Sunday, May 25, 2008

The 300 problems I have with this movie...

Whichever way you view it - including through a drug-and-alcohol fuelled haze - The 300 is a shit movie. Leprositic, sexually-depraved Spartan elders, fake-sixpacked David Wenhams, booby-flashing religious oracles: all these images, and more, really give me the crying shits. It's films like this that make my job as a history teacher even harder than it should be. Every day, some snotty-nosed kid asks me a mind-blowingly stupid question like, 'When was Achilles alive?', or 'Why did medieval dragons speak with a Scots brogue?', or, 'Why was Alexander the Great such an arrogant and irritating Irish partyboy?'

Now, I can understand why directors would want to spice up their historical movies a little. Especially if you've settled on making the next Michael Collins or John Howard: the Little Guy from Bennelong. But if there is one event in history which doesn't need any extra spice, then the showdown at Thermopylae in 480BC should be the one. You don't need bluescreen and piles of dead Persians to make that battle look exciting.

Artistic licence is all very well. So is painting muscles on diminuitive Australian actors, or having the guys in sounds make a loud 'thunk' noise every time a Spartan lightly presses his pinky finger against a division of heavily armed Phoenician auxiliaries. But if there is one thing I really can't stand about The 300, it is the portrayal of Xerxes, the mighty King of the Persians.

Compare these two pictures:


The first shows a gigantic, heavily-pierced, near-naked, bejewelled, androgynous, Brazilian actor/model. The second shows Xerxes.

However, unless you're especially interested in Ancient History, you probably think the first one is Xerxes.

This leads us to another problem with The 300. Xerxes is presented to us as the villain of the film, and, as such, he needs to look menacing - and different. Yes, he is wearing a tight pair of briefs, much like Leonidas and crew, but otherwise he is decidedly non-Spartan - tall, bald, feminine, evil - and brown.

Ah, xenophobia. It's always been a necessary component of war movies. Whether it's the cold-blooded German officers of a WW2 flick, the raggedy Iraqis of a Gulf War movie, or the cunning Viet Cong (slippery bastards, dressing like civilians!) in any number of Vietnam films, we do love an enemy who is a bit different from us. And, despite The 300 being set 2500 years ago, in a world we would barely recognise, we still have the good (blond, white, honourable Spartans - our European forebears), and the bad (hordes of dark-skinned Iranians). And look at them - trying to invade Greece! How dare they. Just as treacherous as their deceitful, belligerent descendants.

Look, I know that Frank whatshisname was trying to make a comic book-style, not-entirely-accurate, film about Thermopylae. And some of the scenes are pretty exciting. But film makers need to remember - a lot of people don't rush to the history books to check whether what they've just been told is true. They see the words 'based on true events', and think that they're watching a $120 million documentary.

Anyway, I'm getting off my High Trojan Horse now. I might go and watch a quality historical film, like Alexander.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes Tom well I finally discovered your little hideout. Can I just make a small comment about your view on the 300 movie. I would like to say that I consider myself well versed in the world of movie culture, having watched alot of movies in my time. I understand completely that you find certain aspects of this movie inaccurate in relation to historical events, but..... who the fuck cares! I love it right from the muscle bound Australian actors,(Diver Dan you have done us proud with your pirate like accent that doesn't sound tough at all), to the tight panty wearing pierced transexual persian whatever he is called.

I'd be the first to admit that I no little about world history apart from what I have learnt over the years from trivial pursuit. Saying that I still like to think that I have enough commonsense to tell the difference between fact and fiction when it comes to movies like these.

In no way was this movie trying to be real beyond the means of the comic book that it was based upon. There were aspects taken from actual events but in the end Its all entertainment and I know the difference. These kids that bring stupid questions like that to class should be slapped in the side of the head as it is obvious that certain parts in the brain are not sparking, and as shit as it might be, sometimes it falls into the arms of the teacher to educate these children about things that are even beyond basic human reasoning. I think you might be looking too deep into this one hence the lack of comments ha ha. You of all people should know that a shit movie makes great viewing.

Yours lovingly

The Governor of California
Arnold Corey duncan Bennett Schwarzenegger

Ps it was Frank Miller the god of comic books that also had a strong hand in Sin City. One of my favourite movies.

Anonymous said...

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/arnold-schwarzenegger.jpg

Mr Griffith said...

The only shit move that makes great viewing is Stay Hungry. Or Hercules in New York. Or Cactus Jack.

Jason Statham said...

I would certainly commit 10 on 10 for such incredible cognition. watch movies online free