I've now seen 300 three times. I guess that makes it like 900. I finally feel like I can write a review that will do the movie justice. My plan is to first discuss the bad, because there is so little, and then discuss the movie. And for those of you who live under a rock, 300 is about the eventual death of 300 Spartans who held the Persian army at bay for 3 days. 7000 (approx.) Greeks total (though the focus of the movie is the 300) against an army of some 250k for three days. They probably would have made it if it weren't for a traitor in their midst.
So, honestly, the only thing I have to complain about the movie is the fake CG blood. CG blood doesn't hit the spot quite like real fake blood. I've heard people comment that “oh! It's so distracting!” and to those people I say, “hike up your boots Nancy, you little art queer.” The blood wasn't distracting, in fact I'm willing to bet most people didn't even notice it, but I think you would have noticed if they'd used real fake blood. There's a certain visceral quality you get from gallons of red getting all over everything that the movie lacked. But other than that...
With that bit of unpleasantness out of the way, let's get to the good stuff: everything else. This movie has everything: inspiration, thematic elements (positive), artistic flair, and wall to wall violence making it, virtually, the perfect movie. I've read one reviewer say that it's named 300 because that's how many stars it deserves. This guy is on the right track.
I'm going to discuss the messages first, and probably almost exclusively. One of the messages will overlap with the art of the whole thing.
One of the things I've heard people bellyache about is the nudity. Holy crap. These people suck. First off, many of them contain a flaw in their thinking. They think that 1. All nudity is wrong. A sentiment I generally agree with, though I would probably argue that lewd nakedness is wrong. These are people that would probably excuse nudity in art because 2. Nudity in art is OK. The problem with this thinking is as follows: 1. Saying that nudity is wrong in a movie, but isn't wrong in a class room setting where students can draw the naked form is entirely arbitrary. “Well, in art (pick ANY classical work) we're just seeing an artful representation of the naked body.” This assumes that 2. Somehow (thanks PORN, you jackass) live action is incapable of being artful in its representation of the nude body and that 3. Somehow it's OK for Leonardo or a class full of 20 year old college students to see and draw someone naked, but it's not OK for us, and that somehow, the person has become less naked by seeing the drawing instead of the person.
Let me now define “artful representation.” Art has, up until the 50s, sought to bring meaning and life to things. Meaning and life on a large scale: the artist has traditionally been trying to draw on something larger than himself, and connect it to others. Now it's all about the self, and it's incredibly narcissistic, and art's going down the shitter, but we're talking about 300, not “Cross in a Jar of Piss.” So, “artful representation” has to have meaning, context, has to be an attempt to connect and portray, not just something for the sake of something. And this probably goes without saying, but “artful representation” should also be aesthetic and artful. This begs the question, “How is 300's nudity an 'artful representation?'”
I'm going to get the easy one out of the way: it's artful. One scene of nudity is an expression of pure and selfless love, another is a wonderfully choreographed “dance” (drug induced trance possibly), and the final one is supposed to be... well... lustful. But I'm not there yet. Of course in all three scenes, they have the lighting cued just right, makeup in all the right spots, pacing and placing down.
How is it meaningful? I'm going to talk about the instances in the order they happen, keeping spoilers to a minimum.
First, we see a pubescent girl who is in the throes of a drug induced dance of some sort. She's not entirely naked, but is wearing a very transparent shawl that floats around. Her world in this scene is a drab gray world filled with smoke, and for good reason. She's supposed to be an oracle, which is essentially (in the world of 300) a paper thin word for “high class whore for lecherous priests.” The priests, whose job is to divine the will of the gods, recruit girls to be their conduit for receiving the prophecies, and the girls are kept just outside of consciousness. Of course the priests use the girl to satiate their carnal desires... because they're bastards.
At any rate, we see a little bit of chest nudity (B00BZ LOL) as the girl dances around while huffing incense fumes. An interesting note: they had the girl dance under water, and then they removed the water in post production to give her the look she has, and man does it payoff. It's wicked awesome. I keep rambling about things not my point. The point of nudity in the scene is this: this is a girl, who's semi-nude. She's Innocence. Pure Innocence abused. She is in a situation far beyond her control, and is being exploited by those that should protect her. And we see the greed of these men at least 2 other times in the movie. Message one.
Next, we see a love scene between Leonidas and his wife. Leonidas is worried about what he must do, and his wife comforts him. But the scene isn't some slapdash scene put together with boobs in it to sell tickets. I would challenge you to find a hint of sex in the trailer anywhere. The wife consoles her husband with words, and then with love, both of which play an important part in Leonidas' character. This scene totally glorifies the sex a married man and woman have. This scene shows Innocence at its peak. “The way God intended it” so to speak. It's also not just a Matrix style scene where all of a sudden: here's two people goin' at it for about half an hour. Enjoy. But not only is it unenjoyable, but it's awkward. I think the scene in 300 here lasts maybe 9 seconds. The scene is shades of sad blue and black: an obvious reference to the fear that Leonidas has for what's coming, and his wife the comfort amidst his fear.
Last, we see some nudity in Xerxes' tent. It's... bizarre. There's nothing graphic, and the whole thing is relegated to just chest nudity (B00BZ LOL). The director just put some bizarre things in the tent (an armless and legless man woman... thing) to really stress that this “home of the god” is not a place you want to be. A place of carnality, dark pleasures. The whole scene is bathed in gold, gold being the color of greed and earthly power. This scene is Innocence both exploited by those in power, and perverted by those with the power. In any one of these scenes, the nudity lasts for the briefest of seconds, and is all incredibly relevant to the story being told. This whole topic is one that I could probably devote a separate post to, and I just might.
As for the rest of this. The movie says, “here's a bad guy.. now let's get rid of him.” What? Wait. Aren't we going to sit around in a pomo whinefest for an hour while we watch the “god's” troubled past and how he grew to be how he is so that when he bites the dust we're left wondering, “are we the monsters?” The short answer to this is: no. No we are not. As empathizable as a bad guy might be, and I can think of a few cases where the bad guy was pretty easy to empathize with, sometimes he is more than misguided. Sometimes he is bad, and sometimes the bad guy must be stopped, perhaps even killed.
That statement is old! Way friggin' old! And yet, it still has balls to it! That's such a hardcore statement, it's no wonder that 300 has topped the 200 million dollar mark and made its worth in its opening weekend. This statement, despite what we're told and what we're taught (damn the man!) resonates with us as humans, and it's not something that should be shunned. It's something that should be nurtured, and was nurtured until we were neutered.
Freedom is worth dying for. What? No no, you're wrong. We got freedom awhile ago, and it's not something that requires maintenance. It's sort of like a car: you buy it, you drive it hard, and if it starts to make funny noises, you just sort of ignore it until the noise goes away. That's freedom dammit! Hell yeah! Unfortunately, history shoots that idea out of the water. Whether you're Athens being invaded by Xerxes' father, Darius, or all of Greece being invaded by Persia, or Israel being held in Egypt against their will, or America in her first 100 years of existence (whether we're talking Civil or Revolutionary war), or Jews held captive by the inquisition, or to use modern examples, the entire west under attack by the middle east (say... that sounds familiar, and roughly about as old as 300. No, it can't be Persia versus the west again! That's silly!) extremists, freedom is something you have to fight for. Full on, balls against the wall, blazing metal solo, punchin' nuns in the chops hardcore style.
So, essentially, this movie has the balls of any movie made since the passion, and since probably Braveheart before that. To be fair, The Incredibles had a fair amount of balls, and if you don't see it, it probably makes you a bad person.
Lastly, a review I read on Rotten Tomatoes said something like, “don't I feel all inspired after seeing this movie!” and gave the movie a thumbs down. That guy probably sucks. The movie is probably intended to inspire, ruffle feathers, and make people feel motivated, all on some level. So the fact that you would recognize that, then crap on the message essentially makes you an elitest asshole, and you should be beat up by 12 of your best friends.
The end.
No comments:
Post a Comment