300: Once More Unto The Mirror Carbonated
Apr. 6th, 2007 04:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caraig300 lives up to the hype. It's got action, it's got brave few aggainst teeming hordes of many, it's got a wild-ass foe to fight, it's got mid-bosses, it's got an enemy that's opulent, decadant, and tough. It is so over-the-top that one can be forgiven for thinking that there is no way this could have been based on real events. As it was, the Battle of Thermopylae (which I did a research paper on in college in 'History of Warfare') was not nearly as insane as this movie makes it out to be, but that doesn't detract from this movie.
As many others have said, do not go to this movie expecting to see historical accuracy. The Spartans at Thermopylae had quite a lot of backup, totalling (including the 300) about 7000 Greeks. Not only were Spartans there, but also Arcadians, Corinthians, Thespians, and Thebans. Also, the majority of the Persian naval strength had been diverted by an Athenian admiral at Artemisium. So if you can forget the historical inaccuracy in favor of the sheer over-the-topness of the movie, you won't be disappointed.
And, let me descend a bit to express my adoration of the portrayal of Xerxes. Xerxes had this lovely, purring, deep voice that made me envious. Sure, he was portrayed as anything other than a Persian monarch, but damn, did he come off hawt!
Still, I do have to bring up something that irked me. Some time ago I made a review of King Arthur which commented upon that movie's use of the term 'freedom.' The audience was bludgeoned with that term repeatedly in that movie, and yet it was never defined. Well, 300 doesn't bludgeon the audience with 'freedom.' Instead, in proper Spartan style (as the movie depicts it) it gets delivered by the tips of the spears of a phalanx.
King Leonidas brings up 'Freedom' as something that the Spartans are fighting for. Let me repeat that: King Leonidas, a Greek king, a position for whom I believe the typical greek word is 'despot,' is lecturing his troops that they are fighting for 'freedom.'
Forgive me if my suspension of disbelief shatters upon that shoreline. It didn't ruin the movie for me, but it did strike a dissonant chord.
It really does underscore, however, that we still can't define freedom. No matter how many battles we portray as being about 'freedom,' we still can't define it. Freedom to do what, freedom from what? We're still floundering for direction in what we believe Western values strive for, and this movie underscores that we don't know what we're fighting for, but we damn well are gonna take a lot of the foe down with us in the process!
300 did have a somewhat better portrayal of women than, for example, Sky Captain did, but that's only because there wasn't much to portray. The one female speaking role really didn't have much of an impact, but she was a strong and unswerving character and had her own strength. But Arwen she wasn't. Beyond this, women really got short shrift here. Which is approximately equal to the times, I think, but considering they whip out the 'Freedom' card, I'd have liked them to give more of a role to... to Leonidas's wife, whom I just realized I don't think was named at all in the film. In fact, thinking about it, women are really depicted as ancillary in the extreme in this film, not really much more than objects (except for Leonidas's wife, and even then she's reduced to an object in a couple of places.)
So I'll end it with just a few more comments on the film. If you're into over-the-top action, see it in a matinee if you are inclined to see it in a theater, and definitely rent it -- but be warned, there's a lot of gore. Definitely don't take the young'uns. The nudity is not what I would call gratuitous, in fact in some ways it's kind of artistic. If you want acres of hot, sweaty, muscular man-flesh, definitely see this movie... in the privacy of your house. ^_^ If on the other hand you're uncomfortable with seeing this many bare pecs, you might want to give it a pass, though to be honest, there wasn't nearly enough implication of hot-n-sweaty snugglebunnies between the manly men to reflect the time; you know, the whole 'the only true love is that between warriors, rar!' thing. Not that I went to see this movie for that, mind you. But if there's gonna be objectification, might as well be equal opportunity, since they're doing the whole 'Freedom!' thing.
Funny thing about the gore, too. It also speaks volumes about how we in the West like our violence. There are fountains, nay, impressive geysers of CGI hemoglobin. And if you watch closely, it mysteriously disappears after a few moments. Other than closeups of wounded spartans, not a drop of blood is on the battlefield. This makes things a little disconcerting when you realize that there's been more blood thrown about than by a gym full of eponymious Japanese schoolboys watching Bettie Page striptease in gym class.
So, beyond that, I enjoyed it. I'd see it again; the music was utterly kickass, and the cinematography was fantastic. I very much recommend seeing it in matinee, as above. I left the theater feeling a little disquieted... but that's for another post another day.
Pax.
As many others have said, do not go to this movie expecting to see historical accuracy. The Spartans at Thermopylae had quite a lot of backup, totalling (including the 300) about 7000 Greeks. Not only were Spartans there, but also Arcadians, Corinthians, Thespians, and Thebans. Also, the majority of the Persian naval strength had been diverted by an Athenian admiral at Artemisium. So if you can forget the historical inaccuracy in favor of the sheer over-the-topness of the movie, you won't be disappointed.
And, let me descend a bit to express my adoration of the portrayal of Xerxes. Xerxes had this lovely, purring, deep voice that made me envious. Sure, he was portrayed as anything other than a Persian monarch, but damn, did he come off hawt!
Still, I do have to bring up something that irked me. Some time ago I made a review of King Arthur which commented upon that movie's use of the term 'freedom.' The audience was bludgeoned with that term repeatedly in that movie, and yet it was never defined. Well, 300 doesn't bludgeon the audience with 'freedom.' Instead, in proper Spartan style (as the movie depicts it) it gets delivered by the tips of the spears of a phalanx.
King Leonidas brings up 'Freedom' as something that the Spartans are fighting for. Let me repeat that: King Leonidas, a Greek king, a position for whom I believe the typical greek word is 'despot,' is lecturing his troops that they are fighting for 'freedom.'
Forgive me if my suspension of disbelief shatters upon that shoreline. It didn't ruin the movie for me, but it did strike a dissonant chord.
It really does underscore, however, that we still can't define freedom. No matter how many battles we portray as being about 'freedom,' we still can't define it. Freedom to do what, freedom from what? We're still floundering for direction in what we believe Western values strive for, and this movie underscores that we don't know what we're fighting for, but we damn well are gonna take a lot of the foe down with us in the process!
300 did have a somewhat better portrayal of women than, for example, Sky Captain did, but that's only because there wasn't much to portray. The one female speaking role really didn't have much of an impact, but she was a strong and unswerving character and had her own strength. But Arwen she wasn't. Beyond this, women really got short shrift here. Which is approximately equal to the times, I think, but considering they whip out the 'Freedom' card, I'd have liked them to give more of a role to... to Leonidas's wife, whom I just realized I don't think was named at all in the film. In fact, thinking about it, women are really depicted as ancillary in the extreme in this film, not really much more than objects (except for Leonidas's wife, and even then she's reduced to an object in a couple of places.)
So I'll end it with just a few more comments on the film. If you're into over-the-top action, see it in a matinee if you are inclined to see it in a theater, and definitely rent it -- but be warned, there's a lot of gore. Definitely don't take the young'uns. The nudity is not what I would call gratuitous, in fact in some ways it's kind of artistic. If you want acres of hot, sweaty, muscular man-flesh, definitely see this movie... in the privacy of your house. ^_^ If on the other hand you're uncomfortable with seeing this many bare pecs, you might want to give it a pass, though to be honest, there wasn't nearly enough implication of hot-n-sweaty snugglebunnies between the manly men to reflect the time; you know, the whole 'the only true love is that between warriors, rar!' thing. Not that I went to see this movie for that, mind you. But if there's gonna be objectification, might as well be equal opportunity, since they're doing the whole 'Freedom!' thing.
Funny thing about the gore, too. It also speaks volumes about how we in the West like our violence. There are fountains, nay, impressive geysers of CGI hemoglobin. And if you watch closely, it mysteriously disappears after a few moments. Other than closeups of wounded spartans, not a drop of blood is on the battlefield. This makes things a little disconcerting when you realize that there's been more blood thrown about than by a gym full of eponymious Japanese schoolboys watching Bettie Page striptease in gym class.
So, beyond that, I enjoyed it. I'd see it again; the music was utterly kickass, and the cinematography was fantastic. I very much recommend seeing it in matinee, as above. I left the theater feeling a little disquieted... but that's for another post another day.
Pax.
