after he exhaustively researched the Spartan fighting style, he decided to change it completely - since they, in his words, "carried half their body weight in armour",
"The fox knows many tricks, the hedgehog one good one." -- Archilochus
301: Xerxes' Son's Revenge
Actually 300 was supposed to be Darius son's revenge - though it didn't quite work out that way.
I haven't seen the movie but one of the things about the event that is so interesting is the impact it had - even though it was a defeat for the Greeks.
The argument can be made (convincingly) that Thermopylae made possible the rise of western civilization.
Saw it yesterday. Very, very cool! "Fighting in the shade", indeed. I love how exaggerated and over the top certain parts were. Xyrxes (spelling?), for example was like nearly 8 ft. tall and perfectly chiseled. The phalanx fighting in the Hot Gates was extremely cool. Overall, I left the theatre very pleased.I was wondering where they got that giant, too - so I looked up imdb.com when I got home. Turns out the guy playing Xerxes is actually shorter in RL than the guy playing the head Greek... Yet more special effects - but so well done that I didn't really notice it.
The "head Greek" was none other than Gerard Butler . Like I said before, he's what made the movie a 10 for me. :o)
This movie didn't do it for me.
The action sequences were pretty well done, but beyond that, this offered very little. The acting stank, the dialogue was pooptacular, the whole sideplot with the Queen as a "send more troops to Iraq" advertisement (actually the whole movie hit this drum pretty hard which annoyed me to the point that I couldn't even enjoy it anymore).
Mostly, the racist sentiments were just too too much for me. Why did the Persians all have to be deformed freaks. It was weird, and disturbing. These aren't "orcs" we're talking about, they were people. WTF?
Anyway, it left a bad pro-militarism, pro-racism taste in my mouth that even the fun rollicking action couldn't wash down.
Also, on a completely apolitical note - not enough action...not nearly enough...too much bullshit people talking about "Freedom" and "War is Good" and not enough eye-candy for my taste. Also, what was with the ten minute close-ups of Leonitas' face every time he had to make a decision.
I had much higher hopes for this film.
Never heard of Mr. Butler.
Mr. Butler recently played Beowulf in "Beowulf and Grendel" -- another movie that took artistic license with a classic story, in a generally tasteful manner.
I loved "Sin City," but based on the preview and the comments I'm reading here, I have a feeling that "300" may not be my cup of tea.
Tell me something... is the soundtrack really all/mostly hard rock/metal? I love metal, but I think it takes away from the atmosphere of historical epics... And based on the preview, I get the feeling that the film may be a bit heavy on the "slow motion" action shots... blah... Please correct me if I'm wrong
Never heard of Mr. Butler.Mr. Butler recently played Beowulf in "Beowulf and Grendel" -- another movie that took artistic license with a classic story, in a generally tasteful manner.
I loved "Sin City," but based on the preview and the comments I'm reading here, I have a feeling that "300" may not be my cup of tea.
Tell me something... is the soundtrack really all/mostly hard rock/metal? I love metal, but I think it takes away from the atmosphere of historical epics...
I too loved "Sin City," but 300 was a big ball of stinky poop.
The metal annoyed me too...oh well.
The preview also makes it look a tad heavy on the cheesy slow motion action shots... am I wrong?
The preview also makes it look a tad heavy on the cheesy slow motion action shots... am I wrong?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy Tooooooooooooooo muuuuuuuuuuucccchh
Slo-mo.
For me, 300 was the right wing response to films like Syriana. The film is so saturated with jingoism and racism that the Spartans wearing red cloaks instead of American flags feels like a continuity error...
meh. The 'modern corollary' political stuff might have been there...you can read as much of that into any movie that you need to.
I just saw it as how my 9th level fighter with the Great Cleave feat and a +1 spear of sharpness could easily drive thru 50 mooks in a round. Some Aid Another and/or flanking attacks as well.
(I'm sure the fighter had a codpiece of protection +12 too)
Butler was also in the amazing "Dear Frankie", Tegan you should Netflix that one to see the more sensitive side (read: no buttocks) of the dude. Head politician snarky guy was in "Rock Star" as 2nd guitarist w/MarkyMark.
Tell me something... is the soundtrack really all/mostly hard rock/metal?
There's just a couple scenes with some instrumental fistpumpin' music...kinda industrial kinda metal. Certainly no Dee Snider or Jonathan Davis screechin'.
"Hear No Evil, Don't You See No Evil, Don't You Lay No Evil Down On Meeeee You're Gonna Burn In Hell"
I hate when people read a political message in everything. I have read interviews about reporters asking the director Zack Snyder, “Why did you make Xerxes as George Bush?”, and then others saying “Why did you make Leonidas as George Bush?” He was dumb founded. The movie stayed very close to the Graphic Novel, and I do believe the graphic novel was out before the Iraq War. I have a degree in Political Science, and I know how laced with political crap the world is. It’s an art actually, but come on I can pull a political message out of any movie if I thought about it and then measure it in vague reference to actual and historical events. I am also a little pissed at people saying it glorified war to much it was SPARTA!!! That is what we think about when we think about Sparta. Athen=Philosophy Sparta=War. I know we all can think of some movie which we could pull some political message from, and even if we do doesn’t make it a bad movie. I love Starship Troopers (book & movie), and it is one move that drips with a political message. I hate people who can’t let things like this go, and I put them in the category of people of say the Wizard of Oz is about switching from the Gold Standard to Green Backs, that Lewis Carol is a pedophile for writing Alice and Wonderland or that it is meant to put down religion, or that C.S. Lewis is trying to evangelize all children. I had a professor who once said there are two kinds of people in this world those of like Starship Troopers and those who don’t, and I am starting to see what he meant by that.
Sorry for the rant just need to vent
Fizz
Butler was also in the amazing "Dear Frankie", Tegan you should Netflix that one to see the more sensitive side (read: no buttocks) of the dude. Head politician snarky guy was in "Rock Star" as 2nd guitarist w/MarkyMark.
I've seen Dear Frankie twice & finally decided to buy the movie. Butler was also in Timeline, hokey kinda movie but still nice to watch. Also he was the lead in the last Phantom of the Opera movie.
Dominic West is El Snarko's name. He was also in 28 Days and Hannibal Rising.
...I put them in the category of people of say the Wizard of Oz is about switching from the Gold Standard to Green Backs...
The flaw in your argument is that The Wizard of Oz is in fact a satirical work in the guise of a children's story. The same is true of the "Alice" stories and the works of Dr. Seuss. These observations aren't being pulled out of thin air; they're acknowledgements of the creator's intent. The best argument for 300 being a vehicle for propoganda is the sheer irony of having Spartans proclaiming the virtues of freedom and self-determination...
The flaw in your argument is that The Wizard of Oz is in fact a satirical work in the guise of a children's story. The same is true of the "Alice" stories and the works of Dr. Seuss. These observations aren't being pulled out of thin air; they're acknowledgements of the creator's intent. The best argument for 300 being a vehicle for propoganda is the sheer irony of having Spartans proclaiming the virtues of freedom and self-determination...
My point was more about people just need to let things go and enjoy a movie or book. I have also heard that the Wizard of Oz (book) was made by Baum to help make a child he was close to feel less afraid about the fact that she was dying, and that the journey to Oz and back home was her journey to the after life. I have no clue if that is true or not DO NOT jump on me about it. I like the idea of a child finding solace in a book no matter if it is true or not. This has gotten way off topic, but I just want to vent and say people need to leave the politics to the politicians. We all need to relax a little more and hope all the politicians kill each other in a free for all.
Wow I'm a little cynical about politics...good
Fizz
I know where you're coming from Fizzban. It's like when V for Vendetta came out and a lot of critics either applauded or criticised it for being a political statement about Bush and terrorism. Yet Alan Moore wrote the story deliberately as a criticism of Thatcher in the 80s. Any resemblance to current situations only shows up because of current concerns. If it had been released exactly the same in 2000, no-one would have reacted the way they did.
Starship Troopers is a good example, especially because it was a vehicle for Heinlein's personal views on politics which were that the US should be a Greek-style democracy with citizen-soldiers. I don't agree with his politics but I still think the book and the movie are interesting and entertaining.
Allowing your political views to determine your opinion of an art work can't lead anywhere good...
|
Look. Xerxes was a total dirtburger. 300 guys stood up to him and didn't take any crap off of him. I know the history. I know the Spartans were morally out there. I know all about the helots. The Spartans weren't lawful good paladins fighting for truth, justice, and goodwill toward man by any means.
I just don't think drawing parallels between today's political environment and this films' doctored take on the events is even in the realm of making sense. I think the timing in releasing this film reflects events like this:
Hollywood Money Guy: "Wow. Frank Miller. That Sin City thing you did was amazing. What else you got?"
Frank Miller: "Well,...I did this book called 300 about 10-15 years ago, about Thermopylae. I also did the Dark Knight for D. C., don't you know."
Hollywood Money Guy: "Okay; dealing with D.C. is going to be a royal pain. Wow; let's do this 300 thing."
I'm sorry, having read Dark Knight, I don't see Frank Miller as the head of the propaganda wing for the Conservative Party, just as I don't see the Persians as a bunch of orcs from watching this film. The guy does hero comics for chrissake; his vision reflects that.
I wanna see 'em do "Hard Boiled" by Miller and Darrow. Didja ever read that one? The amount of detail in the background would HAVE to be comparable...just for me.
Ronin would be double awesome too.
And, if he were allowed to work with Rodriguez again, the second run of Daredevil he did with Mazzuchelli(spelling?)--where Kingpin nearly breaks Matt's grasp on life.
I'm glad at least couple people here shared my reaction. I was definitely going for some escapist fun but I left feeling kinda ill as well. Light people killing dark people. Not much else. Now, I totally understand not wanting to read too much into entertainment -I like my DnD lighthearted and clean- but in this case, I instead of wonderment I just felt uncomfortable.
I'm glad at least couple people here shared my reaction. I was definitely going for some escapist fun but I left feeling kinda ill as well. Light people killing dark people. Not much else. Now, I totally understand not wanting to read too much into entertainment -I like my DnD lighthearted and clean- but in this case, I instead of wonderment I just felt uncomfortable.
Totally Durn, any war movie that only displays one side as "in the right" and as the "true protagonists" is full of shit. I like Troy a lot better than 300, because I identified with both Achillies and Hector. When Hector died I was moved, I was like "man that's awful!"
300 was just crap. I didn't care about any of the characters. It was ridiculously over the top and the Persians were represented in every scene as either dirty, corrupt, weak, stupid, sexually ambiguous, immoral, evil, or (and best) monsters. They weren't orcs and demons...they were people.
Frankly I don't care how close it stuck to the Graphic Novel. That's shite too as far as I'm concerned. Frank Miller is a crazy reactionary scum-bag...which is sad cause he has a lot of talent, but he's not getting my dollar vote as long as he continues to put out racist, pro-militaristic crap like this, and neither my friends will Hollywood. We live in complicated times when we should be engaging in serious high-minded debate about our international dealings...not portraying the hundreds of nations of Asia as a gaggle of monstrosities. This movie sucked. It would have made Hitler proud.
|
Totally Durn, any war movie that only displays one side as "in the right" and as the "true protagonists" is full of s@&%.
I disagree. It depends on the intent of the movie. If the movie is focusing on individuals, then what you say makes sense. For example, the average Gernman soldier in WWII wasn't a really bad guy. He was just a soldier fighting for his country. The same can probably be said for a majority of the soldiers of most countries. However, somewhere along the lines of authority, you have the folks calling the shots, and they might definitely be "in the wrong". Once again, a good example is Nazi Germany - maybe Hitler and his advisors "thought" they were in the right in starting an agressive war of conquest, but that doesn't necessarily make them right. Any movie portraying the overall Nazi cause as evil would make sense to me.
Totally Durn, any war movie that only displays one side as "in the right" and as the "true protagonists" is full of s@&%.I disagree. It depends on the intent of the movie. If the movie is focusing on individuals, then what you say makes sense. For example, the average Gernman soldier in WWII wasn't a really bad guy. He was just a soldier fighting for his country. The same can probably be said for a majority of the soldiers of most countries. However, somewhere along the lines of authority, you have the folks calling the shots, and they might definitely be "in the wrong". Once again, a good example is Nazi Germany - maybe Hitler and his advisors "thought" they were in the right in starting an agressive war of conquest, but that doesn't necessarily make them right. Any movie portraying the overall Nazi cause as evil would make sense to me.
The Nazis are a good choice for the archtypical evil force, I agree. But most other movies just don't do it for me if they take the "these people right, and these other people wrong" stance. War is always more complicated than that.
Anyhoo, I was really talking more about 300's disgusting portrayal of several hundred nations as monsters, and their portrayal of Nazi-like greeks as "great hero do-gooders." It was just a little illness-inducing, especially when one takes in the modern corollaries to it.
Also, while I realize this is "just a movie" one has to ask oneself, why make it now, why beat the "Freedom" drum so much and set up the parallel with the "we need more troops" speeches by the Queen and then show the "more troops" at the end. Just seemed kind o' like propaganda to me.
And after spending three solid years in Beijing, I am a man who can sniff out propaganda.
To those who think the propaganda is too veiled to count as propaganda - let me tell you, that's the best kind. ;-)
Totally Durn, any war movie that only displays one side as "in the right" and as the "true protagonists" is full of s@&%.I disagree. It depends on the intent of the movie. If the movie is focusing on individuals, then what you say makes sense. For example, the average Gernman soldier in WWII wasn't a really bad guy. He was just a soldier fighting for his country. The same can probably be said for a majority of the soldiers of most countries. However, somewhere along the lines of authority, you have the folks calling the shots, and they might definitely be "in the wrong". Once again, a good example is Nazi Germany - maybe Hitler and his advisors "thought" they were in the right in starting an agressive war of conquest, but that doesn't necessarily make them right. Any movie portraying the overall Nazi cause as evil would make sense to me.
As a counterpoint, one of the best things about Saving Private Ryan was the glimpses of humanity in the German soldiers and how war twists it apart.
300 didn't offer any positive views on the Persians at all...it was repulsive in its racism. Persian people are around today (a lot of em live in Iran) and if I saw a movie about our ancestors with them depicted as evil monstrosities I'd be pretty pissed off too.
|
Personally, I haven't seen this movie, but I did see Sin City. And that rather left an unpleasant taste in the mouth - it seemed to revel in the degradation it portrayed as if the whole thing was jolly good fun - beyond moral ambiguity and into exploitative prurience. Miller seemed to want his cake and eat it - look at these ghastly people and vile goings-on, aren't they fun?
Personally, I haven't seen this movie, but I did see Sin City. And that rather left an unpleasant taste in the mouth - it seemed to revel in the degradation it portrayed as if the whole thing was jolly good fun - beyond moral ambiguity and into exploitative prurience. Miller seemed to want his cake and eat it - look at these ghastly people and vile goings-on, aren't they fun?
What is it lately with the "torture is cool" trend in movies and TV? "24" is full of it, and "Sin City" was one big torture-fest. Is it because the U.S. president is pro-torture, so everyone figures it's OK now?
Totally Durn, any war movie that only displays one side as "in the right" and as the "true protagonists" is full of s@##. I like Troy a lot better than 300, because I identified with both Achillies and Hector. When Hector died I was moved, I was like "man that's awful!"
I'm gonna go out on a limb and not call 300 a "war movie" anymore than "Lord of the Rings," or "Lion the Witch and Wardrobe" was (both of which feature monstrous opposition and both written by gentlemen who saw war firsthand). It's more like opera (or in Star Wars' case Space Opera). I prefer to see it as somewhat akin to Adult Swim's "Reign: the Conqueror" that ran a few years back.
If you want a real Persian-bashing movie just look as movies like "True Lies."
It was ridiculously over the top and the Persians were represented in every scene as either dirty, corrupt, weak, stupid, sexually ambiguous, immoral, evil, or (and best) monsters. They weren't orcs and demons...they were people.
So over the top in fact you probably could have subbed in storm troopers or orcs or if you want to be daring and think of Persia in terms of its roll as the sole superpower of the day -Americans. I mean really some of our social mores are pretty outrageous in more traditional cultures where dying in battle is still held in high esteem.
It would have made Hitler proud.
Probably, but he really didn't know the difference between fantasy and reality. I'm sure there where a lot of conservative "thinkers" that came away from "Team America" and "Starship Troopers" feeling vindicated as well.
For a movie depicting a few standing against many and glorifying the heroism of the deed rather than the examining individuals performing (like some actual war movies) I thought it was neatly done. For me the movie's core concept is that a few people can make a difference against any sort of odds and that seems positive enough for me.
But that's just my point of view,
GGG
Time to go spear me some life!
- it seemed to revel in the degradation it portrayed as if the whole thing was jolly good fun - beyond moral ambiguity and into exploitative prurience.
With a name like "Sin City" I'm kinda curious as to what you were expecting. ;)
Being it came from a comic book and that most of the heroes in it had strong codes of honor, and suffered for what they believed (usually against the most vile evils) I thought it was really quite cool. Sure it's two-fisted pulp and even the good guys ain't so good, but neither was Phillip Marlowe.
GGG
"I love hitmen...."
300 didn't offer any positive views on the Persians at all...it was repulsive in its racism. Persian people are around today (a lot of em live in Iran) and if I saw a movie about our ancestors with them depicted as evil monstrosities I'd be pretty pissed off too.
PS The story's genre pretty much demands you make the enemy that way - a faceless horde of evil, the antithesis of the heroes. Still in that respect I found it much less offensive than "True Lies."
GGG
|
|
The best argument for 300 being a vehicle for propoganda is the sheer irony of having Spartans proclaiming the virtues of freedom and self-determination...
The philospohical concepts of freedom and free will / self-determination, have changed over thousands of years; read the 'Histories' (it's a book, not a poem, but I haven't figured out how to underline words in these messageboards) or any of the Roman treatises on Sparta--they truly did believe in freedom and free will, religiously (literally, the ancient Greeks believed these were gifts given to the Hellens by the Greek gods) but not specifically in a 21st century American definition of either. Read a good modern translation of Herodotus, who wrote about the battle of the Hot Gates in a time when there were still people alive who had fought Xerxes--the language used in the movie is not that much over-the-top...
I haven't seen 300 yet on the one hand I think it is a very cool historical event to portray in a movie on the other hand I know that Frank Miller must have done almost no research when writing his graphic novel.
There simply was no patriotism involved in the battle of Thermopylae, except perhaps by the Thespians. The actual Greek force was almost 4000 strong until the final day when only Spartans and Thespians remained and the other survivors had gradually fled during the previous nights.
Most historians believe that Leonidas and the Spartans went simply because of the Oracle of Delphi's foretelling that 'Lacadaemon will fall or a Spartan king shall fall'. There were very few young men in the 300 only the fathers who had sons were allowed to go and Leonidas was said to be 'elderly' and soft spoken...probably ancient in Spartan terms. Not much like Gerard Butlers barking dog portrayal at all. Also the 300 were mainly comprised of the heavy infantry of the Spartans, the ones that wore full armor: breastplate, greaves, and shield. They certainly didn't fight almost naked. The force of the Persian king included contingents from all over Asia Minor and some historians say as far away as Egypt. The infantry alone would have been over a million men.
And finally it was Athens navy that saved Greece... at the battle of Salamis, once the Persian navy was defeated they had no choice but to retreat, certainly the 300's stand would have been a morale boost and certainly it is remembered as one of the most courageous battles in ancient times but it wasn't considered a battle for the "freedom of the Greeks" or any such nonsense.
The Greeks continued to hate each other and conquer each other for many decades to come.
If anyone is interested in a far more factual fictional account I heartily recommend Stephen Pressfield's Gates of Fire, it's a fantastic book.
Some people have also been wondering why the only reference to homosexual behaviour is derogatory description "boy lovers" of Athens, considering that Sparta must have been the most openly homosexual society in the history of the world (even if concept of homosexuality is different from what it is now).
|
|
- it seemed to revel in the degradation it portrayed as if the whole thing was jolly good fun - beyond moral ambiguity and into exploitative prurience.With a name like "Sin City" I'm kinda curious as to what you were expecting. ;)
A tad glib, GGG. I suspect Miller considers himself an artist tackiling difficult subjects, but I think he failed to pander to anything other than a childish sense of "Isn't this naughty/cool". IMHO.
There simply was no patriotism involved in the battle of Thermopylae, except perhaps by the Thespians. The actual Greek force was almost 4000 strong until the final day when only Spartans and Thespians remained and the other survivors had gradually fled during the previous nights.Most historians believe that Leonidas and the Spartans went simply because of the Oracle of Delphi's foretelling that 'Lacadaemon will fall or a Spartan king shall fall'. There were very few young men in the 300 only the fathers who had sons were allowed to go and Leonidas was said to be 'elderly' and soft spoken...probably ancient in Spartan terms. Not much like Gerard Butlers barking dog portrayal at all. Also the 300 were mainly comprised of the heavy infantry of the Spartans, the ones that wore full armor: breastplate, greaves, and shield. They certainly didn't fight almost naked. The force of the Persian king included contingents from all over Asia Minor and some historians say as far away as Egypt. The infantry alone would have been over a million men.
And finally it was Athens navy that saved Greece... at the battle of Salamis, once the Persian navy was defeated they had no choice but to retreat, certainly the 300's stand would have been a morale boost and certainly it is remembered as one of the most courageous battles in ancient times but it wasn't considered a battle for the "freedom of the Greeks" or any such nonsense.
I didn't know this, but I figured as much. A reluctant army, motivated by prophecy and desparation would make a more interesting and heroic movie. In the movie, the only motivation for Leonidas seemed to be just because "We're Spartans". Anyways, it was just and an incredibly one dimensional flick that would have been best as a cut scene in a computer game or some such. It reminded me why most adventure movies have the requisite "family" scene, "funny" scene, and the "happy life before all the bad stuff happens" scene. In 300 those scenes were: "Dad beating his son with stick", "laughing at ships sinking in a storm", and "standing around waiting to throw a black guy down a well". As corny as it was I liked "Eragon" a lot better. (I can't believe I just admitted that.)
Some people have also been wondering why the only reference to homosexual behaviour is derogatory description "boy lovers" of Athens, considering that Sparta must have been the most openly homosexual society in the history of the world (even if concept of homosexuality is different from what it is now).
when he said 'boy lovers' it meant that the greeks loved little boys because, well, they did. although i tend to agree that the only reference to homosexuality was negative, it is also a fact, one that i find extremely apauling(sp?). but, that was then and this is now.
when he said 'boy lovers' it meant that the greeks loved little boys because, well, they did. although i tend to agree that the only reference to homosexuality was negative, it is also a fact, one that i find extremely apauling(sp?). but, that was then and this is now.
They loved youths. There's a big difference. Some ancient Greeks were pederasts, but it's not like pedophilia was openly practiced. The "boys" were young men, not 10 year olds. It was a mentor/protege relationship with sex thrown in. Plus the older men all had wives too.
The Spartans openly encouraged homsexuality between soldiers because they believed it improved morale and made the warriors fight harder.
Anyway like Magdalena said, the concept wasn't the same as gayness now. Greek culture considered men were more beautiful than women. That was just the way they were. If the Ancient Greeks had had TV and billboards, all the ads would have had hot young guys on them instead of beautiful girls. Our ideal of beauty is female, theirs was male. It's nothing to be appalled over :)
The Spartans openly encouraged homsexuality between soldiers because they believed it improved morale and made the warriors fight harder.
Pun - intended or unintended? :)
The Spartans openly encouraged homsexuality between soldiers because they believed it improved morale and made the warriors fight harder.Pun - intended or unintended? :)
Heh, I wish I could say intended...
Next, I want the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to okay or pan movies for me, so I know what to watch and not watch. It'd actually save me some time if there was a p.c. movie rating. I coulda missed Babel.
Babel was so poorly done...what a stupid movie.
GGG,
I hear what you are trying to say...except...they weren't stormtroopers or orcs, they were "Asians." If you can't see the inherent racism in it, then I don't know what to say my man.
That movie really wasn't catering too Iraqis or anti-war democrats. You could try and slice it up to Xerxes = Bush, but I don't really see how, especially since the message being drummed out over and over again was "Freedom" and "Send more troops." Are you really going to tell me this wasn't there my man.
No offense to any who think the Persians were supposed to be Americans, but I do theatre for a living, I know how we spin shit. This movie was targeted at getting Bush-supporters, and on-the-fencers to say "Our boys in Iraq are doing a great job under horrible circumstances. They are outnumbered and outflanked by an evil enemy, and we need to send more troops to help them."
Forget the fact that if Bush really cared about our soldiers in Iraq, he'd be trying to get them home safe and sound as fast as possible...or wait, maybe he wouldn't have sent them there in the first place.
As a trained professional actor who has worked in the trenches of theatre since I was 14 years of age, I am saying that in my opinion, this movie was racist pro-military garbage. But, hey, see it if you want to everybody, that's the beauty of freedom of speech.
Me, I bought a ticket for a different movie (one I thought was excellent and could use the support) and walked into 300 for the eye-candy (yes, I am a devious bastard). The eye-candy wasn't even that exciting to be honest, and no amount of rollicking action (tainted with heavy metal) could make me shut my brain off hard enough to not feel ill at the message they were trying to beat into it.
Glad some people are able to read positive things into this though. GGG, I think the idea that a few people working towards good can accomplish something great is a wonderful concept. I don't think the "something great" should ever be the wholesale slaughter of human beings no matter what their race, color or creed. And in my experience the sentiments this movie provokes from many watchers is one of "War is Good" "We are Spartans (Americans)."
Ah Nick, your passionate dislike of the movie is entirely understandable, but you shouldn't get so worked up over it. How can you produce great DUNGEON material when you are so exacerbated (what am i saying that means you'll come up with something truly brilliant). What you need to do is go away and channel that anger into a great adventure for me to use with my players, and everything will be fine (hint, hint).
I haven't seen 300 yet, but since I don't let others formulate my opinions for me, I'll still be going to see it. Don't worry though, from the sound of things I'll hate it to! ;)
|
Y'know, I can't really buy into the whole racism or "send more troops" argument. We didn't even see the faces of most of the "Persian" cast, and those we did see were a rather diverse bunch - Xerxes is played by a Brazilian, and most of the important adversaries are black men. I suppose one could argue that this can, in a stretch, symbolise that America is beset by enemies from all corners of the world, but it is strained and it does not really jibe with the idea that this is at heart an Iraq parable.
The "send more troops" argument fails because until very recently, the official government policy was that no more troops were needed. The movie has been in production for a couple of years, and must have been finalised well before the change in doctrine. If the film is guilty of -isms, it is of elitism - but how can it not be? It is a tale of the few fighting the many, falling only through betrayal, and this actually lends a measure of urgency to the "send more troops" subplot - if 300 could hold the Persians for some time, think of what ten times that number could do! Of course, it could have been handled quite a bit better...
And finally, I, and probably most of the others on the boards who rather liked the movie, really appreciate being likened to a Nazi. Thank you, Nicolas.
|
|
Next, I want the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to okay or pan movies for me, so I know what to watch and not watch. It'd actually save me some time if there was a p.c. movie rating. I coulda missed Babel.Babel was so poorly done...what a stupid movie.
Cool. We can agree to agree on something. Just, please, Hollywood, when you spoonfeed me my next morality play, don't stab me in the eye, it hurt my brain!!!
"War is Good" "We are Spartans" - Nicolas Logue
Then I say: "CRY HAVOC!!!"
GGG,
I hear what you are trying to say...except...they weren't stormtroopers or orcs, they were "Asians."
"Persians" I thought.
If you can't see the inherent racism in it, then I don't know what to say my man.
So, somehow that doesn't make it a good movie? I should never see "Merchant of Venice," read about loathsome Lovecraftian "foreigners" and "half-breeds," No Charlie Chan? Never watch a war movie that refers to a Kraut? Jap? Charlie?, or read an old pulp novel with a sneaky, hanky-using dandy? No Jackie Chan beating the hell out of dishonorable Englishmen (played by Aussies) using guns and money? These are all sterotypes to be true, but taking it from the the early Greek standpoint Persians where the enemy and demonized, (and feminized as well). As the inheritors of Western culture we still see traces of that in the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Should we in all of our new found "PCness" toss aside such relics? Really is there any worth in watching a war movie? We won (or lost), now let's dwell on it?
That movie really wasn't catering too Iraqis or anti-war democrats. You could try and slice it up to Xerxes = Bush, but I don't really see how, especially since the message being drummed out over and over again was "Freedom" and "Send more troops." Are you really going to tell me this wasn't there my man.
This was a pretty minor point in the grand sceme of things. I try not to let entertainment influence my voting position but for the sake of a good arguement I'll play devil's advocate.
The movie is based on a graphic novel (1998-9) based on a movie (300 Spartans, 1966) that Frank Miller loved watching as a kid. As I recall we weren't in "Crusade mode" at the time (1998-9) that is. Miller's Sin City came out a couple of years ago at the instigation of the director (whose name escapes me) propelling Miller's work into the spotlight so I imagine they ask him whatelse he's got (maybe something along the lines of "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Troy" as the genre was picking up and hey, people are interested in the Middle-East/Mediterranean(sp?) for some strange reason, and you always want to ride a good thing. So Frank said "Well there's '300.'" Its even a bit "Sin City" mixed with a bit of "Kill Bill" (blood and violence). "Cool!" Say the executives. "We'll take it!"
Is it propaganda? Maybe. Is it intentional? I doubt it, but who really knows. What will people who see it 20-30 years from now think? Don't know.
Is it racist? I guess it could be considered racist if you actually believed it was meant to be a straight representation of what Middle-Easterners are like (Full Disclosure: I live about two miles away from the single greatest concentration of ethinic Middle-Easterners on the planet outside of the Middle-East itself), but really it doesn't use any of the more glaring stereotypes like Persians are all militant, crazy-eyed, bearded Islamic nutjobs who try and kill themselves and everyone around them before they die. Death in the name of jihad didn't really seem to be their thing. In fact that seemed to be the Spartan thing more then their opponents who occasionally fell back or wavered. Really they where the place holders in a Hong Kong gun-fo flick, they were for the most part the mooks in the story - a lot of mooks.
No offense to any who think the Persians were supposed to be Americans,
Again, 'a very small bit of the arguement.' How about the points on story structure, genre, things a someone can judge a movie on beyond politics, etc...?
....but I do theatre for a living, I know how we spin s&%*.
I don't know that a theatre background necessarily means much in critism. Everyone can be a critic, and the reality of how something is viewed can be very personal. An artist might guess how another artist created something, but the reason and message might still remain hidden. Judge not lest- and all that.
This movie was targeted at getting Bush-supporters, and on-the-fencers to say "Our boys in Iraq are doing a great job under horrible circumstances. They are outnumbered and outflanked by an evil enemy, and we need to send more troops to help them."
Once again it is possible, but I don't give the administration that much credit. Really they're lousy at covering up coruption in the ranks (Bin Laden, Plame, Gonzalas, Rove, Haliburton, Iraqi prisons, environment, wire-tapping, CIA torture centers, GOP ethic's scandals - God, its a long list - etc...). They just let general puplic apathy rule the day.
Forget the fact that if Bush really cared about our soldiers in Iraq, he'd be trying to get them home safe and sound as fast as possible...or wait, maybe he wouldn't have sent them there in the first place.
Amen there. I'm not an overly religious sort, but I'm praying everyone is safe over there tonight. There's about 10 or 20 more people wounded for evey one person killed many of them seriously. For them and their families the war may never end. And I'm not just praying for our "boys" either but everyone touched by this war. We are breeding a great deal of bitterness over there right now, most of it justified. We really didn't go there to save our nation or theirs we went there to serve some special self-centered interests.
How many ancient vases in that museum that is being looted? Who cares. I saw the apathy very clearly then.
As a trained professional actor who has worked in the trenches of theatre since I was 14 years of age, I am saying that in my opinion, this movie was racist pro-military garbage.
And here I thought I was the vocal lefty. I disagree (and I'm sorry (and I mean it too), but I can't help but think of a scene or two in "Team America" when you say that).
But, hey, see it if you want to everybody, that's the beauty of freedom of speech.
Heartily agreed.
Me, I bought a ticket for a different movie (one I thought was excellent and could use the support) and walked into 300 for the eye-candy (yes, I am a devious bastard).
So wait, you never saw "Norbit"? You just passed judgement on it like that without even staying for the bikini wax scene? ;)
The eye-candy wasn't even that exciting to be honest....
I have more than a few gay friends who would debate you on that.
Glad some people are able to read positive things into this though.
I like to be openminded though I have to admit it didn't stop me from getting sick at the sight of "Mission Impossible 2" and "Ultraviolet". Easy stomach...don't turn over now.
I think the idea that a few people working towards good can accomplish something great is a wonderful concept. I don't think the "something great" should ever be the wholesale slaughter of human beings no matter what their race, color or creed.
So that's a 'no' on the collaborative "orc war" project, huh? ::they died by the thousands:: ;)
-Great Glib God
PS Here's a question that was posed somewhere else on these fine boards: Is it racism if they're orcs or Klingons or some other fantasy race that you can attribute nothing, but negativeness too? And why?
PPS Is it racism if they are racist themselves? For example: should we round all the racists up and put them in a camp somewhere and take all their stuff? You know to show how morally superior we are.
PPPS Sorry for the typos, but it has been a loooong day.
And finally, I, and probably most of the others on the boards who rather liked the movie, really appreciate being likened to a Nazi. Thank you, Nicolas.
Whoa there cowboy...who the f&+@ called you a Nazi. I sure as hell didn't. Plenty of my close friends whom I love liked this movie. I don't think they are Nazis for liking it, any more than I think you are friend.
I am simply reading into the producers intent more than you. That's my perogative, as is my right to express what I think about the movie. I thought it was pro-militarism, pro-racism garbage. That doesn't mean I think you enjoyed it for those two reasons. You probably liked the kickin metal and cool well-choreographed combat scenes (maybe, I don't really know). Good for you. Glad you enjoyed it. I didn't, and I was saying so. I thought GGG and I were having an interesting discussion about the movie's "politics." I didn't know I was calling people Nazis. So if I offered offense then I am sorry.
I disagree with you on the other points. How long a movie is in production has nothing to do with what sneaks in before the final cut.
They called the Persian horde "Asians" (in point of fact, most of middle Asia was represented among the Persians) and then showed us monsters...that's how I thought it was racist.
Yeah, I'm jumping into the discussion late. But it's better now after I've seen the movie than before then. I thought it was an entertaining flick. But, honestly, the only way it could have been more right wing is if they all carried guns. Yeah, it came out as a comic nine years ago. But releasing it as a film NOW? "Freedom isn't free" is a vocal right wing slogan at the moment and it would be really difficult for me not to see that vocal "let's play ball with the Persians" traitor councillor as anything but the Neo-Con view of a democrat. Whether the movie is the victim of the current political climate or a conscious decision to drum up a certain message doesn't really matter. Nothing exists in a vacuum and this is a movie of the present time, regardless of the age of the story or the way the material was written.
And I think it's so damn funny how that macho vaguely homophobic swagger comes across in a film so fully about celebrating male flesh.
Be that as it may, it was visually stunning, exciting and made me want to punch someone (for reasons that a crack team of our top scientists are still trying to figure out) so I have to say that it definitely accomplished its goals as a film and I don't regret spending $11 on seeing it.
Ah Nick, your passionate dislike of the movie is entirely understandable, but you shouldn't get so worked up over it. How can you produce great DUNGEON material when you are so exacerbated (what am i saying that means you'll come up with something truly brilliant). What you need to do is go away and channel that anger into a great adventure for me to use with my players, and everything will be fine (hint, hint).
I haven't seen 300 yet, but since I don't let others formulate my opinions for me, I'll still be going to see it. Don't worry though, from the sound of things I'll hate it to! ;)
LOL! I didn't mean to offend anyone guys. Just spoutin my honest informed opinions about the movie. I am not really worked up over it. Just made me a little ill is all.
One excellent adventure for Phil coming right up!!! :-)