Stuart Pike: Brutal and extreme, erotic and stylishly contrived - 300 is the new school of filmmaking's answer to uber-budgeted monstrosities like Troy and Alexander. Whereas they were bloated with subplot and historical intrigue, 300 is a streamlined narrative that dispenses with an overabundance of depth in favor of aesthetic appeal. An important note before we begin: Comparisons to Gladiator are not only unfair but also unnecessary. Russell Crowe's Ridley Scott-directed critic's darling belongs in another league altogether (again, Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott), and 300 was always meant to be an entirely different sword-and-sandal experience. Would you really attempt to compare The Departed with The Godfather? Again, unfair and unnecessary.
300 is, in many ways, an exploration of the territory that Sin City proved successful back in 2005. Shot entirely on green screen, director Robert Rodriguez's pulpy film-noir atmospheric attitude was achieved almost entirely - aside from the dynamic performances - in post-production, months after filming ended. Sin City was a nearly frame-for-frame take on writer/illustrator Frank Miller's graphic novels, and it proved to be one of the most successful comic-to-screen translations ever. Miller's 300 graphic novel, inspired by 1960s toga parties like The 300 Spartans and the real 480 B.C. Battle of Thermopylae, was a hit with fans and critics alike. Now director Zack Snyder, whose 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake reinvigorated the modern zombie genre, once again swings proven technique in an entirely new direction with the latest Miller adaptation.
James Fagan: Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get crazy here. Allow me to dish out a reality pill. The Departed, just like the Godfather, totes around a best picture title, a best director grab, and an all star cast. Gladiator is similarly decorated. The most 300 can hope for is an MTV moon man. Not that the awards matter, because they don't. Everyone agrees about that until they've won one, then they sing a different tune (ask Scorsese what he thinks of Oscar gold now). The comparisons come to Gladiator because if Russell Crow and Quinton Tarantino had an illegitimate son, it would be 300. Not that we all wouldn't want to meet that kid, am I right? He's fun, he's fast, he's sexy, and at the end of the day, people bleed all over the place. And then you're really glad to get the heck out of dodge and let somebody else clean up the mess. Comparing to Gladiator is unfair, but crying "rip-off" here and there isn't far off. If you don't want to bring on such scrutiny, avoid the amber waves of grain that Russell Crowe fondles every five minutes as Maximus. Otherwise, if you're going to pay a little tribute, make sure your film measures up. If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, sometimes, it does get stepped on or mowed over by a tractor.
SP: There are admittedly some visual parallels to Gladiator (which was shot in 1999 and released in 2000). But as I said earlier, it is worth remembering that 300's filmmakers purposefully stuck to the original material (released in 1998, two years before Gladiator), which did indeed feature the "amber waves of grain."
Even if we just take the film at face value, and ignore any of the source material, disregarding 300's awesomeness just because one scene reminds you a lot of some other movie is impractical. "Borrowing" in the world of film is hardly a new idea, and plenty of great movies blatantly absorb the look or feel of previous works and incorporate them into new ones. Still, if you really want to cry "rip-off," better call the Wachowski brothers first. I think Hong Kong wants its moves back.
JF: 300 is awesome, if you like green screens. I'm pretty sure you can choose the "300" option now at those "make your own music video" kiosks at the mall. What we have here is a classic case of "it is what it is." It looks like a comic book and it reads like a comic book: two dimensional and dumb. Everything is eye candy. The fights are incredible. More than once I felt myself on the edge of my seat, hoping to see something big get stabbed, or somebody's head get cut off. The effect of the green screen, in all seriousness, while one of washed-over fakeness, worked nicely. Since everything is fake, nothing is fake. Genius.
SP: Two-dimensional, yes, but I would not necessarily refer to the film (or comics in general) as "dumb." 300 is intelligently stylish, visually savvy, and has charismatic performances - all of which are enough to compensate for any shallowness and lack of real character development (unless a character getting decapitated counts as "development").
Its intelligence may be purely aesthetic, but nonetheless, Snyder brilliantly keeps the film's almost duration-spanning battle going with engaging cinematography and inventive choreography. Much of the film does feel a little boxed-in (a disadvantage of faithfully adapting the graphic novel), but the kinetic energy onscreen (a.k.a. limb severance and bodily impalement) keeps the adrenaline pumping. 300 sticks to what it's good at - and when it's good, it's awesome.
JF: I think you've mistaken my assessment of 300 being two-dimensional and dumb as a negative. Like you said, it sticks to what it's good at, entertaining people with grisly carnage. It's a movie about balls-to-the-walls testosterone: be a man, stand up for what's right, light stuff on fire, et cetera. 300 is irrefutably two-dimensional and dumb, but it's also fast, sexy, and rather hairless. And muscular. Did you feel fat during it? I felt fat.
The point is, I'm not criticizing 300 for it's lack of depth. It had absolutely everything I was looking for, from an easy-tofollow storyline to the grotesque monsters that the Spartans find themselves pitted against, including a tree made of dead people and the playful snuffing of pacifists who do womanly activities, such as art and thinking (the Athenians). In fact, if you see the preview, you've pretty much seen the movie; just stretch it out for an hour and a half and include some gravity defying nipples that they can't show on TV.
Honestly, the only problem with the easy-to-follow storyline was the easy-to-hate narrator, who liked saying things such as "And then he thought about the dog" while the screen cut to a flashback with a dog in it. I understand keeping that "comic book feel" but I think about half the spoon-fed narration would have been sufficient when collaborated with the colored-pencil-like background of the green screen. That and the fact that half the villains look like Dick Tracy's enemies. Don't you think?
SP: Jim, I can't argue with that. The bad guys are more overstated than Donald Trump's hair. Some of the film's critics have even lauded them as racially offensive - Iran's having quite the stir over how Persians are portrayed in the film. But I think the explanation for the outrageously unrealistic monsters that the Spartans encounter is that, to King Leonidas and his men, many of the Persians really may have come off as "monstrous." Both armies come from entirely different worlds and customs, with deep cultural divides in both manner and dress. The Persians' leader, Xerxes, must have appeared strikingly alien to Leonidas, thus he's portrayed as an over 8-foot-tall, more-than-slightly-bisexual metal-faced "god."
It's unfortunate that Snyder decided to keep Miller's original narration as a voice-over. Omniscient dictation is to comics what montages are to movies, but few films actually benefit from voice-overs - I really don't think this one needed it, except at the beginning. But with regard to your comment about how seeing the preview is pretty much seeing the movie, well, I'd have to disagree on that note.
We both agree that 300 gets the blood pumping and I'd take it even a step further. Rarely can films with continual warfare really keep an audience engaged for any extended period of time (just look at Troy, parts of Return of the King, or the Matrix sequels), and 300 does just that. It has to be one of the most intense and rigorous films that I can remember seeing in a long time, and it's pretty much just warfare.
JF: That's a good point on "the portrayal of foreigners by the Greeks/ Hollywood producers." It was put rather well by The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, who boldly stated in the face of the Iranian government condemning 300, "Have you seen what Hollywood has been doing to your culture prior to this movie?" 300 is hardly the worse offender when it comes to racially offensive monsters. Hell, Jar Jar Binks is more offensive than most of 300's beasts.
Anyway Stuart, before we start getting repetitive (too late), I'll wrap it up. 300 is a flick about sticking it out until the end. Showing your guts is the only true way to lose (like BC basketball). Only after staring death in the eye and saying, "I am stronger than you, I am above you," can we truly defeat it. Then our lives can become legend; something above mere mortality.
All the same, this is reading into the plot quite heavily. Other than that and a shallow and obvious story line about democracy and corrupt politics that accompanies anything Roman or Greek (Senators in Togas, etc.), 300 boldly stays away from meaning. The tagline reads "Prepare for Glory," but what it really means is "Prepare for fight scenes." Like you said, rarely has a movie with so many fight scenes remained so engaging, but don't expect it to stick with you.
Final word: 300, believe it or not, promises something for everyone: Tits and ass, muscles and blood, abdominal, and animistic warfare ... oh and, of course, special effects. B+
Be the first to comment on this article!