300

(Note: I saw this on a regular screen, so keep that in mind if you feel my take was not large enough to truly encompass this movie.)


Having recently viewed the laconically titled 300, I would say that this is a movie for everyone. It has something for each of us - burly men with popping pecs for the ladies. Lots of nipples for us men... For the children it has monsters such as a gollum-like cripple, a giant cave troll manbeast, an executioner who's a weird abomination with a cleaver for an arm, that's right. Don't forget persian shock troops that remarkably resemble Japanese samurai, and have scarred up drooly-faces underneath their masks. What's the point of making a movie for IMAX if you're not going to fill people's vision with either a popping pec, or a hideous human grotesque? I'm sure there isn't one.


Storywise, this movie achieves mixed success. It does not balk at sacrificing realism, which prevents it from becoming a dry historical snoozefest. Can we all learn something from history? Sure. But who actually wants to? There are some drama segments, with slapping and venomous looks, but nothing especially fun or surprising. Aside from those parts it was pretty solid as regards to continuity and wrapping up. Character development was kept to the barest minimum, as befits an action flick. On the other hand stuffing dead corpses into unexpected places was maximized - indeed, almost to the point of saturation. Some people may not know that the screenplay was co-created by Frank Miller, a comic book artist. Well, you can imagine how hedonistically exaggerated and how simultaneously entertaining the tone of the writing was.

A most striking feature of 300 was how it kept referencing "freedom" and the necessary defense thereof. That, coupled with the outright demonization of the Persians made it resemble old war propaganda from the 1940's. Its blatancy in that regard was dulled however by the slickness of the presentation, which made me suspect that perhaps it was merely incidental. But the irony didn't escape acute observers everywhere, of how the same arguments against imperial conquest could be applied to the US's most recent strongarming in the Middle East. Meanwhile the Helots whom the Spartans perpetually oppressed, yet relied upon all the while for economic subsistence, were not mentioned at all in the movie. It's likely they remain completely unknown to many of its viewers. This movie seems to have proved that the underdog who is resisting a menacing and greedy adversary will always have sympathizers among the human population, but only if their story is told. Because people are cursed with both ignorance and a weakness for rhetoric.


Whether a movie like this should have some respites from the frenzy of battle is an interesting topic for debate.

The main argument for would be that outside the domain of a larger story, bloodshed and violent imagery seem to benefit from some rationalization. Human nature can be seen as a balancing act, between a general distaste for violence and a seemingly paradoxical willingness to commit vilest savagery (if I may call the destruction of life that) in the name of something good. Also, if done with care, these are the scenes which will elevate your movie beyond its boundaries as one of thousands of "war movies" already made, and the predecessor of thousands more in the future. Although it's not to be assumed that such a distiction is always desired, as some movies are simply content to blaze in glory rather than bask in the refined glow of Shakespearian-caliber interludes. Further, if we recall the most gung ho fighting movies, the non-battle scenes will usually prove to be the least favorite for most viewers, often maligned for being boring or otherwise disappointing. I attribute this not to the impatience of the viewer, or his expectation of non-stop action - and embittered rebellion when the action is brought temporarily to a stop; but to the manner in which films in Hollywood are developed, with the director being pressured to prioritize the action sequences as well as scenes which directly affect the course of the battle that is ongoing throughout the movie. That is what will make or break the movie from a financial standpoint, not whether supporting actress #2 will bring eyes to tear with her lament for her absent husband.

There was however one bereavement story interwoven into the progression of 300, which was made touchingly, but forgettably. Perhaps my view is shaped by lack of personal experience in the matter. But the scene in The Two Towers is deeply rooted in my mind, where Theoden of Rohan grieves for his son, died in the defense of the kingdom but not mourned until that day. I would say Theoden is worth several hundred Leonidas's at least, and I'm sure that a few of the other non-action parts of this movie could have been stronger. For instance, I found the character of Ephialtes was treated with a high degree of indifference, given his pivotal part in the story. In the movie, when his hope of serving with the Greek forces "for honor" was dashed, he simply takes the best offer he can get, which was the promise of reward by Xerxes for betraying the Greeks. But his adventure would never attain any level of interest higher than mundane for the few scenes and fewer lines he was given. Here was a creature with little in life... On some level or other is relateable for many people, and with a sudden opportunity to wipe out all that and make something out of a sad life. He could have been given a sixty second monologue during which his heratfelt speech would have stirred the audience first to pathos, then hopefulness, and ultimately revulsion as his lack of humility is revealed as but a twin to his physical shortcomings. Instead we were treated to his timid traversal of Xerxes's court while all sorts of nakedness was going on around him. The unfortunate reason being, I imagine, that one would have looked awesome on IMAX, and the other wouldn't have.


My final word on this movie is, yeah go ahead and see it. And if you do have access to an IMAX theater, wait until there is availability there, as the added immersiveness of a truly really big screen may be likened to the chunks in chunky peanut butter - missed every time they're absent, for knowing they could be there.