Thursday, April 05, 2007

Review: 300

Based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller, Zack Snider's 300 tells the story of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480BC, when 300 Spartan soldiers mounted a suicide mission against the million-strong Persian army to buy time for Greece. Shot in the style of Sin City, a much more succesful adaptation of another Miller graphic novel, with live action film against blue screens and sets and landscapes added digitally in post-production, 300 is a ludicrously bad movie that fails spectacularly on so many levels.

Its parade of identical male characters essentially lack any character, being so utterly two dimensional that you simply don't know them or identify with them, a flaw meaning that you feel no sense of concern for them when they enter battle.

The film glorifies fascism, setting the Spartans and their obsessive, bloodthirsty king as heroic, with an all-too-obvious parallel that posits their small army as defenders of humanity going up against insurmountable odds, just like 'our boys in Iraq' - complete with massed, imbecilic Marine-like grunting.

The fight scenes, of which there are many - too many - lack tension, drama or pathos. I found myself watching dispassionately, only occasionally moved by the aesthetics of the film-making process, but uterly disconnected, even bored by, the action on the screen.

Equally offensively, the film is overtly homophobic, as if somehow needing to offset the director's vision of Spartans as muscular underwear catalogue models in red cloaks and leather codpieces designed to show off their oiled pecs and washboard stomachs. One example of this comes when the Spartans dismiss Athenians as "poets and boy lovers". The most extreme example of homophobia in 300 is in the depiction of the film's villain, the Persian god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) who is presented as the classic Hollywood evil fag, with plucked eyebrows, long nails, a lascivious voice and exaggerated, effeminate posture.

Xerxes' unnatural overtures are rebuffed - and rightly so, cry a thousand sweaty, insecure teenage jocks - by the Spartan king Leonidas (Gerard Butler), a manly man's man who surrounds himself with half-naked men in an unwittingly precise illustration of the struggle between homosocial and homoerotic urges that dominates the Western masculine millieu.

Perhaps the only highlight in the entire two-hour movie is a scene in which
Leonidas' queen, played by Lena Headey, gains the upper hand over a supercillious, treacherous Spartan politician. Sadly it comes so late in the film, as the coda of a poorly developed subplot, that it failed to arouse the appropriate thrill in the by-now bored and intellectually brutalised audience at last night's midnight preview at the IMAX Theatre.

In short, 300 is an abominable film that offends the intelligence of its viewers, that betrays the historical canon it purports to celebrate, that butchers any concept of drama, and whose politics and social messages are deeply suspect. It even fails to be so bad it's good. It's just bad, boring, and uterly undeserving of popular or critical acclaim.

19 comments:

RRP said...

so, i guess you ddidn't like the movie?

i didn't mind it so much, but then again i'm a fan of "check-your-brain-by-the-door" films. this one appealed to my low-brow sensibilities, you know, on account of all them bulges.

what'd you think of the slight homoeroticism between the captain's son and his friend? or am i the only one who picked that up?

happy easter, mr watts!

CowboyDenver said...

Great review. Thanks. You saved me $10!

richardwatts said...

hi r*yan - dont get me wrong, i love popcorn movies; well, some of them anyway. as much as i like to switch off my brain and relax in the cinema, to do that, the film has to be entertaining. bulging crotches aside, i found bugger-all to entertain me in this movie....

cowboydenver - you're welcome, and thanks for leaving a comment!

TimT said...

I'm still seeing it! I prefer Jason's review, (he has some pretty interesting insights about the movie, as is demonstrated in comments to that thread I just linked). I wonder how a movie about the battle between the Spartans and Persians at Thermopylae could not have violence as a major theme?

BTW, I think you were wrong about 'The Good German', too, but thanks for the reviews.

richardwatts said...

timt - see it by all means; everyone should make up their own mind, on this and every other subject, without being unduly swayed by a review meant so serve merely as a guideline.

your comment about 'how a movie about the battle between the Spartans and Persians at Thermopylae could not have violence as a major theme?' has me puzzled, though. i never said the film was too violent -i just said there were too many combat scenes, ie at the expense of character development or actual drama.

I'll be interested to read the review of the film you've linked to, though, and thanks - i'm always up for diversity of opinion.

TimT said...

Cheers! As you'll see, my 'Good German' review is hardly a serious review, though!

I guess I did misrepresent your position there, just responding to the generic film critic argument that 'gratuitous violence is bad'.

There was a hilarious review of 'The 300' on some American fan site which kind of put it all into perspective for me:

If you watch this movie and go into a Taco Bell, and say to the cashier, “I need some extra sauce packets” guess what? You’re getting twenty sauce packets because your face will punch him in the brain.

I simply can't argue with that!

Lumpen said...

In issue for of the original text (Frank Miller's 300)there was an interesting letter from a guy who basically made the same criticisms:

"…Anybody with even remotely knowledgable… knows that also that the Spartans were as much boy-lovers as the effete Athenians…
Still, to depict Leonidas and his men as homophobes is… well, it's Miller again. Gorgeous work, ugly subtexts."

To which Miller replies:

"…being a warrior class, the Spartans almost certainly did practice homosexuality. There's also evidence that they tended to lie about it. It's not a big leap to postulate that they ridiculed their hedonistic Athenian rivals for something they themselves did. "Hypocrisy" is, after all (sic), a word we got from the Greeks."

Just thought you'd be interested.
BTW, for those of you who don't know, Frank Miller is a bit of a hard right wingnut. He proposed doing a Batman comic called 'Holy Terror Batman!' that would have the millionaire vigilante facing off against Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Grant Morrison hit the target in an interview with Newsarama:

GM: I'd rather Batman embodied the best that secular humanism has to offer – a sour-faced, sexually-repressed, humorless, uptight, angry, and all-round grim 'n' gritty Batman would be more likely to join the Taliban surely?

NRAMA: Er…

GM: And while we're on that subject...Batman vs. Al Qaeda! It might as well be Bin Laden vs. King Kong! Or how about the sinister Al Qaeda mastermind up against a hungry Hannibal Lecter! For all the good it's likely to do. Cheering on a fictional character as he beats up fictionalized terrorists seems like a decadent indulgence when real terrorists are killing real people in the real world. I'd be so much more impressed if Frank Miller gave up all this graphic novel nonsense, joined the Army and, with a howl of undying hate, rushed headlong onto the front lines with the young soldiers who are actually risking life and limb 'vs' Al Qaeda.

TimT said...

According to Jason in that linked review, Miller is more of a hawkish Democrat. Amazing as it may seem, there is such a thing as a pro-war Left. I don't think that criticism of Miller you quote there, Lumpen, really works. Fr'instance, Viz Comics regular 'Felix and his Amazing Underpants' once managed to capture Bin Laden in said amazing underpants. A 'decadent indulgence'? Bah, all the best indulgences are decadent, but anyway, I couldn't care less - the cartoon was F*U*N*N*Y*.

Lumpen said...

I think Morrison's comments help put Miller into perspective. Miller writes funny books about lone alpha-males controlling the world (usually while in costume). It's useful to think that Miller is creating adolescent power fantasies where the world is comfortingly categorised.
What separates Miller from most other superhero comic writers is his almost-cute belief that his role is to reinforce the nation-state through Batman stories.

TimT said...

I saw it. It was good, very good, and I'd say I disagree with most, though not everything, said in this review. Might do my own response later, though I have to turn over a couple of things about the movie in my mind.

Just as a thought, I'd note that the Spartans aren't actually portrayed in the film as heroic - although this is how the Greeks at the time might have been tempted to portray them. They're portrayed tragically: heroes with fatal flaws. (Specifically, the mentality that the Spartans operate under is essentially pre-Aristotelean; Miller seems them through the perspective of a post-Aristotelean mentality.)

I'll keep turning over the thoughts in my mind and maybe post on my blawg tomorrow.

richardwatts said...

timt - disagree away, and i look forward to reading your take on the film - and for that matter, my housemate's, as he went to see it tonight as well...

Anonymous said...

Lumpen
Do familiarise yourself with Miller's work before you start talking nonsense. Miller 'reinforcing the State'? He has obviously taken a dislike to what he perceives as Islamo-fascism because of its religious-totalitarian elements.He tries (and fails) to make his fictionalised Spartans secularists too (hence all those references to fighting mysticism and tyranny).


But even his Batman is basically an anarchist, not a dictator. In his two Dark Knight graphic novels, Batman goes up against a Superman who was manipulated to work for the government first under President Ronald Reagan and then President Lex Luthor. In the Dark Knight strikes again one of the Luthor cabinet resembles John Ashcroft and another one resembles Donald Rumsfeld. There is also talk about Luthor 'stealing the election' and keeping people happy by growing the economy while repressing their freedoms. He is clearly not even a Republican.

Anonymous said...

Some background on his Dark Knight returns which substantiates my claims. Miller's politics are more interesting than left vs right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Dark_Knight_Strikes_Again


The graphic novel contains caricatures of several prominent members of the first administration of President George W. Bush, including John Ashcroft, Ari Fleischer, and Donald Rumsfeld. The president is revealed to actually be a hologram controlled by Lex Luthor, a satirical commentary on the controlled media image of modern politicians, as well as the common perception that Bush is somehow subservient to either Vice-President Dick Cheney or to the "corporate elites".[citation needed]

The general public is depicted as ignorant and childish, varying between condemning the superheroes, and demanding that they save them from evil. Many of the characters have strong political views, such as Green Arrow, a Marxist revolutionary, and The Question, a radical libertarian. Superman quotes Batman as saying that the superheroes "have to be criminals", and comes to agree with him at the end of the novel. Batman also says that he has been ignoring the real problem, going after petty criminals while the real monsters rose to government power.

In sum, the novel contains themes of individualism, personal freedom and advocates a strong ethical viewpoint, rather than modern, relativist views of right and wrong.

The graphic novel's conclusion can be interpreted as anti-democratic. Superman asks his daughter, "What shall we do with our world?" In other words, Luthor's dictatorship is replaced by a non-democratic oligarchy of heroes from the Silver Age of DC Comics.

mskp said...

oh, richard, i so preferred your review to the actual film.

it was truly abysmal.

and i think miller struggles with gender and sexuality complicating his homosocial, hyper-masculine, overtly violent, heteronormative view of the world and the alpha-men within it.

but in the end, like you said, i couldn't really care about this movie enough to critique the "characters". there was no emotional hook, no moral anchor, no one to side with, nobody to fear. women were vehicles, men were caricatures. bah.

Unknown said...

"Two hours of big muscly men penetrating each other with spears" is what I've heard it described as.

richardwatts said...

Nice summation, tim!

Paul Martin said...

It seems the best that positive reviews of 300 can offer is that it's OK or that it wasn't too bad. I'd already made up my own mind that I didn't want to see it, but this review and others confirm my decision. For me, visuals are never enough; a film demands a good story.

I find it interesting, Richard, that you point out homophobia in 300. I noted that Sin City, which did have great characterisations, left women out of the equation. They were all window dressing without substance. I see a subtle connection, because homophobia and misogyny often go hand in hand. And an obsession with superficial adoration of women often reveals misogyny ("women are only good for one thing"). Maybe I'm reading too deep, but I don't think so.

Anyway, nice review of a film I won't be seeing.

Oops, before I go... I did see a completely different film this week that had some things in common: Claire Denis' Beau travail at Melbourne Cinémathèque. Muscular fighting men (French Foreign Legion in Africa) and their washboard abs.. but what poetic muscular eroticism. Well written, beautifully photographed, elusive and lingering. Truly sublime!

Unknown said...

And here's a picture!
http://www.gavinclayton.dsl.pipex.com/300.jpg

Was originally on b3ta
http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/truth_in_advertising/page6

Thanks.

richardwatts said...

Paul - I saw Beau Travail a couple of years ago, and yes, it's exquisite.