300 (movie)

[Dis]

darn, emporer beat me to posting the news story. you can't buy comedy like that.

[RGBVideo]

Slate magazine had a review about this movie. It summarizes pretty well why I think Slate sucks.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161450/fr/flyout

If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war. Since it's a product of the post-ideological, post-Xbox 21st century, 300 will instead be talked about as a technical achievement, the next blip on the increasingly blurry line between movies and video games.

Directed by Zack Snyder, whose first feature film was the 2004 makeover of the horror classic Dawn of the Dead, 300 digitally re-creates the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., where, according to classical history and legend, the Spartan king Leonidas led a force of only 300 men against a Persian enemy numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The comic fanboys who make up 300's primary audience demographic aren't likely to get hung up on the movie's historical content, much less any parallels with present-day politics. But what's maddening about 300 (besides the paralyzing monotony of watching chiseled white guys make shish kebabs from swarthy Persians for 116 indistinguishable minutes) is that no one involved—not Miller, not Snyder, not one of the army of screenwriters, art directors, and tech wizards who mounted this empty, gorgeous spectacle—seems to have noticed that we're in the middle of an actual war. With actual Persians (or at least denizens of that vast swath of land once occupied by the Persian empire).

In interviews, Snyder insists that he "really just wanted to make a movie that is a ride"—a perfectly fine ambition for any filmmaker, especially one inspired by the comics. And visually, 300 is thrilling, color-processed to a burnished, monochromatic copper, and packed with painterly, if static, tableaux vivants. But to cast 300 as a purely apolitical romp of an action film smacks of either disingenuousness or complete obliviousness. One of the few war movies I've seen in the past two decades that doesn't include at least some nod in the direction of antiwar sentiment, 300 is a mythic ode to righteous bellicosity. In at least one way, the film is true to the ethos of ancient Greece: It conflates moral excellence and physical beauty (which, in this movie, means being young, white, male, and fresh from the gyms of Brentwood).

Here are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with the "bad" (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown people. Disfigured people. Gay men (not gay in the buff, homoerotic Spartan fashion, but in the effeminate Persian style). Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians. Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws. Elephants and rhinos (filthy creatures both). The Persian commander, the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is a towering, bald club *** with facial piercings, kohl-rimmed eyes, and a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him.

Meanwhile, the Spartans, clad in naught but leather man-briefs, fight under the stern command of Leonidas (Gerard Butler), whose warrior ethic was forged during a childhood spent fighting wolves in the snow. Leonidas likes to rally the troops with bellowed speeches about "freedom," "honor," and "glory," promising that they will be remembered for having created "a world free from mysticism and tyranny." (The men's usual response, a fist-pumping "A-whoo! A-whoo!" sounds strangely fratty.) But Leonidas is not above playing the tyrant himself. When a messenger from Xerxes arrives bearing news Leonidas doesn't like, he hurls the man, against all protocol, down a convenient bottomless well in the center of town. "This is blasphemy! This is madness!" says the messenger, pleading for his life. "This is Sparta," Leonidas replies. So, if Spartan law is defined by "whatever Leonidas wants," what are the 300 fighting for, anyway? And why does that sound depressingly familiar?

Another of the Spartans' less-than-glorious customs is the practice of eugenics, hurling any less-than-perfect infant off a cliff onto a huge pile of baby skeletons. Unfortunately for the 300 at Thermopylae, this system of racial cleansing isn't foolproof: One deformed hunchback, Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), manages to make it to adulthood and begs Leonidas for a chance to serve Sparta in the 300. Sure enough, when he's turned down, the hunchback confirms his moral weakness by accepting Xerxes' offer to join ranks with the Persians.

Meanwhile, back home in Sparta, Leonida's wife, Gorgo (Lena Headey), engages in some plot-padding political intrigue with the evil Theron (The Wire's Dominic West, looking particularly risible in classical drapery). Theron wants to persuade the Spartan council not to send reinforcements to the desperately outnumbered 300 (what is he, a Democrat?). The noble and sexy Gorgo finally gives herself to Theron in exchange for a chance to persuade the council. "This will not be over quickly," the villain warns as he pins her against a temple pillar. "You will not enjoy this." It might have been Zack Snyder himself whispering in my ear, and he would have been right.

In a classic example of the epic understatement known as litotes, Variety's reviewer observes that the picture's vision of the West as a heroic contingent of sculpted badasses and the East as a cauldron perversion and iniquity "might be greeted with muted enthusiasm in the Middle East." Replace the words "muted enthusiasm" with "a roadside bomb," and you've got yourself a tagline for the Baghdad premiere.

Slate.com, where historical claims written down by Herodetes in the 4th century BC mutate into racist agit-prop made with video games and Iraq war in mind. Obviously, the editors should've cut out all the historical references and only left in the gore so Slate couldn't spin it into a propaganda movie.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Buddy, it's suppose to be "pulp", like how the comic was over the top, so's the movie.

Anyone going to this for a history lesson is, well...what's the word?


Stupid

comics? who gives a **** about comics?

Why can't they make a decent war movie now days. Everything has to be overly dramatized and stylized.

comics are stupid. there, I said it.

[Jon Miller]

To be fair, I thought similiar things as Slate just from the previews I have seen.

I have no intention of seeing the movie, although if my freinds are going and invite me I will probably go.

JM

[Dis]

seems like they are glorifying the military state. I haven't actually seen it, just going by this thread. But I think slate is way over the top.

In fact, it pisses me off a little.

No one argues that films like pulp fiction glorifies gangsters. Which is more of a problem killing our young than a war in former persian lands.

It's more closeted Bush bashing as far as I'm concerned. Leave modern politics out of movie reviews.

[MRT144]

i totally thought this movie was an ad for the war on terror.

also, i thought this movie was RETARDED. fun but retarded.

[Gatekeeper]

I thoroughly enjoyed "300" for what it was — a movie.

Anyone who sees the film and comes out thinking that's what Persians (ancient or modern) are like has a screw loose somewhere. Same holds true for the "nannies" out there who feel this compulsion to point out that "300" isn't historically accurate, or that it's really a propaganda film for the Bush Administration, or that it slams gays, lesbians and those who aren't as buff as Spartans.

It's a movie. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Perhaps I'm in the minority in a world going increasingly insane, but if I want facts and real history, I'll dig them up from academic sources outside the domain of the "300" movie.

Gatekeeper

[MRT144]

i still maintain that the movie was a cross between some patriotic ad, the cell, and something greek.

[Gatekeeper]

Heh. On another forum I frequent, someone was making the case that the Spartans were representative of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ... basically, the neo-con position regarding world affairs.

Then someone else pointed out that, no, it they weren't represented by the Spartans but, instead, by the Persians (i.e. the big, hegemonic empire that's putting down roots everywhere).

So, go figure. To me, it was a good, rollicking movie. It reminded me quite a bit of "Gladiator."

Gatekeeper

[Dis]

doesn't seem likely that liberal hollywood would put out a pro Bush movie. That's why I don't buy the slate arguments.

It has been noted that this is the first notable movie of the past 20 years without any anti-war stance. I'm okay with that. Why must every film be anti-war?

[Gatekeeper]

**shrug** You'd have to ask TPTB that finance, direct and act in. That said, I'm tottering off to bed. Gotta get my seven hours of sack time ...

Gatekeeper

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by VJ
Slate.com, where historical claims written down by Herodetes in the 4th century BC mutate into racist agit-prop made with video games and Iraq war in mind. Obviously, the editors should've cut out all the historical references and only left in the gore so Slate couldn't spin it into a propaganda movie.

Just that lots of things in the movie - some already mentioned in this thread - don't have anything to with Herodotus' writings.

[RGBVideo]

Fine, I'll write a long-ass reply because you did not understand my point

Originally posted by BeBro
Just that lots of things in the movie - some already mentioned in this thread - don't have anything to with Herodotus' writings.

Way to completely miss the point. I'm not defending the movie (edit: SEE? IT'S RIGHT HERE, THE POINT OF MY POSTS! I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLE ACTUAL (AND NON-DESCRIBED) FALSEHOODS IN THE MOVIE, I'M TALKING ABOUT SCENES PRESUMED BY THE REVIEWER TO BE FALSEHOODS IN THE MOVIE WHILE ALL THE SCENES SHE DESCRIBES ARE ACTUALLY BASED ON THE HISTORICAL RECORD, ID EST FACTS! CAN YOU READ IT NOW THAT I BOLDED AND WROTE IT ALLCAPS FOR YOU?) -- I don't give a crap about the movie. I'm attacking the review: it shouts outrage over scenes the reviewer interprets as allegories to the modern world the director has made up, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they're directly taken from the historical record. Example:

Another of the Spartans' less-than-glorious customs is the practice of eugenics, hurling any less-than-perfect infant off a cliff onto a huge pile of baby skeletons.

Yes. Based on what we know, the Spartan society had customs like this during the Persian wars. If you think the movie is drumming up support for the upcoming secret Bu****ler's eugenics program in the war in terror the movie so clearly is an allegory of, take your complaints to Herodetes.

There are so many facts like this the reviewer doesn't seem to realize about the 2nd Persian War which she raises up herself as proof of the movie's supposed propaganda revisionism. The Persians (no, not the people based in what is now known as Iraq, but in what is now known as Iran) were quite clearly the aggressors. Persians had a heterogeneous and low-morale mercenary-based army composed of people from Africa and Middle East against the homogeneous and high-morale citizen's army of Sparta composed of people from Greece. The Spartan's had to buy their own armour, so it's not only credible but also probable that the they were clad in tight leather skirts, sandals and little else in the middle of the Mediterranean summer heatwave. Et cetera, et cetera ad nauseam.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone who has read that review through is trying to defend it. It's a prime example (would make a good parody on it's own) of Slate.com's partisan hackery and ultra-PC worldview, combined with the magazine's signature of language elitism displayed with the needlessly fancy words and terms in the most surreal contexts. Look at the closing sentences, ffs:

In a classic example of the epic understatement known as litotes, Variety's reviewer observes that the picture's vision of the West as a heroic contingent of sculpted badasses and the East as a cauldron perversion and iniquity "might be greeted with muted enthusiasm in the Middle East." Replace the words "muted enthusiasm" with "a roadside bomb," and you've got yourself a tagline for the Baghdad premiere.

Replace the words "muted enthuasiasm" with "universal censure" and you've got yourself a tagline for the Tehran premiere. Look lady, are you seriously suggesting pre-emptive self-censure of what happened because of nothing but fear or are you just wasting our time with these hyperboles?

[RGBVideo]

Anyone who sees the film and comes out thinking that's what Persians (ancient or modern) are like has a screw loose somewhere. Same holds true for the "nannies" out there who feel this compulsion to point out that "300" isn't historically accurate, or that it's really a propaganda film for the Bush Administration, or that it slams gays, lesbians and those who aren't as buff as Spartans.

[...] Perhaps I'm in the minority in a world going increasingly insane, but if I want facts and real history, I'll dig them up from academic sources outside the domain of the "300" movie.

I agree, 100%.

My conclusion of the review: Slate.com sucks. That's why I posted the review here, I had said this sentence previously in Apolyton and someone was requesting prime examples of it's suck-titude, today I encountered one.

[BeBMan]

Great, I'll answer since you're a funny little guy

Originally posted by VJ
Way to completely miss the point. I'm not defending the movie -- I don't give a crap about the movie. I'm attacking the review: it shouts outrage over scenes the reviewer interprets as allegories to the modern world the director has made up, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they're directly taken from the historical record.

And so what? The historical record is one thing - to idealize these practices today is another, and this is not only the opinion from those who published the review, as earlier posts here indicate. From other things we know about the movie I somehow doubt that they included some parts because they cared oh so much about historical correctness, while they had no problems to completely make up other parts.

Yes. Based on what we know, the Spartan society had customs like this during the Persian wars. If you think the movie is drumming up support for the upcoming secret Bu****ler's eugenics program in the war in terror the movie so clearly is an allegory of, take your complaints to Herodetes.

Well, it's Herodotus. For the rest, see above.

And a movie which seriously has something like "Spartans defended democracy" (a similar comment on the official website of the movie) makes itself an easy target, btw.