300

March 13th, 2007 by alan s.

Director Zack Snyder first introduced himself to the world with 2004’s Dawn of the Dead, his version of a George Romero staple that fiercely divided horror fans despite its notable commercial success. While many chose to breathlessly peck at their keyboards contending the very idea of remaking such a classic, or endlessly debated with each other over a zombie’s ability to run (because such things are quite obviously shackled by the laws of science), I instead greatly enjoyed the movie for what it was: a beautifully shot, blood soaked re-imagining of a story that I already loved. Strangely, the film’s detractors spent a lot of time wondering what the point was, when it was quite obviously to give us two hours of good fun. And now Snyder has done it again, taking Frank Miller’s decade old graphic novel, 300, and fashioning it into a visual force that rivals the best in its genre; the kind of film that demands being seen in a theater. And once more, too many people are missing the point.

Lean on plot and dialogue, Miller’s fast paced comic based on the Battle of Thermopylae was every bit as focused on war and brutality as the men documented on its pages. And while Snyder does a fair bit more than I expected to further flesh out these characters, his film very much shares the novel’s infatuation with bloodshed (in case you’re wondering, this is a very good thing). There is no shortage of fighting to be seen here, and cinematographer Larry Fong frames the violence as an artform unto itself, every cut and slice drawn out so that it can be viewed in agonizing detail. While the significant use of slow motion during these moments may be off-putting to some, I found it brought Miller’s art to life in remarkable fashion. This technique is not limited to just the warfare either, as Snyder is prone to let the camera linger over all of his imagery, perfectly capturing panels of the book at every turn. It’s consistently awe inspiring, and scenes like the awakening of the oracle will leave you wishing you didn’t have to blink.

But beauty is not the only thing that elevates this beyond being a run-of-the-mill action movie. While the tale of 300 Spartan soldiers (accompanied by 700 or so fellow Greeks) fending off multiple advances by a Persian army that vastly outnumbered them is very much true, here it is funneled through legend, passed on without the strict bounds of reality. The version we are witness to is colored by age, and the bias of its Spartan narrator, transforming the Persian enemy into a supernatural menace driven by pure evil, a counterpoint to everything these men are bred to believe in. While the Spartans fight for the glory of a soldier’s death (an ideal not chosen so much as beaten into them since birth), supplied with only their wits and the most spare of armaments, their enemies bring all manner of excesses, adorned in intricate costumes, and often riding into battle on the backs of oversized beasts, or with lumbering, deformed monsters by their side. This is the confrontation as told by one man, the heroism of his allies and the horrors of their enemies both being stretched to fantastically mythical proportions.

Despite what you might think though, 300 is not quite just two hours of swords clashing and heads flying. Unlike the book, which kept character development to a minimum, Snyder does his best to invoke a stronger sense of humanity in his protagonists, giving the viewer brief breaks from the combat that will be welcomed by many. His King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) is every bit as unflinching in his sense of duty as Miller’s, but softened around the edges just enough to increase his appeal to audiences. Butler does a commendable job of striking this careful balance between man and leader, entering every fray with a savage ferocity, while injecting surprising moments of levity (aided by much of Miller’s original dialogue) at just the right moments in-between.

Additionally, Snyder chose to add an entirely new subplot that focuses on Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey), who remains at home awaiting the return of her husband (as she says: “Either with your shield, or on it”), while fighting her own battle with the city counsel for reinforcements. I wouldn’t say that this is a completely necessary component to the plot, but it does add the slightest hint of intrigue, while helping the audience better understand the politics behind the battle (which are only briefly touched upon in the original version). The unfortunate by-product of this addition is that it further fuels the already raging fire of debate regarding the movie’s political undercurrents, and its a debate that recently entered the realm of the ridiculous when an Iranian official publicly accused it as being “part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological war aimed at Iranian culture”. The fact a film so awash in cartoonish eccentricity could stir up such heated moral outrage is equally hilarious and frightening.

Like Dawn of the Dead before it, this movie’s goal is to be a fun ride, and that’s as far as it goes. Using 300 as a launching pad to a healthy discourse on current affairs is one thing, but this is slanted, revisionist history on display solely for the sake of our amusement, and all but the most nearsighted will admit that the film goes out of its way to let the audience in on that fact. There’s no denying that the Fascist-friendly theme of “might makes right” that laces much of Miller’s work (and was the backbone of the Spartan culture) is very much at the heart of its narrative, but we are not at all expected to agree with it in order to be entertained. And all personal beliefs aside, entertaining us is all that Snyder intended to do.

Recent reviews by alan s.

Posted in Film+TV |

5 Responses

jathanism Says:
  • Your review is spot-on with what I have been telling my friends who have been complaining that there was “not enough character development” in 300.

    Hello people? It is a film adaptation of a graphic novel… A graphic novel written by Frank Miller no-less.

    We’re not going for historical accuracy or political rhetoric here. This is all about severed heads and swinging swords.

    Enjoy it for what it is.

lars garvey Says:
  • Damn. Best review on the site by far. I don’t think even a clever, intricate quilting together of two of my better reviews could touch this one.

alan s. Says:
  • Wow, thanks man, that’s some mighty high praise! I am a bit stunned even. Best review or not, I am glad that all the time I spent noodling this one out was worth it in the end.

Vee Susatijo Says:
  • I have read more than many reviews on this film, and you have managed to eloquently summarize the gist of this movie better than any of the so-called pros…

    The academics complain that it lacks character development, the historians complain that its too generous in its fabrications…the casual moviegoers complain of the overdone visual effects…

    none of them get it.

    thanks alan, for providing an accessible summary that i can share with more than a handful of people i know.

alan s. Says:
  • Thanks a lot, Vee! I am still surprised at the feedback this got. And the fact you’ve actually forwarded the review on to people you know is appreciated greatly.

    I am glad so many of my friends are on the same wavelength with this film, because the pundits that spend far too much time dissecting it for deep and meaningful messages leave me scratching my head in disbelief. Then again, if I actually knew one of them, maybe I could ask them what the hell that’s all about. :)

    Thanks again, man.

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.