I'm disturbed.
Sergey went to 300 opening weekend and he (surprisingly) didn't like it. When he told me about it, I was even more disturbed by it than he was. Rather than being loyal to historical fact ... even by Hollywood standards ... they tried to be loyal to a comic book. The result is a film more like The Lord of the Rings than I Claudius.
The Persians are coded racially as black and brown and physically as either weak, handicapped, deformed, or monstrous--always inhuman and objectively evil. This takes any complication out of the battle, and also removes any real potential for literary value from the film. Of course, this is a necessary part of war. Soldiers and civilians alike can't commit and support the atrocities it takes to win if they define the enemy as fellow humans. This is why ideologies of racial and ethnic superiority are so important in war times. It's also why we always have a name for our enemy other than "people:" gook, commie, jap, jerry, rag head ... whatever is in vogue this year.
In direct contrast, the Spartans employ the rhetoric of freedom fighters. They are shown as the saviors of Western civilization (debatable) and as supporters of democracy against a tyrant (definitely false). There was a reason Spartans had such a reputation as warriors. They trained constantly out of fear. Spartan society was totally dependant on slave labour, more so than other Greek city states. The hollow speeches about freedom in the film are much like a Polish oligarch's speech before the Long Sejm about guarding their "golden freedom" against the interests of the serfs. The Spartans were aristocrats living in a monarchy who trained in violence to suppress any revolt mounted by the slaves upon which their economy depended.
It's not the historical inaccuracy that really gets me. As you can no doubt already see, this is a politically charged film. Every war seems to start with oligarchs making speeches about freedom, and the current war/s is/are no different. What's most distressing is that, at a time when an already over-extended America seems determined to invade Iran, the most popular film in the country dehumanizes Iranians.
That was my gut reaction first hearing about the film, and I now know I wasn't alone. About half the critics world wide who have reviewed it have found it lacking and in poor taste. The Iranians are really upset about it. And the director and producer say again and again that it has nothing to do with modern politics. Of course, they've also praised themselves for its "accuracy."
So, here's my conclusion, I'm certainly not going to spend money on that movie. And I invite you to avoid it as well if you haven't already seen it. I realize the filmmakers won't notice my little boycott, but I will know I had no part in this travesty.
If you'd like to see a truly excellent film that can simultaneously makes you think and restore your belief in humanity, I suggest you watch Amazing Grace. It's a fairly accurate telling of William Wilburforce's fight against slavery in the British Empire. He was a man who truly represented freedom. I can't express in words how good that movie is, so you'll just have to see it for yourself.
Labels: film, pop culture, Serhiy quote
I wasn't planning on seeing it, I'm not a fan of war or war films, so I'm happy to join your little boycott.
I think I'm busy tonight, Daniel may be over, we have some stuff on tivo that needs watching. I'll be free the rest of the week though, if you need to go shopping and stuff.
Posted by
Unknown |
3/21/2007 08:37:00 AM
I was not planning on seeing 300 either but my sibling wanted to. I comprised and we went. I must say, barring the bad historical emphasis in the film I really liked it. Shouldn't lie I suspect, I thought the Spartans were HOT!
Thus, I can't join the boycott. If people want some fine ass and abdominals this is the film for them!
I am a shallow creature....sad.
Posted by
Johanna |
3/22/2007 01:03:00 PM
Personally, I thought the title of this entry was the best part.
Posted by
ted |
3/22/2007 01:38:00 PM
I didn't know this movie sported fine ass as well as abs. I might just have to rethink my boycott.
Posted by
Unknown |
3/22/2007 03:15:00 PM
The NPR review paired 300 with Into Great Silence; I'm far more interested in the latter and will happily join in the boycott against the former, ass and abs notwithstanding.
And I see you found my nomination--I look forward to your list!
Posted by
CëRïSë |
3/22/2007 10:23:00 PM
I saw the film on opening weekend and thought it did well at not exceeding its grasp. I liked it for what it was, which was a fighting movie.
All of the promotion I saw for it said nothing about it being a period piece, or a historical piece for that matter, but much was made of it being from "the mind of Frank Miller, creator of Sin City." So any qualms about accuracy should be taken up with Mr. Miller, and not the film makers who were trying to be true to his graphic novel.
As for the politicization of the movie, should we be surprised that Iranians aren't happy with a film from Hollywood? This might be a good time to point out that a lot of the people responsible for the final product of 300 were French Canadian. I can see how the movie looks like an attack on Persian culture, but how seriously should we take a movie made after a comic book? I understand skilled articulation of hatred isn't necessary, but if this movie is all it takes to rally people against Iran, America (the united states of) has larger issues.
And if it makes anyone feel better, it dropped 56%, from its March opening record of 71 mil, in its second weekend.
Posted by
Daniel |
3/23/2007 04:54:00 AM
Yes I admit watching 300. I prefer my history butchered into 30 to 1 minute cuts. The film actually left me with hardly any memories. I found it difficult to connect with any characters, besides god-king xerxes.
I had seen the previous weekend Bridge to Terabithia which invoked more emotion than 300.
Posted by
Doug McClay |
4/04/2007 10:32:00 AM
I'm not really sure how I should feel, or what I should think when you see a beaver computer and think of me. Is it just the taxidermy or the slang term?
Also, I used you in a paper I wrote for one of my classes. You would be wearing Tammy Faye Bakker make up administering an IQ test...you know, since you volunteered for it.
Posted by
Ellen |
4/14/2007 09:40:00 PM
i have to agree with Daniel on this. this was not meant to be a historical epic. it was supposed to be a rollicking, testosterone-filled action movie that used a graphic novel adaptation of a historical event as a foundation.
trying to make this a political statement makes as much sense as saying "V For Vendetta" was. both of these books were written in the late 80's and early 90's and politically paranoid people will attach new meanings the authors never intended.
go ahead and boycott. you're missing a really fun time. i saw it opening weekend and was really impressed that i heard a group of teenagers go, "dude, King Leonidas was bad@$$!" when was the last time that was ever said said about a historical personality?
Posted by
Unknown |
5/04/2007 01:47:00 AM
Post a Comment