Movie : 300 : This is going to hurt.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Some movies are just nothing more that a series of images with sounds
I dont ask people to expect more than that for 300;

Sometimes, simple/dumb/straighforward movies can hide a deeper meaning considering the moment/region they are released.

300 is one of them (apparently, i'll tell you more tomorow).
it conveys some thoughts / propaganda to the people. that can impact the moment and the current tensions in the world.


on the other hand, some movies are not simply " a series of images " ... (not even talking about CitizenKane which is just an ok  movie )

[Elrothiel]

Wat-ever... lighten up, because you are "totally buggin" me.

[25]

300 is one of them (apparently, i'll tell you more tomorow).
it conveys some thoughts / propaganda to the people. that can impact the moment and the current tensions in the world.

Any wider resonance attributed to 300 is being read into it by the individual. Neither the source material nor the director have the inclination or the aptitude to incite genuine political or social discussion. Isn't Zack Snyder the guy who remade "Dawn of the Dead" as a brainless action movie? And Frank Miller's most overtly political works were Batman comics (his political statement seeming to be "the right-wing media is nuts").

I'm not sure if 300 is simply being targeted because the "bad guys" are middle-eastern (and therefore it MUST be a scathing statement about modern politics!) or if the media is really so brain-dead that Miller's macho fatalism is really resonating with them at some deeper level. I enjoy Miller's work, but trying to imbue 300 with political meaning is like trying to cite Sin City as a statement about law enforcement, or vigilantism, or social decline.

The sad part is that 300 should be a big fun movie and instead is being both attacked and applauded for being something that it's not.   

[25]

The Persians are mis-characterized in the movie in order to personify them as the Asian Horde. The Persians are: thieving niggers, pig fuck bitches, queers, chinks, mud people, prostitutes, brutal foreign barbarians, handicapped, misshapen people, cowards, and slaves. The Greeks play the part of White Super Man, Savior of the World, fighting for 'freedom', even though Spartans were brutal fascists who wouldn't know freedom if it bit them on the ass.

The Persians are surely mis-characterized in order to personify them as COMIC BOOK VILLAINS.
I'm sure that's a terrible misrepresentation, the army which came to burn Athens to the ground was probably much less mis-shapen and muscle-bound.

That said, it's probably hard to argue that the Persians weren't considered "brutal foreign barbarians" by the Greeks. I should imagine that is exactly how they felt about them. That's how they felt about pretty much everyone. Well, everyone who wasn't Greek anyway.

[misterID]

PS: As for the 135000 images and 5400 seconds of sound... THAT'S WHAT THE CREDITS ARE FOR!!!

I have no idea why that made me laugh so hard, but it did

[Elrothiel]

Probably because I realized afterwards... that it kinda made no sense.

I meant... the credits are there to remind people of everyone who made the movie, so therefore its OK to "sit back and enjoy" a movie... and THEN realize "hey, it took a lot of work to do that, I'm going to sit back and watch all the names on the screen scroll upwards..."

[freedom78]

One of the things I really liked about this movie was the willingness to use actors who aren't the most famous (not that they haven't had work, but they aren't typical blockbuster actors).  It would have been far too easy to throw a Brad Pitt or Russell Crowe into the role of a Spartan.   

[Elrothiel]

^ You're right!

Ooooh imagine Axl as a Spartan......

[25]

  It would have been far too easy to throw a Brad Pitt or Russell Crowe into the role of a Spartan.   

I think that if it would have been that easy, they would have done it. I'm not sure you could sell Pitt on a comic book movie. And Crowe would probably punch you in the face for suggesting it (and then accept the job. And then punch you again.)

[freedom78]

  It would have been far too easy to throw a Brad Pitt or Russell Crowe into the role of a Spartan.   

I think that if it would have been that easy, they would have done it. I'm not sure you could sell Pitt on a comic book movie. And Crowe would probably punch you in the face for suggesting it (and then accept the job. And then punch you again.)

Those two were just random examples that popped into my mind.  And, punches notwithstanding, whether they tried to get a big name star and failed or they just didn't try matters less than the fact that the film didn't have one, and is enormously successful. 

[25]

Those two were just random examples that popped into my mind.  And, punches notwithstanding, whether they tried to get a big name star and failed or they just didn't try matters less than the fact that the film didn't have one, and is enormously successful. 

Didn't it take something like $70 million on opening weekend? Not to be sniffed at.

If I remember correctly, when Watchmen was last being prepped (under Paul Greengrass) they were using Brad Pitt's likeness and measurements for Ozymandias' designs. I could see that working out with Greengrass at the helm, I don't think Snyder would be as attractive a prospect.

I'm sure there's some movie exec somewhere tearing his hair out over how much money 300 could have made with a big name in the lead.

[misterID]

No way. That exec is laughing his ass all the way to the bank. The budget was 60 million, a big named star would have shot that up to 80-85 million, plus take a huge cut of the gross. This movie would have been HURT by a big name like Pitt. This movie was hyped just on the look of it and it gathered interest. A lot of interest would have been lost once Pitts face was seen in the previews. The mystery would be gone.

[25]

That exec is laughing his ass all the way to the bank.

We are clearly thinking of different execs. Your exec should do lunch with mine.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Probably the WORST movie I have ever seen. I thought I was at least going to see an "entertaining" action flick. I thought it would be something visually attractive and originally edited. And I was wrong.
The decors are empty. You are looking at bare-chested, oiled up, pumped up, and shaved bodybuilders for 1h 30. There are basically 4 settings. For an epic war, exotic fantasy movie, that's lame.
The fights? At least the fights will be good. After the 5th minute of slow motion, i was already bored. Watching a guy jump in the air in slow motion can only be fun for a while. Then it gets boring.
More than that, the movie itself is badly edited and cut. When the trailer was correctly executed (thanks to the NIN soundtrack), the movie lacks rhythm. The pause of "moral discussions and tribute" come too often and breaks the pace. The pace. Here again, the core of the movie, the battle, is scripted like an old school 1985 video game.

Level 1 - Enemy 1 (arab guys) arrive! fight !
Level 2 - Enemy 2 (black guys) arrive! fight !
Level 2 (bonus) - Enemy 2 - boss version arrives ! Fight
Level 3 - Enemy 3 (asian guy) ! fight !
Big Boss !

I guess if you get turned on by muscular oily men, you can appreciate it ... tells a lot about the frat boys who are fan of the genre.

Anyway, that was the FORM, the carapace.

Now let's get to the content.... That was the worst.
I am sorry, under cover all the poor battle scenes and pseudo-graphical intensity (the movie is very poor), this is unashamedly a tribute to conservative right ideology.
You really have to be blind or just “ sit back and enjoy”  NOT to see a pure apology to the War in Iraq and the situation of the USA in the world.
So – in the eyes of Frank’s Miller neocon/reactionnay - :

> Politicians are sneaky and cowards (I’m sure they are leftists). Sometimes the military have to “break some laws” in order to save the world – Guatanamo, Patriot Act … -
> Religious men are horny, ugly, pedophiles and corrupted
> Allies are cowards and poor fighters and will abandon you at the first fight.
> Pacifist (Athenians/French) are of course “philosophers and in love with of little boys” and they will die.

> The bad guys are either: arab, Japanese, asian, black, different.
> There is an ugly Spartan, who is difformed, he is rejected by his peers, and of course betray them, because white blond military men are always right.
> They are of course homosexual, wear jewelry and make up. They fight because they are evil and want to rule the world (Just like Al-quaida …).

> On the Other side, the GOOD ones, the white people – Spartan/greek/American – blond and blue eyed, fight for freedom and justice.
What makes me tick, as always, is that in the movies the Good Ones – supposed to represent the good ol’ America – are always the Few Ones.
- Spartan are 300, Persians are Millions.
- Spartan fight with simple weapons, Persians have Elephants (tanks), Magic (Rockets and Planes).
- Spartan protects their land – the fight is on their land – Persians “invade”.

Are Spartan really the Americans? Are Americans invading Iraq? Are Americans fighting on THEIR land? Who are these freedom fighters?
Hollywood – who is not very democract after all – always want to picture the USA as the few who fought the evil empire. The weak ones who, thanks to god, prevail. Is it reality? Aren’t they in reality the Big Ones, The Empire.

Don’t think it’s only a movie. Because thousands of stupid frat boys and girls will see the movie and swallow these undermeanings and ideology as truth.

The movie is bad, in and out. Vomit.


an interview of F Miller that will tell a lot you about his ideas: http://hangrightpolitics.com/2007/01/26/frank-miller-on-the-state-of-our-nation/

PEACE 

[LittleFly]

If you look for politics in anything, your gonna find it no matter if it was intended by the artist/writer or not. 

It was not ment to be a political essay, imho.  It was ment to be bad guys vs good guys, with some betrayal and intrigue thrown in.

Go read Dr. Suess, I'm sure you'll find SOMETHING political in that.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

i disagree.
This is major political propaganda. read frank miller's interview ... he IS political.

and in anyways, the movie is bad.

[LittleFly]

We agree to disagree then

I'm gonna buy this on DVD as soon as it comes out, personally.  I enjoyed the minimized scenery (comp generated, I'm sure) and the simple story.  I didn't think the hunchback need to be in there though, but he did offer an additional betrayal and show why the Spartans thought they needed to be so heartless toward the unfortunate.

Also, I throughly enjoyed the man bodies

I tend to look at things in the simplist way possible, and feel I get more enjoyment out of them when I do.  It's also how I write my own stories.  When I try to put too much underlying meaning in them, they come out like shit.  They may be shit to everyone else anyway, but they are enjoyable to me!

[freedom78]

Probably the WORST movie I have ever seen. I thought I was at least going to see an "entertaining" action flick. I thought it would be something visually attractive and originally edited. And I was wrong.
The decors are empty. You are looking at bare-chested, oiled up, pumped up, and shaved bodybuilders for 1h 30. There are basically 4 settings. For an epic war, exotic fantasy movie, that's lame.
The fights? At least the fights will be good. After the 5th minute of slow motion, i was already bored. Watching a guy jump in the air in slow motion can only be fun for a while. Then it gets boring.
More than that, the movie itself is badly edited and cut. When the trailer was correctly executed (thanks to the NIN soundtrack), the movie lacks rhythm. The pause of "moral discussions and tribute" come too often and breaks the pace. The pace. Here again, the core of the movie, the battle, is scripted like an old school 1985 video game.

Level 1 - Enemy 1 (arab guys) arrive! fight !
Level 2 - Enemy 2 (black guys) arrive! fight !
Level 2 (bonus) - Enemy 2 - boss version arrives ! Fight
Level 3 - Enemy 3 (asian guy) ! fight !
Big Boss !

I guess if you get turned on by muscular oily men, you can appreciate it ... tells a lot about the frat boys who are fan of the genre.

Anyway, that was the FORM, the carapace.

Well, if you don't like it that's your prerogative.  And I like your video game analogy.  Where you get the idea that this implies that "frat boys" are turned on by muscular oily men (which I'm assuming is your way of saying they're homosexuals) I do not know.

Now let's get to the content.... That was the worst.
I am sorry, under cover all the poor battle scenes and pseudo-graphical intensity (the movie is very poor), this is unashamedly a tribute to conservative right ideology.
You really have to be blind or just ? sit back and enjoy?  NOT to see a pure apology to the War in Iraq and the situation of the USA in the world.
So ? in the eyes of Frank?s Miller neocon/reactionnay - :

> Politicians are sneaky and cowards (I?m sure they are leftists). Sometimes the military have to ?break some laws? in order to save the world ? Guatanamo, Patriot Act ? -

Wait...politicians AREN'T sneaky cowards?     First, most of the politicians are represented as good, honest people.  Only one is otherwise, and he isn't a "leftist."  That's your assumption. 

> Religious men are horny, ugly, pedophiles and corrupted

Umm...if this is film is a tribute to American conservatives, then this is NOT a well planned scene.  It ain't called the "religious right" for nothin'!

> Allies are cowards and poor fighters and will abandon you at the first fight.

Looked to me like the allied forces made a smart tactical decision to retreat rather than to be outflanked and pressed from front AND back. 

> Pacifist (Athenians/French) are of course ?philosophers and in love with of little boys? and they will die.

The 5th century BC marked a height in Athenian culture, especially in terms of philosophy.  The Battle of Thermopylae took place in 481 BC.  The assertion that Athenians were philosophers is correct.  And ancient Greek sexual practices are fairly thoroughly studied.

> The bad guys are either: arab, Japanese, asian, black, different.
> There is an ugly Spartan, who is difformed, he is rejected by his peers, and of course betray them, because white blond military men are always right.
> They are of course homosexual, wear jewelry and make up. They fight because they are evil and want to rule the world (Just like Al-quaida ?).

The bad guys are from the Persian empire.  At that time, Persia spanned most of the Middle East, the North of Africa, and Turkey.  Most of those people aren't white.  It's just that simple.  And most won't find the depiction of hot lesbians as a problem.   

Next you'll be pissed because all the bad guys in "Midway" are Japanese!  Fuckin' WWII propaganda piece...

> On the Other side, the GOOD ones, the white people ? Spartan/greek/American ? blond and blue eyed, fight for freedom and justice.

The king of Sparta had dark brown ---almost black!--- hair.  Most of the rest had brown hair, too.  I didn't notice too many blue eyes, though I must admit I wasn't really too concerned with eye color.

What makes me tick, as always, is that in the movies the Good Ones ? supposed to represent the good ol? America ? are always the Few Ones.
- Spartan are 300, Persians are Millions.
- Spartan fight with simple weapons, Persians have Elephants (tanks), Magic (Rockets and Planes).
- Spartan protects their land ? the fight is on their land ? Persians ?invade?.

The fact that it was 300 against an overwhelming force, and the fact that they were somewhat successful, is what makes this a compelling story.  If anything, the Persian weaponry makes them more representative of the US than are the Spartans.

Are Spartan really the Americans? Are Americans invading Iraq? Are Americans fighting on THEIR land? Who are these freedom fighters?
Hollywood ? who is not very democract after all ? always want to picture the USA as the few who fought the evil empire. The weak ones who, thanks to god, prevail. Is it reality? Aren?t they in reality the Big Ones, The Empire.

What you ask as hypothetical questions are, in fact, the weaknesses of your theory!  You think the film is a propaganda piece, that suddenly neglects a critical fact.  Bravery doesn't automatically imply that you're an American or symbolic of US policy.  It's a common theme throughout history! 

Don?t think it?s only a movie. Because thousands of stupid frat boys and girls will see the movie and swallow these undermeanings and ideology as truth.

Did you get cock-blocked at a frat party?  I'm not certain why you keep making generalizations like these, as they add nothing to your argument.

The movie is bad, in and out. Vomit.

Got your $7.50!

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Ehe, well i thank you for your answer,
but i was not waiting for a technical response on the different on the facts BUT more on what the "average movie goers" will feel when getting the story.

Ok the Persians were black and arabs.
But the way they are presented, the way their "side" fits with the current worlwide situations, incousciouly impact our average joe.

Give me this story, 300 year s ago, it will have a different importance.
Today, it has meanings, that are sneaky and political. Read the Frank Miller interview, he is hardcore.


Then on my "open questions" on American likin to portray themselves as the "weak rebels who fights for justice and protection of invasion" when they actually are the Big Empire who invades ...

it's an interesting one. it really shows how this country, socially, incousciously, does not want to be what they are. maybe.

(There are a lot of blue eyes in the movie, but again,these little details, act deeply in peoples visions to make them feel "at home" , visually and ideologically)

yeah, sorry for the fratboys stuff, never had any problem with them

[freedom78]

Ehe, well i thank you for your answer,
but i was not waiting for a technical response on the different on the facts BUT more on what the "average movie goers" will feel when getting the story.

Ok the Persians were black and arabs.
But the way they are presented, the way their "side" fits with the current worlwide situations, incousciouly impact our average joe.

Give me this story, 300 year s ago, it will have a different importance.
Today, it has meanings, that are sneaky and political. Read the Frank Miller interview, he is hardcore.


Then on my "open questions" on American likin to portray themselves as the "weak rebels who fights for justice and protection of invasion" when they actually are the Big Empire who invades ...

it's an interesting one. it really shows how this country, socially, incousciously, does not want to be what they are. maybe.

(There are a lot of blue eyes in the movie, but again,these little details, act deeply in peoples visions to make them feel "at home" , visually and ideologically)

yeah, sorry for the fratboys stuff, never had any problem with them

I guess that my point is that the movie is MOSTLY historically accurate.  There are some exceptions: embellishment of Persian culture, lack of any naval battle, and the relationship between religion and the military are all altered from fact, but I take most of this as dramatic license. 

I certainly agree that there are interesting comparisons to be made between this film (and the real battle of Thermopylae) and current events.  But, where you see propaganda, I see a timely film that capitalizes on current events to make the film more attractive.  If anyone goes into the film as anti-Bush, and comes out pro-Bush, then I'm afraid that that person is intellectually deficient. 

I think the tendency to portray America (or the good guys) as underdogs, fighting injustice is more accurate than it first may seem.  For the early part of American history, the underdog depiction is certainly applicable, when comparing the US to world powers like England, France, or Spain (among others).  And, up through WWII, we were still a mostly isolated state.  Our wars were mostly fought in North America (WWI being the major exception).  But for Americans, our "ancient history" is only a couple hundred years, so that early underdog status still means a great deal, despite the fact that it clearly doesn't apply anymore.