Three hundred, I give it one rotten tomato
Tuesday, 10. July 2007, 16:30:08
It has been quite a while since I last put metaphorical pen to paper. Yet, a movie I saw yesterday sparked my critical side. It is a movie that many have already seen, and has been reviewed by many more eloquent and qualified than I (Tim) yet, I feel compelled to add to the dialog.
The famous battle of Thermopylae was re-told with quite a few addendums in the greatly popular “300.” There were several good themes in the movie, but they were grossly overshadowed by the rest of the elements in this film. After mulling over the film for about a day, there are three main issues that came to mind concerning “300.”
First off, it is a brutally violent film. Though it isn’t surprising that a movie depicting an epic battle would be violent, I could have done with a little less blood splattering the camera. Erupting from within this violence was an even more disturbing glorification of war and violence. It is a noble thing to give up your life to protect another, as the 300 did, but there was this implicit underlying narrative that screamed violence is the answer to all their and our problems. The idealized war fighting to protect your family is hardly the truth if one were to look at the real battle of Thermopylae. This idealized view of the justness of their cause is under-girded by my second huge problem with the film; it is completely a-historical.
Many have countered that in modern retellings of ancient stories the historicity of the events are hardly the point of the film. While on one level I agree completely, I strongly question the probable political reasons for this particular hollywoodization, (or Millerization as the case may be). In this case, the battle and surrounding events are portrayed in such a way to glorify war, make the west look culturally better than the east and finally instilling the hero’s with a distrust of political solutions in favor of military solutions. The chief scoundrel and traitor from within Sparta was the diplomat.
It was also interesting to me that the truth about the Spartan military was totally turned on its head. The whole Spartan military force was conditioned to be homosexual because it made them better fighters. They could hardly have been fighting to protect their wives and children. Of course, with out this convenient change, the movie probably wouldn’t have appealed to the overly testosteroned populace it was aimed at. Another huge part they left out in all the talk about fighting for freedom was that the free were only 1/10th of the population of Sparta. Because all the labor was done by such a high population of slaves, they had to have a strong standing army just to keep their slave population in check. But the question of whose freedom they were fighting for would have forced Miller to depart from his monolithic portrayal of good verses evil. I could continue by looking at the false dichotomy of Persian mysticism verses Greek reason etc, but that would make this too long to be digestible.
There is also the whole racial issue, with the darker skinned Persians portrayed as monsters. I realize that the Persians were ethnically different, yet to portray them as monsters is an unfair demonization of the Persians. The Persian king Xerxes himself was portrayed as a false deity who would fulfill all your wishes like a genie if you would but bow down to worship him. It was an obvious attempt to conjure up images of a beautiful diabolical tempter reminiscent of the biblical Satan. In contrast, Mr. Miller, and American moviegoers ought to be careful about demonizing any people no matter how ancient or modern.
The only really positive part about the movie was the way in which things were lit. Yet even the visuals were distracted with sub-par cinematography, dialog and speeches. The “great” speeches given were reminiscent of the president’s laughable speech in Will Smith’s big movie “Independence Day.” It really was a mediocre movie in every way that I am surprised anyone liked. Once you factor in the culture of war it is suggesting and all the other negative elements, it becomes not just a wasted two hours, but a wholly negative film. .
The famous battle of Thermopylae was re-told with quite a few addendums in the greatly popular “300.” There were several good themes in the movie, but they were grossly overshadowed by the rest of the elements in this film. After mulling over the film for about a day, there are three main issues that came to mind concerning “300.”
First off, it is a brutally violent film. Though it isn’t surprising that a movie depicting an epic battle would be violent, I could have done with a little less blood splattering the camera. Erupting from within this violence was an even more disturbing glorification of war and violence. It is a noble thing to give up your life to protect another, as the 300 did, but there was this implicit underlying narrative that screamed violence is the answer to all their and our problems. The idealized war fighting to protect your family is hardly the truth if one were to look at the real battle of Thermopylae. This idealized view of the justness of their cause is under-girded by my second huge problem with the film; it is completely a-historical.
Many have countered that in modern retellings of ancient stories the historicity of the events are hardly the point of the film. While on one level I agree completely, I strongly question the probable political reasons for this particular hollywoodization, (or Millerization as the case may be). In this case, the battle and surrounding events are portrayed in such a way to glorify war, make the west look culturally better than the east and finally instilling the hero’s with a distrust of political solutions in favor of military solutions. The chief scoundrel and traitor from within Sparta was the diplomat.
It was also interesting to me that the truth about the Spartan military was totally turned on its head. The whole Spartan military force was conditioned to be homosexual because it made them better fighters. They could hardly have been fighting to protect their wives and children. Of course, with out this convenient change, the movie probably wouldn’t have appealed to the overly testosteroned populace it was aimed at. Another huge part they left out in all the talk about fighting for freedom was that the free were only 1/10th of the population of Sparta. Because all the labor was done by such a high population of slaves, they had to have a strong standing army just to keep their slave population in check. But the question of whose freedom they were fighting for would have forced Miller to depart from his monolithic portrayal of good verses evil. I could continue by looking at the false dichotomy of Persian mysticism verses Greek reason etc, but that would make this too long to be digestible.
There is also the whole racial issue, with the darker skinned Persians portrayed as monsters. I realize that the Persians were ethnically different, yet to portray them as monsters is an unfair demonization of the Persians. The Persian king Xerxes himself was portrayed as a false deity who would fulfill all your wishes like a genie if you would but bow down to worship him. It was an obvious attempt to conjure up images of a beautiful diabolical tempter reminiscent of the biblical Satan. In contrast, Mr. Miller, and American moviegoers ought to be careful about demonizing any people no matter how ancient or modern.
The only really positive part about the movie was the way in which things were lit. Yet even the visuals were distracted with sub-par cinematography, dialog and speeches. The “great” speeches given were reminiscent of the president’s laughable speech in Will Smith’s big movie “Independence Day.” It really was a mediocre movie in every way that I am surprised anyone liked. Once you factor in the culture of war it is suggesting and all the other negative elements, it becomes not just a wasted two hours, but a wholly negative film. .
WIDGETIZE