. Apparently, it was done in order to keep heroic elements.

But seriously, in a well-done movie, you don't *need* to sit down and give a complete breakdown of the culture. Avoiding expository lumps and allowing the audience to discover the alternate setting is a typical, if more complicated, storytelling convention.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Liking sex and thinking Leonidas is hot is "bad"?

Uh, you're the one saying sexually degenerate, not me. Degeneracy is usually tied to poor morals and that further tied to being "bad."

You mean, lighter than all the tanned people running around half-naked?

No, I mean the opposite of your "evil dark-skinned folk." I'm fairly certain that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is more of a darker skin tone than Kostas Karamanlis.

White like the way the Greeks referred to the Persians, when they compared the white-skinned Persian soldiers to the darker-skinned Greek soldiers?

When did they do that?

S--t.

Oh Christ, if you're going to swear, swear. It's not like I have to buy a vowel to figure out what you mean. =P

Of course those things weren't heroic, they were the ever-popular "not as bad as those other guys." That's really all you need to establish a protagonist and an antagonist. Look at Deadwood.

And I can't say I find two of the three things you cited "heroic" or "unheroic." I personally wouldn't be thrilled if some guy waltzed into my town promising to wipe it off the face of the earth if I didn't submit. I doubt I'd kick him down a well, but I sure as hell wouldn't be inviting him back for tea and biscuits. Leonidas may have been a bit condescending to Ephialtes, but who did he have responsibility to? Should a military commander allow someone into his company who is incapable of employing the same tactics as the rest of the group, who indeed poses a danger to the group? If including one person puts hundreds in danger, but not including that one person wounds their pride, sorry, I'd make the same decision.

And yet, they completely broke down the Spartan culture in order to tell a story that was by-and-large fiction.

Obviously they didn't if people continue to point out things that were changed and/or left out.

I was introduced to a literary genre when I was in grade school called historical fiction. Its hallmarks were taking historical settings and people and changing them to tell a fictional story. Has this genre been disallowed since then and I missed the meeting?

When it comes down to it, 300 wasn't a documentary or a character-driven period drama, it was The Matrix with spears. Lots of spears.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm saying the *movie* portrayed them as sexually degenerate. Since you said the movie seemed to go with a binary utterly virtuous/utterly reprehensible portrayal, I figured you'd noticed that part of the icky in the movie was supposed to be Xerxes sexual drive and indulgences.

Xenephon's Agesilaus, an account of the life of the eponymous Spartan king.

> Of course those things weren't heroic, they were the ever-popular "not as bad
> as those other guys." That's really all you need to establish a protagonist
> and an antagonist. Look at Deadwood.

I am. My god, it has characterization! And depth! And is not a case where "typical - if simple - storytelling conventions have been employed: make the protagonist above reproach and the antagonist beneath sympathy"! I do think that's a good part of the reason I appreciated it. But if you're invoking relative morality, I take it that you've ditched the idea that the Spartans were meant to be above reproach?

You thought that murdering a messenger was not clearly unheroic. Duly noted.

(Also, this whole thing about not endangering hundreds of people in order to satisfy one person's pride--what the hell was up with kicking someone down the well, then? People *drink* from wells. I mean, sure he's willing to sacrifice a cripple's pride; how about quashing his own for the good of his people? Even if the cripple can't stay on the far left?)

>> And yet, they completely broke down the Spartan culture in order to tell
>> a story that was by-and-large fiction.
> Obviously they didn't if people continue to point out things that were
> changed and/or left out.

I'm sorry, next time I spin the words "broke down" (as opposed to breakdown) to indicate an utter undermining and ignoring of something, rather than a detailed representation of something, I will be a little clearer.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Who was talking about the characterization or depth? Of course there's a difference. There's no argument there. None. Of course that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about the fact that we consider someone - in fact someones - on Deadwood who is/are morally reprehensible a protagonist simply because they are less morally reprehensible than other people in the show.

Yes, I've pretty much ditched the "above reproach" preferring instead the "oh, we can explain" model. Yeah. We're not as bad. We can explain. The "we can explain" factor still does tend to put them above reproach because, after all, they "explained" themselves and no further mention of the matter is made.

You thought that murdering a messenger was not clearly unheroic. Duly noted.

I'm lost here. While not my method of choice, why is murdering a guy who comes into your town with an armed escort and, while carrying the heads of those who'd refused his demand, threatens to wipe your entire nation off the map heroic or unheroic? Why are those my only two choices? It's not like the guy came as a diplomat, he came with threats of death as the vanguard of a conquering force. He didn't want to sit down and discuss, he just wanted supplication and was willing to act like he already had it.

Wait, so in 480 BC Leonidas was expected to know that corpses spoiled water? Should this analysis happen before or after he worships the sun as a guy in a chariot?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> Of course that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about
> the fact that we consider someone - in fact someones - on Deadwood
> who is/are morally reprehensible a protagonist simply because they
> are less morally reprehensible than other people in the show.

You might. I don't. I don't know who your "we" consists of. "Protagonist" is the person or people who are the focal point(s) of the story. Moral behaviour is not a requirement, although it may make it easier or harder to establish reader identification with same (if the writer is attempting to do this).

I didn't say heroic or unheroic were your only two choices. You volunteered the information that you didn't think it was unheroic, even if it might not be what you'd do. I noted your opinion.

> Wait, so in 480 BC Leonidas was expected to know that corpses
> spoiled water?

...you know, that strikes me as a *totally* reasonable expectation.

Poisoning the water supply had already been a tactic of warfare for at least two centuries, "not consuming rotting flesh or infusions thereof" is not an unheard of concept in Grecian cultures, and he's clearly up on modern concepts such as "hell", "not owning slaves", and "rejecting ancient gods that the narrator presents as degenerate".

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

So you're not behind anyone on Deadwood? You're not disappointed or pleased when those people do/don't achieve those goals? Who do you consider the protagonist(s) and antagonist(s)? Do you believe it's unfair to say that the protagonist is nearly universally the character or characters that the author of the work expects the reader (viewer, etc) to empathize with?

I also volunteered that I didn't think it was heroic either, but I guess you think you're scoring points or something by leaving that out consistently. In any case, you were the one who said "a modern outlook is *totally* going to see heroic elements in killing the messenger." I said that I don't see the action as being as having heroic or unheroic elements as a rebuttal to the idea that a modern outlook would see it in those terms at all.

I'm glad it strikes you as a reasonable expectation. I'm glad you use the cinematic devices used to translate it for a modern audience as your reasoning, but I'm still going with the guy in the chariot worship. Unless, of course, you've got anything that shows the widespread tactic of well poisoning in 480 BC.

(Member of the Al Swearengen fan club)

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Ah, excellent. This is where I can expect you to deliver the calm, rational explanation of how you get from "protagonist is the focus of the story, and there is not a moral requirement for the role" to "protagonist doesn't have a moral requirement, so when enjoying a show that depicts developed characters you can expect histrionic questioning about whether you even empathize with any of the characters."

No, wait.

Not based on my experience talking to you, I can't.

The reasonable expectation of you not pitching a hissy fit when you are informed that your hypothesized "we" does not cover you and I? Also not met. Neither is the one that involves you not trying to set up strawmen of what you claim I think, rather than responding to what I actually say (although you get a tiny point for only accusing me of wanting to score points this time, rather than laying out your expectation of my resorting to sexist stereotypes).

You know what, Lee? Life is short, life can be good, and as long as you keep spouting opinions on race, history, storytelling, and gender from your carefully maintained position of unthinking (you just said it 'cause it reminded you of something, not 'cause you meant it!) ignorance ('cause you diligently *work* to ignore this kind of thing!), conversations with you are neither.

You want to articulate your own opinions from an informed position? Great. You want to shut up? Fine.

But as long as you're doing neither, take it elsewhere.

Re: (Member of the Al Swearengen fan club)

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Took it elsewhere.

Re: (Member of the Al Swearengen fan club)

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, ignoring or just not as smart as you think you are...?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

(would you have preferred white Persians?)

Given that the Persians both were and are Aryan? Yes.

But the 300 slaveholding institutionally homosexual brown people as heroes against the white menace wouldn't sit well with Frank Miller, so he changed all that.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Ok, someone needs to tell the President of Iran that he's the wrong color.

So I guess 300 is historically inaccurate. They used some modern conventions for the modern audience, like Greeks and Persians speaking English and people from the area of Iran being the same color as people from Iran due to changes since the setting of the film. Not exactly news.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> Ok, someone needs to tell the President of Iran that he's the wrong color.

Yeah, 'cause I *totally* look at his picture and I think "Oh, man, there's no *way* he could be considered either Indo-European or Caucasian".

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's my bad. Apparently in my diligent work to not bother worrying about race, I had no idea that people looking as widely different as those from, say Norway and those from Iran were still considered the same race. Eh, it just adds to my feeling that it's something that should be ignored.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Ah, sorry; you were using the terms, I thought you were more up on the connotations. My apologies. We can certainly drop it.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Seems as though the terms and connotations themselves are fairly fluid.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

I should point out that the skin colors of those involved don't vary much in the comic. Dusky shades dominate throughout, not so much of the white anyone. Yes, it's not Arayan whites vs. Mediterranean whites, but it's hardly white hope vs. black menace either. If we're blaming anyone for that, we should probably blame Zack Snyder.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Neat (and funny) comm. History Science Theater 3000 (B.C.)?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Entirely.

They did Anastasia as well, and were (as I'd expect from reasonable people) entirely fine with Rasputin back from the dead and rotting to pieces. They did point out that he was protected and supported by the family, and really had no reason for a grudge, which I feel fits within their historical bitching purview. :)

[orrin.livejournal.com]

Personally I still think that any interpretation of 300 (the movie, not the comic) benefits strongly from the realization that the entire film is literally Spartan propaganda since it takes the form of a story being told to Spartan soldiers in order to stir them up. Hence, why the Persians are all weird monsters, etc. It certainly improved my enjoyment of it, anyway.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

It does help a bit. It doesn't help with it being propaganda somewhat edited for modern sensibilities (I mean, it's not as if a Spartan would gloss over the existence of Spartan slaves, even if they didn't pay much attention to them), and it doesn't help with the fact that the shorthand the movie uses often wouldn't have applied at the time (crippled = unacceptable; yes, the Spartans did that. Homosexuality and skin tone, not so much), and is kind of creepy now.

Mind you, I'm not hugely a fan of propaganda. Didn't like the Starship Troopers movie, either.

That said, I *would* like to see a period propaganda piece (as opposed to an edited period propaganda piece)--albeit not as much as an actual period dramatization, something like I, Claudius. The more I'm digging up about the culture, the more quietly fascinating I'm finding it. You could do really neat things by playing off the duality of the two councils and two kings, or off the elected ephors mediating between the kings-by-birth (they could actually arrest the kings for misconduct during war), the whole thing about ephors culturally assumed to be at war with the helots...

...god*damn* this is neat.

[orrin.livejournal.com]

Honestly, the more you talk about it the more I want to see a movie about that, too. [grins]