*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'll be looking at three specific areas of the film: historical inaccuracy, representational issues, and a general critique based on film-making.
Once established that a film is fictional, in other words not historically accurate, it shouldn't matter whether it is accurate or not. However, the way the filmmakers deal with that abstracting of reality can disturb those who are knowledgeable about the subject, or who are simple keen on common sense. In other words, certain choices don't make sense, don't seem valid within the context of the fiction, or perhaps gear themselves more towards low-culture language/symbolism (ie Hollywood clichés). When information is taken from, in this case, the historically realistic, it still must be reassembled in valid manner. If you add a talking dragon to a King Arthur movie, there should be some explanation as to why it is there, and if it breathes flying sheep instead of fire then it contradicts the common conception of a dragon. Ultimately, it comes down to an intelligent use of elements that are abstracted from reality.
One of my problems with 300 is that I think it did a poor job of doing this. The fact that there's monsters and fictional creatures in the story is fine. What isn't fine are things like, dull blades that can cut a man's leg clean off in one swing, men who fight with a cross between WWE and matrix-style fighting, a dude eating a random red apple after a fight, other random choices that don't make sense (Japanese masks on the Persian soldiers), etc. In Kill Bill the Hansu sword didn't bother me when it cut off limb after limb, because there was a valid explanation/premise behind it. In 300 you get this huge abstraction of the phalanx, running bare-chested through a bluescreened field, throwing spears and magically killing thousands of men. In the large picture of 300, the fighting wasn't *that* bad, the Spartan soldiers would get hurt and there weren't many "Chuck Norris"-like BS moments. But I was not moved by any of it. There was no technique behind it.
As for the representational issues, I've heard many points and counter points: that it is a huge insult to Iran and Persian culture, that the film is only based on a comic book so this doesn't matter, that white people are the good guys and blacks and Arabs are the bad guys, etc. It all comes down to this: this is a Hollywood, specifically Warner Bros, picture. One good thing about modern Hollywood is that they cater to the mass audience and thus are usually considerate about race issues and whatnot. It is their responsibility. This film was extremely, extremely ignorant in its defamation of Persian/Iranian culture/history and its use of race in good vs evil. It *does not matter* what was in the comic book. Frank Miller can write whatever he wants in a comic book, because it is a very abstract medium that is taken for granted as "cartoonish." When Warner Bros. decides to ADAPT this comic into a live film, it is an entirely different deal. They had to realize all these hidden and obvious implications, and how ignorant and insulting it is. This film single-handedly mocks millions, millions of people. WB could have adapted any comic book into a film, any of Miller's other works. It was just a bad move to make this film, and that's all there is to it. No one could argue that an alternative script selection could have turned out worse. Nevertheless, 300 was made.
As for Iranians, I've heard/seen some reasonable negative reactions, and some unreasonable, uneducated reactions. I honestly don't think that most Iranians have the knowledge required of the film industry in order to properly assess a film such as in this situation. Most Americans don't even. But ultimately, there was no reason for them to receive this stupid insult of 300, and I feel ashamed to be in any way associated with it.
Getting to the more technical critique of the film: there was WAY too much post production, the writing and actor direction were HORRIBLE, there was zero character development, one-dimensional everything, everything was a caricature with no followable emotional track or realism, and so forth. The speeding up and slowing down of the film tried to emphasize certain actions and imbue it with drama or power, but instead was distracting and amateurish. EVERY single shot was over-color-corrected and looked like crap, it was so obvious to tell. The acting consisted of a few extremely cliché, hyper-masculine dramatic speeches, stealing from every epic film ranging from Braveheart to Last Samurai. The actors ONLY yelled. There was a scene where one soldier cried, but this added nothing. No one cared when people died because no one grew to know any of the characters. They only showed one side of themselves, they were caricatures. The actual content of their lines was disgraceful and rested at a 5th grade reading level. The director's choice to make the characters like football players or wrestlers, instead of increasing the power of the characters, made them incredibly fake and ineffective; whereas giving them moments of desperation, doubt, or any other realistic emotion could have lended to making them more powerful. Imagine one of the last scenes in Braveheart where Mel Gibson is being tortured in public. Now, imagine him having been a total emotionless A-hole the whole film, and instead of yelling "freedom" in a last cry, he yells it like a football player who doesn't give a crap. That was what 300 was like.
Anyway, I felt obligated to write against this film, though I never usually write reviews. I originally gave it a 6 because it didn't seem *that* bad, but am lowering it to a 4 because of the actual HARM it is doing to other people.
Once established that a film is fictional, in other words not historically accurate, it shouldn't matter whether it is accurate or not. However, the way the filmmakers deal with that abstracting of reality can disturb those who are knowledgeable about the subject, or who are simple keen on common sense. In other words, certain choices don't make sense, don't seem valid within the context of the fiction, or perhaps gear themselves more towards low-culture language/symbolism (ie Hollywood clichés). When information is taken from, in this case, the historically realistic, it still must be reassembled in valid manner. If you add a talking dragon to a King Arthur movie, there should be some explanation as to why it is there, and if it breathes flying sheep instead of fire then it contradicts the common conception of a dragon. Ultimately, it comes down to an intelligent use of elements that are abstracted from reality.
One of my problems with 300 is that I think it did a poor job of doing this. The fact that there's monsters and fictional creatures in the story is fine. What isn't fine are things like, dull blades that can cut a man's leg clean off in one swing, men who fight with a cross between WWE and matrix-style fighting, a dude eating a random red apple after a fight, other random choices that don't make sense (Japanese masks on the Persian soldiers), etc. In Kill Bill the Hansu sword didn't bother me when it cut off limb after limb, because there was a valid explanation/premise behind it. In 300 you get this huge abstraction of the phalanx, running bare-chested through a bluescreened field, throwing spears and magically killing thousands of men. In the large picture of 300, the fighting wasn't *that* bad, the Spartan soldiers would get hurt and there weren't many "Chuck Norris"-like BS moments. But I was not moved by any of it. There was no technique behind it.
As for the representational issues, I've heard many points and counter points: that it is a huge insult to Iran and Persian culture, that the film is only based on a comic book so this doesn't matter, that white people are the good guys and blacks and Arabs are the bad guys, etc. It all comes down to this: this is a Hollywood, specifically Warner Bros, picture. One good thing about modern Hollywood is that they cater to the mass audience and thus are usually considerate about race issues and whatnot. It is their responsibility. This film was extremely, extremely ignorant in its defamation of Persian/Iranian culture/history and its use of race in good vs evil. It *does not matter* what was in the comic book. Frank Miller can write whatever he wants in a comic book, because it is a very abstract medium that is taken for granted as "cartoonish." When Warner Bros. decides to ADAPT this comic into a live film, it is an entirely different deal. They had to realize all these hidden and obvious implications, and how ignorant and insulting it is. This film single-handedly mocks millions, millions of people. WB could have adapted any comic book into a film, any of Miller's other works. It was just a bad move to make this film, and that's all there is to it. No one could argue that an alternative script selection could have turned out worse. Nevertheless, 300 was made.
As for Iranians, I've heard/seen some reasonable negative reactions, and some unreasonable, uneducated reactions. I honestly don't think that most Iranians have the knowledge required of the film industry in order to properly assess a film such as in this situation. Most Americans don't even. But ultimately, there was no reason for them to receive this stupid insult of 300, and I feel ashamed to be in any way associated with it.
Getting to the more technical critique of the film: there was WAY too much post production, the writing and actor direction were HORRIBLE, there was zero character development, one-dimensional everything, everything was a caricature with no followable emotional track or realism, and so forth. The speeding up and slowing down of the film tried to emphasize certain actions and imbue it with drama or power, but instead was distracting and amateurish. EVERY single shot was over-color-corrected and looked like crap, it was so obvious to tell. The acting consisted of a few extremely cliché, hyper-masculine dramatic speeches, stealing from every epic film ranging from Braveheart to Last Samurai. The actors ONLY yelled. There was a scene where one soldier cried, but this added nothing. No one cared when people died because no one grew to know any of the characters. They only showed one side of themselves, they were caricatures. The actual content of their lines was disgraceful and rested at a 5th grade reading level. The director's choice to make the characters like football players or wrestlers, instead of increasing the power of the characters, made them incredibly fake and ineffective; whereas giving them moments of desperation, doubt, or any other realistic emotion could have lended to making them more powerful. Imagine one of the last scenes in Braveheart where Mel Gibson is being tortured in public. Now, imagine him having been a total emotionless A-hole the whole film, and instead of yelling "freedom" in a last cry, he yells it like a football player who doesn't give a crap. That was what 300 was like.
Anyway, I felt obligated to write against this film, though I never usually write reviews. I originally gave it a 6 because it didn't seem *that* bad, but am lowering it to a 4 because of the actual HARM it is doing to other people.
No comments:
Post a Comment