I've just watched 300 in HD.
No doubt, it's a great looking film. Very abstract, hardly anything but the humans are filmed, most of it is done in the computer, and well.
But I think that we should well remember that this is not a great movie. A good movie, perhaps, but it's basically violence porn. Sure, slick and well produced violence porn, but still.
Frank Miller (who wrote the comic that the film is based on) says that "there was no way of telling the story of 300 without it being amazingly brutal." Clearly he is trying to justify the dozens and dozens of very graphic beheadings and skewerings in the movie. But really, is this not why he chose this story? Quick, mention a Frank Miller story without violent deaths in it.
I'm not saying that this a wrong or that this kind of film "corrupts our children". I'm just saying keep a perspective about what kind of film it is. You won't learn much history from this film (as they freely admit), and it's not a great drama or an intricate story. Basically what it has going for it is two thing: eye candy (including a few titties, which I'm all for), and lots and lots of hard violence. I think it's indicative of how important the violence is to the movie that every skewering is accompanied by CG blood flying towards the camera. Even the titles after the movie have blood flying everywhere.
Update: it seems I am not having any original thought here; try googling
"frank miller" "violence porn" 300
I like this review. "For a movie that has such intense, and cartoony (not to mention borderline ridiculous) gore the film is far too self-serious." It's true. The film tries to make every single scene and line of dialogue bombastic and dramatic, and it's just silly.
Joe sez:
The movie had some of the same flaws as Steven Pressfield's novels about the Spartans, in that it gave them a nobility that they lacked in reality. I mean, here we have a warrior society that existed only because they had enslaved an entire people, whom they were encouraged to hunt for sport.
Yes. I love that they regarded other peoples as "barbarians", when they had one of the most barbaric cultures ever.
The whole thing is bad exploitation. What's the good kind? Something like Kill Bill or Jackie Brown which are inspired by exploitation films and have fun with it. They're partly self-parody.
Indeed.
300, however, I found to be grotesque. It is intended to appeal to that kind of guy (the violence), and the bodies of the men are there to keep the ladies interested. You wouldn't get that if it they were covered in armour.
And the gays! Lots of hot male bodies, has to be said.
Still, it is a lot better than Beowulf, which looks like a piece of crap.
I agree, what I've seen looks like a video game. Very disappointing, since it's a Neal Gaiman story.
The 300 film and documentaries make like the Spartans were fighting for democracy. Which is BS. There was zero democracy about Sparta.
Pascal says:
... from what I know, democracy was invented by Athens, the sworn rival city of Sparta. And eventually, in spite of all that tuff attitude of the Spartans (who gave the weak-looking of their newborns to the wolves!), Athens won the conflict. On the battlefield...
15 comments:
At least they did admit that it had nothing to do with history (compare that to Braveheart), although I have heard some people talk about parts of it being accurate which really weren't accurate.
The movie had some of the same flaws as Steven Pressfield's novels about the Spartans, in that it gave them a nobility that they lacked in reality. I mean, here we have a warrior society that existed only because they had enslaved an entire people, whom they were encouraged to hunt for sport.
The whole thing is bad exploitation. What's the good kind? Something like Kill Bill or Jackie Brown which are inspired by exploitation films and have fun with it. They're partly self-parody.
300, however, I found to be grotesque. It is intended to appeal to that kind of guy (the violence), and the bodies of the men are there to keep the ladies interested. You wouldn't get that if it they were covered in armour.
Still, it is a lot better than Beowulf, which looks like a piece of crap.
I agree, what I've seen looks like a video game. Very disappointing, since it's a Neal Gaiman story.
Exactly. The technology is just not there yet. I guess technically Gaiman is co-author, though. :)
I do love the original story, at least the Seamus Heaney translation, and wish I could read it in the original Old English.
Yeah, I think I'll pass on that one.
WHAT? You mean that poster says "300"?
And all that time I thought it was about King ZOD's true legend (and sexy body).
Yeah, I guess they expected everybody to be familiar with the title.
I remember as a youngster seeing the ad for the film "Ilsa, she-wolf of the SS", and only seeing the SS logo as two lightnings.
Fortunately I did not see the movie at that age, that was a nasty film.
They should have had him say "Kneel before ZOD!" at least one time in that movie.
"Fortunately I did not see the movie at that age, that was a nasty film."
You mean fascist, or raunchy? Or both?
They should have had him say "Kneel before ZOD!" at least one time in that movie."
K.O.W.L.! Keeling Over With Laughter (before ZOD)! :-D
How could I miss that one?
The Ilsa movies are basically torture porn. Pretty and nude women being tortured to death in various ways by nazis.
I don't condemn them, and I have watched them. There's a place in the grand scheme for all things, especially art, even art that's as hard to stomach as that. And I think part of the role is to help us get over the problems we have facing evil.
You're right, that IS nasty.
But as long as they're consenting actresses, and nobody's really tortured to death, freedom of expression must prevail.
There's a place for bad taste S&M porn in the grand scheme. But don't ask me where that place is, because I have no idea! ;-)
In fact, I don't think I really want to know...
And all that time I thought it was about King ZOD's true legend (and sexy body).
Thank you my beloved fellow man. My servants enjoyed the film but none of them were actually tortured while filming it. I prefer my maidens nude of course without any marks upon them.
Tattoos are forbidden in my kingdom. Good day children.
Historical accuracy (or the lack thereof) aside, what disturbed me about 300 was the "we must save reason, democracy, and freedom from the barbarian hordes who will enslave us" propaganda. Classic dehumanization of the bad guys--the Greeks were of course all noble-looking white folks, while the Persians were ridiculously portrayed as monsters. Which of course is required if one expects to be able to go and kill others on the battlfield; if we see that they are human like us then we will be far less inclined to resort to such extreme measures to protect our values. Heck, we might even try talking to them first, and the powers that be can't have that.
Good point, Citta.
And the Spartans were no more fighting for "freedom and democracy" than Dubya is.
I agree. Good point, and sharp too. Went right to the heart... of the subject, I mean! ;-)
Actually, from what I know, democracy was invented by Athens, the sworn rival city of Sparta. And eventually, in spite of all that tuff attitude of the Spartans (who gave the weak-looking of their newborns to the wolves!), Athens won the conflict. On the battlefield...
Citta, that's lovely-sounding name.
To be fair, Athenian democracy doesn't resemble our version very closely. They were okay with slavery, for one thing. Of course, the process of achieving true equality is still going on. It'll be a long time before everyone understands that all people are created equal.
It was really Thebes, under Epaminondas and Pelopidas who destroyed Sparta's power. They figured out that, while individual Spartans might be tougher, strategy and discipline could defeat them. Philip of Macedon learned from them and took the idea to the next logical step.
Joe Dick clarified...
"To be fair, Athenian democracy doesn't resemble our version very closely."
True. And the Wright brothers' winged bicycle doesn't resemble an F-16 very closely. But they had the great merit of spontaneously inventing the principle in a very ancient epoch where tyranny was the general rule. They helped our species emerge from fancy-looking, urban-dwelling savagery.
Of course, they also swiftly discovered the glass jaw of Democracy: election campaign false promises. Slick politicians appealed to the instincts and naiveness of the masses with fancy words and wide gestures, and very soon democracy was "upgraded" to a military dictatorship. The world wasn't ready just yet. ("Doesn't resemble the USA, today's modern Athens, the least bit." :-P)
Still, you've gotta give those ancient Greeks some sincere credit: they came up with lots of awesome intellectual original accomplishments. Like geometry. And, as Saint Paul so aptly pointed, they invented male bonding by going a big rubbery one. GREEKAY PRIDE-AY! :-)
Pascal, I think I was just pointing out that calling it Democracy does not mean that it is the same as our version. Certainly it was an improvement; I was merely pointing out that it was not perfect. This is obvious to anyone in the know, but not everyone is.
Post a Comment