Three hundred morons
I saw The 300 today, which I link to not because I expect you to visit the site but because this is apparently the sort of thing one does in a blog. I didn’t care for it. It’s possible that I’m more forgiving of historical reinterpretations when they come in more flexible comic book or animation forms; this one felt actively dishonest as a movie. It also might have been the utterly one-dimensionality of the characters that threw me, although the movie certainly was beautiful.
Historical reinterpretation is most frustrating to me when the real history is just as, if not more, interesting. I know that sounds a little pretentious, and I’m cool with that.
Trackbacks
Use the following link to trackback from your own site:
http://blog.brianguthrie.com/trackbacks?article_id=three-hundred-morons&day=12&month=03&year=2007
Escapism, Guthrie. Many (if not most) movies are all about escapism. The 300 is not now, nor was it ever intended to be “historical reinterpretation.” And it clearly was not meant as “historical fact.” (If there was any doubt, the NIN song in the preview should have solidified that for you). The source material was a graphic novel, from which we can determine that the intent of the film makers was to create something both “graphic” and “novel.”
It’s cool to not be into something. Different strokes and what not. But it is unfair to be against something for lacking qualities that it never intended, or claimed to possess. You may as well criticize a congressional bill for failing to utilize metaphor or imagery.
I enjoyed the movie. It was no Sin City (if we are comparing Frank Miller movies), but still entertaining. Then again, I never went into expecting any sort of historical accuracy. If anything it is more of a tall tale constructed by one side over many many generations. I’d imagine if anything was based on truth, the giant probably started out a 5’2” guy surrounded by a bunch of 4’3” Spartans.
I disagree that anything described as a novel must be “novel”.
If it wasn’t intended to be historical reinterpretation OR historical fact they should have filmed a movie based around Spurtans from Grooce, who fought at the Battle of Zermothylae under the leadership of King Lion-O. As I said in the post, I’m willing to grant graphic novels and animated movies licenses for creative playfulness. But this movie took itself too seriously to really give it that excuse.
Oh my gosh, they used the names of real people and places in a fictional film? For SHAME.
Two things: 1 – Even if you choose to argue the novelty of a novel, I would hope that you still acknowledge that referring to something as a “novel” (as opposed to say, a “memoir,” “primary source” or adding the “based on a true story” tag) inherently implies “THIS SHIT IS MADE UP.” Harry Potter shows kids taking a flying car and an invisible train from London to Hogwarts. We shouldn’t have to call it Flondon for people to get that those means of transportation are not currently available. 2 – There is a point in the movie where a guy is decapitated and his headless body stands for a second while blood spurts out of his open neck hole. (Take a second and reread that last sentence). If you can watch this scene and honestly say the movie “took itself too seriously”... I don’t know man. I think you missed the point.
Sure, it was playful visually. But as far as the dialogue goes, it was two hours of dudes with impeccable six-packs beating their chests and screaming laughable dialogue without any irony or reflection and with almost no humor. The end product was just silly.
I didn’t miss the point. I just want more from my movies than you do.
I don’t know how you could expect the Spartans to be any less than impeccably six-packed.
I haven’t seen the film, but I am now somewhat disappointed that they weren’t seven- or eight-packed.
I would give Leonidas at least 7.5 packs’ worth.