Review of 300 the movie

[Narukami]

Indeed so.

The older films are not perfect, but in many ways they are more satisfying in their story telling. Perhaps that is a sign of my age more than of their quality.

However...

After watching 300 at the theatre, my wife and I came home and watched The 300 Spartans. Again, not a perfect film but one can clearly see the influence of the earlier film on the later one, and in many ways I enjoyed it more.

Of course, there are aspects of the new film that are visually quite stunning (like the oracle) and the tricks used to achieve them are very interesting.

I will be interested in hearing your review once you have seen it.

To my mind 300 is best approached as one does a Kabuki play -- enjoy the spectacle for what it is, though even the most benign extravaganza can not be entirely divorced from time, place or context. That applies not only to kabuki but more especially to film.

Narukami

[sulla felix]

obviously haven't seen it yet, but I think one of the things that is really getting my back up about the recent lot of sword and sandal blockbusters is the fact that film makers have regressed in their depiction of the ancients, compared to similar films of the 1950's and 60's. Troy compared to Helen of Troy, and 300 compared to 300 Spartans (even Gladiator compared to FOTRE).

Tarbicus - I think it is more a question of film makers losing the ability or desire to tell a story. There is now an obsession with special effects, which is all well and good if there is a story in there somewhere. From what I understand of 300 it was filmed almost entirely in front of blue screens so that the effects could be imposed at a later date. You do not see that sort of thing in Spartacus for example - real men, women, horses, fighting, landscapes etc. for the most part. With all of that going on you needed a strong storyline, which you rarely get in movies these days IMHO.

[Tarbicus]

Tarbicus - I think it is more a question of film makers losing the ability or desire to tell a story.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Certainly since the 80's "Story is king" has been the main criteria for most blockbusters and an oft-quoted phrase from producers. I personally think there's an innate distrust of sticking to historical accuracy in events and character which might compromise the story, ironically. Coupled with the studios auctioning off their impressive reference libraries, we're left with an uphill struggle for research and reference to be garnered on tight deadlines, and a more stylised approach is taken (the Mad Max syndrome, as I call it).

[Robert Vermaat]

One more point for Jim.

I agree, my criticism about this movie would not be about propaganda or about comic books, but about the wilful distortion of history. Like that review said: it's all about Spartans, Spartans, Spartans.
- Spartans seem to do it alone, the others are neglected or ridiculed.
- homossexuality is clearly made into a negative, but the Spartans (who practise male relations) seem to most 'straight', while both Persians and other Greeks are turned into something they were not.

It's not new for Hollywood.

How about that movie where a a Nazi decoding machine was captured - by the US Navy, instead of the British, who did that in reality?

Or how about Mel Gibson's 'The Patriot', where British soldiers were downright dehumanised?

In that sense, '300' is the last in a line of movies in a worrying development.

[bachmat66]

It's not new for Hollywood.

How about that movie where a a Nazi decoding machine was captured - by the US Navy, instead of the British, who did that in reality?

In agreement with the above but I think your statement here needs urgent correction, thus with all due respect the so called Enigma was decoded and actual Enigma machine was built by the Polish counterinteligence agency and their scientists before the war - the actual trio that finalized this work was named - Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Różycki oraz Henryk Zygalski. It is worth noting that the French government helped this project more that any other ally (and vice versa - Polish government gave the actual machines with their respective codes to their allies, British and French, right before the war in July 1939) even provided their direct support between 1939 and 1941 (including the Vichy government help). After 1941 the Polish team 'went' to the British center at Bletchley Park there continuing their work etc - they even have their little monument there - erected in 2002 That other Hollywood movie was but a shameful distortion and disgrace!
end of 'off topic'

[hoplite14gr]

Posted by Newsbot.

http://www.livescience.com/history/0703 ... movie.html

I respect the authors opinion but he is exagerating in many things.
I find this type of "aphoristic" scientific analysis more annoying than the films who at least do not claim to teach history.

Kind regards

[Chariovalda]

Getting back to the "increasing dodginess" of historical movies, that's not just a feature of movies placed in Antiquity, but the Middle Ages as well.

A major part of the problem is, I think, that history is just used as a decor. It has no value by and in itself. In the past, at least, it could be used to put forward moral lessons - The Fall of the Roman Empire and Spartacus are very moralistic movies.

However, for all the "stoere taal" (high-minded, proud language) in Gladiator, or the PC crap in the rather boring "Kingdom of Heaven" (yes, Ridley Scott, I'm looking at you) you just *sense* it's all very superficial. It's all about the cool buildings and action now; any high-minded language is just to give it an "adult" and "serious" veneer.

If that's what history in a movie has become - just a decor, and no more than that - than the last difference between pure fantasy and a historical movie has disappeared. In fact, I would say (and some people have made comments amounting to something similar) that the LotR movies make superior "historical" epics to many a recent sword-and-sandal or medieval epic.

[Robert Vermaat]

In agreement with the above but I think your statement here needs urgent correction, thus with all due respect the so called Enigma was decoded and actual Enigma machine was built by the Polish counterinteligence agency and their scientists before the war - the actual trio that finalized this work was named - Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Różycki oraz Henryk Zygalski.

You are of course correct. But I was referring to the capture of the machine from a German U-boat, which (or so I thought) was something carried off by the Royal Navy, not the US Navy, as Hollywood made us believe.
But you are also right about the other movie about breaking the codes...

And, Dariusz, please add your real name to your signature? Forum rules...

[Robert Vermaat]

It's all about the cool buildings and action now; any high-minded language is just to give it an "adult" and "serious" veneer.

Yes, I agree. So why do they keep boring us with names 'taken from history', but then made into something out of a novel?

Commodus did not die in the arena after just a few years' reign. William Wallace was no painted farmer straight from the hills. The Spartans weree not the only defenders of the pass..

Why do they bother in Hollywood? Stop pretending! Invent names and stop all criticism about 'historic fallacies'! Indeed, look at what LOTR brought us - no one (of course) even bother to call it historical.
So why William Wallace - William McDonalds! Commodus? Caesarius!

They could have called the Spartans 'Lake Demons'.. Get it? :wink:

[Chariovalda]

So why do they keep boring us with names 'taken from history', but then made into something out of a novel?

I think it has something to do with the fact that a "historical" movie, like a historical novel, has a little more cachet than an openly "fantasy" movie. There's also a psychological thing connected, I think; something that "once was real", even if (openly or not openly) romanticized feels differently from something that is "obviously" pure fantasy.
A historical movie, unless it's a humorous action movie like "The Mummy" or "Pirates of the Caribbean", is more "serious" than fantasy. It's a bit like some over-priced products that aren't all that good but sell for a high price due to a prestigious name.

When you look at novels, Manda Scott's "Boudicca" novels are almost pure fantasy; if the names were "changed to protect the innocent" it would immediately be shoved off to the fantasy shelves, rather than remain among the ordinary "fiction" books. It's the same with many "historical" movies, I am afraid. You have books like Dorothy Dunnet's "King Hereafter" or Colleen McCullough's books, and you have Manda Scott (and some Arthurian stuff as well). You have "Gods and Generals", "Barry Lindon", "Master and Commander" and "Spartacus", and you have "Gladiator", "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Braveheart".

In defense of the latter, I'd point out that it was clearly "mythical", rather than real history. I remember that when we saw it in the cinema we both recognised it at the time for what it was, and greatly enjoyed it as such. I think there's a qualitative difference between Braveheart and some of the later historical flicks anyway, Braveheart seems to be, well, somewhat more earnest than for instance Scott's movies.

Finally, lest some people think I have any objection against nice buildings, fancy costumes and action, not at all! It always was and always will be a major attraction of the historical flick. What really annoys and irritates me is the dumbing down of plot and the lack of going that little extra to get things a little more right. If you've got the money and knowledge, than why the heck don't you do it? I see it as a form of dedication to quality, of polishing a movie until it "shines for eternity". Not doing it just feels kinda cheap.

[Narukami]

This from the LA Times...


THE BIG PICTURE/ PATRICK GOLDSTEIN
[size=150:1xhwockw]'300': It's just a movie -- or is it?[/size]

Call it a grand, vivid spectacle -- nothing more, nothing less.

PATRICK GOLDSTEIN


DON'T tell the critics, but "300" is a new kind of action movie, a clever synthesis of the stylized epic storytelling practiced by Peter Jackson in "Lord of the Rings" and the stop 'n' start fast-motion cutting of the Wachowski brothers' "Matrix" series. Let's call it Hyper Cinema. "300's" entire visual environment — its billowy wheat fields, its stormy gray skies, even blood that miraculously evaporates before it hits the ground — is a fabricated universe, created by 1,300 effects shots generated in a computer after the actors have gone home.

It's a gamer's view of the world that film critics don't relate to because they seem to have forgotten the kick they got from reading comics as kids. When I went to see "300" last week, the theater was full of scruffy guys who looked like they spent a lot more hours playing Final Fantasy X11 or God of War II than working out at the gym. In an era when it's increasingly difficult to reach young males, "300" offered a vivid spectacle of glistening pecs — as one admirer put it, "Ray Harryhausen crossed with Leni Riefenstahl" — that couldn't be replicated at home.


"We took a singular idea and went all the way with it, which I think resonates with audiences," director Zack Snyder, whose only other feature was a remake of "Dawn of the Dead," said on the phone from London. "It gives you that feeling that made you go to movies in the first place, as in 'Holy [smoke], that was awesome!' "

Populated with unknown actors, the retelling of the gory battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC was airily dismissed as hokum by America's leading critics.

Where the fanboys saw an easily identifiable theme — "me and my buddies are gonna band together and kick some butt" — critics spied pandering trash. The Boston Globe's Wesley Morris called "300" "action porn." The New York Times' A.O. Scott said " '300' is about as violent as ' Apocalypto' and twice as stupid." And the Washington Post's Stephen Hunter, dripping with disdain, exclaimed, "Go tell the Spartans that their sacrifice was not in vain; their long day's fight under the cooling shade of a million falling arrows safeguarded the West and guaranteed, all these years later, the right of idiots to make rotten movies about them."

Those idiots grossed $129.2 million in just 10 days. And Snyder says he wasn't perturbed by the nasty reviews. "Nah, I love 'em, they were funny," he says. "The reviews were so neo-con, so homophobic. They couldn't just go see the movie without trying to over-intellectualize it."

The critics were disturbed by a host of issues, not the least being the film's macho belligerence, cartoonish lack of interest in history and racial stereotyping of Xerxes' Persian hordes as dark-skinned, decadent club queens. But a key reason critics reacted so harshly is because they have been trained to value realism over fantasy, whether it is the stoic drama of Clint Eastwood's "Letters From Iwo Jima" or the cool psychological precision of David Fincher's "Zodiac," which has flopped at the box office, despite critical raves.

"Zodiac" had everything a critic could love. It was smart, full of context and armed with a compelling narrative about an obsessive search for an enigmatic killer. Unfortunately, Fincher is a filmmaker who has little interest in what audiences — or studio executives — think about his movies. He makes them for himself.

In contrast, Snyder's "300," with its Xbox ethos, is a movie made for a generation of visual sensation seekers. Critics are largely shaped by the aesthetic of the cinematic past, which is why you often get the feeling they've been dragged, kicking and screaming, into a new world they describe as coarser, more superficial and less intellectually stimulating than the golden age of their moviegoing youth.

The complaints are almost always the same. "It's an epic without a dream," said one critic. "The loudness, the smash-and-grab editing, and the relentless pacing drive every idea from your head, and even if you've been entertained, you may feel cheated of some dimension — a sense of wonder, perhaps." Those words were written 30 years ago by Pauline Kael, reviewing "Star Wars."

If anyone knows how late critics come to the party, it is Fincher, whose breakthrough 1995 thriller "Se7en" was roundly dismissed by many of the same top critics who were "Zodiac's" biggest admirers. The Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern called it "ponderous," Time's Richard Schickel dubbed it "twaddle" and Newsweek's David Ansen described its style as being a cross between "a Nike commercial and a bad Polish art film."

Now that his work is more familiar, Fincher is considered an old master, at least compared with a nervy upstart like Snyder. As it turns out, the two men's backgrounds are surprisingly similar. Fincher, who is only four years older than the 40-year-old Snyder, began his career at ILM doing optical effects on George Lucas films before directing a series of commercials and music videos for everyone from Aerosmith to Paula Abdul. Snyder had a similar career path.

"I'm part of the 'Star Wars' generation — it's what made me want to become a director," Snyder says. "Blade Runner," "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Excalibur" — films he saw in his mid-teens — are the ones he cites as big influences.

It's obvious that Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" series has served as an influence as well. "300's" deformed hunchback, Ephialtes, who betrays the Spartans, is uncannily reminiscent, both in physical form and in moral ambiguity, to "LOTR's" Gollum.

Snyder has learned that film is a subliminal art, in the sense that he uses his visuals to supply the film's emotional underpinning. In "300," the sky is always dark and unsettled, as if to signal the bitter bloodshed to come. "We tried to make the sky reflect the emotion in the movie, which you can't do in a regular movie," he says. "That's what is great about this kind of green-screen filmmaking. It's not just the actors who matter. Every element in the frame supports the emotion of the moment."

Sadly, our critics, who seemed content with hooting at "300," have lost touch with what makes movies different from other art forms. Hollywood's mass-audience films are not a literary or an intellectual genre. Never have been, never will be. They are built around visuals and emotion, the two elements that "300" used to capture the public imagination.

No one understands this better than 13-year-old Tristan Rodman, who saw "300" (with his dad, since the film is R-rated). "I guess the critics have not liked the movie for the same reason that the majority of people in America did like it," he told me. "Most people just went to see it. Not for the acting or the story, which was just OK, but for the spectacle."

Tristan got a great thrill from seeing "300." And whether you're a critic or just a fanboy, isn't that what people have always gone to the movies for?


:wink:

Narukami

[Tarbicus]

No one understands this better than 13-year-old Tristan Rodman, who saw "300" (with his dad, since the film is R-rated). "I guess the critics have not liked the movie for the same reason that the majority of people in America did like it," he told me. "Most people just went to see it. Not for the acting or the story, which was just OK, but for the spectacle."

Tristan got a great thrill from seeing "300." And whether you're a critic or just a fanboy, isn't that what people have always gone to the movies for?

But Tristan's only 13 years old, and it would have been a far more interesting to ask if he thought bloodshed on an epic scale is cool, and his thoughts on non-Westerners as real human beings.

Snyder has learned that film is a subliminal art, in the sense that he uses his visuals to supply the film's emotional underpinning.

"Subliminal" being the important word. A director is as susceptible to it as the audience.

The writer is just another critic, ironically reviewing the critics - Pot, kettle, black.

[Felix]

Does "300" offer anything above a new, slick presentation of massive slaughter? Some towering works of art do have massive amounts of graphic killing in them - the Iliad, for starters. However, I don't know too many people who think the Iliad is great because it has so much killing in it; discussions about its importance to world literature center on other aspects. (as seen in the Wikipedia article, for example)

Of the many themes in the Iliad, perhaps the most important is the idea of moral choice. Achilles believes he has two options: he can either live a long, unremarkable life at home or else he can die young and gloriously as a mercenary warrior. Military adventuring (that is, pillage and plunder) was a way of life in pre-Homeric times, and the many ruins of thick-walled cities and fortresses in the region give silent testimony to the fear that must have characterized life in the ancient world.

For some men, military adventuring is a more attractive choice than staying home on the farm. Death in battle leads to honor and glory—timae and kleos—which were important values of the day — more important than even right and wrong. One of the remarkable things about the Iliad is the way that Achilles, especially in Book 9, both embraces concepts of honor and glory and also rejects them. It should be noted that, despite the fact that he is the antagonist in the story, Hector probably best displays the qualities of an ancient Mediterranean hero.

Homer devotes long passages to frank, blow-by-blow descriptions of combat. He gives the names of the fighters, recounts their taunts and battle-cries, and gruesomely details the ways in which they kill and wound one another. Often, the death of a hero only escalates the violence, as the two sides battle for his armor and corpse, or his close companions launch a punitive attack on his killer. The lucky ones are sometimes whisked away by friendly charioteers or the intervention of a god, but Homeric warfare is still some of the most bloody and brutal in literature.

The Iliad has a very strong religious and supernatural element. Both sides in the war are extremely pious, and both have heroes descended from divine beings. They constantly sacrifice to the gods and consult priests and prophets to decide their actions. For their own part, the gods frequently join in battles, both by advising and protecting their favorites and even by participating in combat against humans and other gods. The Olympian pantheon is portrayed as a scheming, squabbling family, unhappy in their domination by the all-powerful Zeus. Driving home this divine selfishness, the characters with "godlike" ancestry and qualities-- Achilles' strength, Helen's beauty-- tend to act carelessly, ignoring the far-reaching consequences of their emotional decisions. The more practical heroes, such as Odysseus and Hector, are often put in the position of cleaning up after their reckless comrades.

I trust that stylish killing is not, by itself, a cultural value. What else does "300" offer its audience?

[sulla felix]

But Tristan's only 13 years old, and it would have been a far more interesting to ask if he thought bloodshed on an epic scale is cool, and his thoughts on non-Westerners as real human beings.

What would have been really interesting would have been to ask if the movie had inspired him to learn more about the ancient world of the Persians, Greeks, Spartans etc.

Bloodshed on an epic scale is happening all over the world right now, it is on the news 24/7 and I suspect Tristan and his generation may be completely desensitized to it. 30 years ago a 13 year old would not have been allowed into the cinema to see a movie such as this. Now we are suggesting that we should ask him if blood shed on an epic scale is "cool". What a world we live in!

[Narukami]

Good point Tarbicus -- indeed it would be interesting to know what 13-year old Tristan thinks about he bloodshed or the depiction of the Spartans and the Persians.

In fact I wonder just how many of those 13 year olds take what they see as real. How many of them will march over to the local bookstore and seek out books on the Spartans or on the Persian-Greek wars? A few? Many? None?

Goldstein makes the point that most of them (regardless of their age) are viewing this not as a film but as a video game, by which he means that we are over analyzing it. Perhaps...

However, films have amazing power. I thought one of the most telling comments in Goldstein's article was calling the 300 "Ray Harryhausen crossed with Leni Riefenstahl."

That is a scarey thought.

I remember listening to Pauline Kael at Claremont Graduate School making her comments about Star Wars. I thought she was wrong then and I think Goldstein is incorrect now in his attempt to invoke that film in conjunction with 300 as if to say 300 will have the same effect upon Hollywood as Star Wars did.

When members of our forum say "Come on, it's just a movie I know the difference between a comic book film and history." I believe them.

My concern is with those who received their classical education via the Hollywood School Of History.

Star Wars -- Based Upon A True Story (Only with more Clones!)

:wink:

Narukami