Archive for the ‘Film Reviews’ Category

h1

Grab Your Chainsaws, Ladies.

February 26, 2008

A decent horror film will have me cowering under the blanket hours after a viewing. I still love the genre, though. This is why I was so excited by the recent article on George Romero, John Carpenter, et al, in Vanity Fair’s latest “Hollywood issue.” The article, “Killer Instincts,” was written by Jason Zinoman.

It was a good piece, but I was extremely disappointed to read about what went on on the set of Wes Craven’s “Last House on the Left” (1972). The movie deals with mindlessly horrific events, and it’s natural to be both disgusted and fascinated by it. However, here’s how one of its stars, David Hess (he plays the main killer dude, Krug), described acting alongside his co-star, Sandra Cassell:

“I was very mean to the girls, so when it came to the rape scene, [Sandra Cassell] didn’t have to act… I told her, ‘I’m really going to fuck you up if you don’t behave yourself. They’ll just let the camera run. I’m going to devastate you.’ I don’t think she was too happy about that.”

Jason Zinoman describes Hess’ approach as “a Method actor’s intensity.” Jason! That’s not method-acting! That’s barbarism. Hess goes on to engage in seriously pathetic bragging about his conquests with co-stars and groupies (he might be a loser, but he got laiiiiiid!!!), and it is very clear that this guy is not some raw-edged heir to Stanislavsky. He is a misogynist using an actor’s persona to camouflage his serious issues, and, in the article, the masks obviously slips. That is, unless, Zinoman is deliberately mis-representing him with this piece. Zinoman, however, has an impressive resume and reputation – one does not attain such heights with blatant fibbing. [Update: David Hess is in the comments section of this post, saying that he was misquoted. I've gone ahead and changed the title of this post. Having been misquoted by a journalist before, I don't  take these issues lightly.  Now the picture would be complete if Jason Zinoman showed up to talk as well, but I'm not holding my breath. Are you out there, Mr. Zinoman?] [Update 2: Mr. Zinoman is indeed out there, and says that no one was misquoted about anything. So there.]

I really like Wes Craven, but I wish he hadn’t allowed that to happen on set. I understand that he was a young director struggling to break free from his parents’ (particularly, his mother’s, as Zinoman darkly notes) expectations. I understand that things can get crazy in such a peculiar atmosphere. Nevertheless, there are lines you do not allow people to cross.

Zinoman does not go to Craven for a response on Hess’ “method.” And I wish he had.

I don’t think that Zinoman should have reached across the coffee-table and smacked Hess across the face. As a fellow writer, I get to speak to a lot of people, not all of them particularly cuddly. What Hess reveals about himself in this article is just as fascinating as the thematic elements of any good horror film. In order for revelations to take place, the writer must rein in his or her judgment. However, I do think that Zinoman’s characterization of Hess’ behaviour was way off the mark.

While I’m at it, here’s another disturbing quote from Zinoman’s piece, describing what happened on the set of the “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”:

Exhausted, overheated, and frustrated by a tube of fake blood that wouldn’t spurt, Hansen [in his role as killer] decided to cut Burns [in her role as victim] for real, just to get the scene over with. “That was hardly the worst of it,” remembers Burns… I got a black eye that day… and I remember getting beat up by everyone while Tobe [the director] was standing nearby saying, ‘Hit her harder! Harder!’ “

I’ve always wanted to see the original “Massacre” film, but now, I don’t think I will. Obviously, Burns is a tough woman. I salute her for soldiering on. But I’m not going to salute the glaring un-professionalism of Gunnar Hansen and Tobe Hooper, and what it ultimately implies about them. Where any male actors injured on set? Zinoman does not say.

I’d like to see more women feature prominently the horror genre, and not just as pretty girls being chased/tortured by maniacs, but as both the maniacs and the creators of maniacs. Of course, many women have been working behind the scenes in the horror genre for years. The Pretty/Scary site is a good resource on some of them (as well as to many, many horror actresses).

As a fan, I think that horror has a great future, especially wherein women are concerned (and no, I’m not one of those puritan types who thinks that we should fight sexism by completely cutting out any instances of female victimization, and portraying women as All Powerful, All the Time – but more balance doesn’t hurt. Certainly, the fact that Neve Campbell’s character had sex and survived “Scream” is a good thing; John Carpenter may not think that killing sexually involved characters is prudery and sexism, but I sure do).

Now, I’d love to see Diablo Cody do a horror film, now that she’s bagged an Oscar for “Juno.” Why the hell not? I imagine something both hilarious and disturbing.

Long live the dead.

h1

“12″ got the Oscar nomination!

January 23, 2008

I take moment from a busy schedule as commentator on grim world events to grin like the Cheshire cat.

Why am I grinning – despite not being a major fan of the Academy Awards in general? Why because…

h1

Nikita Mikhalkov’s “12″ is the Best Movie I’ve Seen All Year

October 30, 2007

12

Most of the English-speaking world knows Nikita Mikhalkov as director and star of “Burnt by the Sun.” I used to think this was an excellent thing. Now I am not sure. This has to do with the fact that I want the English-speaking world to also know (and love) Nikita Mikhalkov for “12″ – the movie that deserves an Oscar no less, if not more. Just so more people can see it.

“12″ is a loose adaptation of “12 Angry Men.” Although modernized – (here comes my only major criticism of the movie) it is nevertheless suffering from a dearth of female characters. Women are in the margins of the picture. At one point, a peripheral (but, as we come to find out, important) character is accused of acting on “jealousy typical of a female.” This is very Russian. Very dramatic and exclusionary. Very Mikhalkov. The film could have used an injection of Inna Churikova’s famed eccentricity, or Olga Ostroumova’s charm. Testosterone is Mikhalkov’s poison and, no matter how he would respond to these words if he saw them (not that he isn’t busy and important), female jurors would have improved the integrity of the film. An all-male jury seems almost Jurassic. Though the fact that Mikhalkov doesn’t have a terrific track-record wherein female characters are concerned (Julia Ormond in “The Barber of Siberia” was, I believe, a victim of poor decisions on Mikhalkov’s part – despite a few terrific scenes, he nevertheless appears to be more skilled at developing a man’s inner world) is a story best left for another bedtime.

In all other aspects, meanwhile, this film is a masterpiece.

A Chechen teenager who keeps terrible memories is accused of murdering his adopted father, a retired Russian officer. “Uncle Volodya,” as the kid calls him, was a friend of the Chechen’s slaughtered family. The case seems simple, but the doubts of one man gradually begin to reveal its inconsistencies; revealing also, in perfect symmetry, human tragedies as modern and immediate as life in Moscow, and as old as the world. Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

More Film Goodness

May 30, 2007

Sean T. Collins liked “28 Weeks Later.” Here’s why. I’d normally say that all those who disagree with me are a babbling, bumbling band of baboons, but not in this case. Sean is a terrific writer, and he had a lot of good things to say about Jeremy Renner, which means that he pretty much gets the award for Awesome Film Reviewer of the Month (the award does not currently carry a cash prize – so Sean will have to make do with my respect and admiration, for now).

h1

28 Weeks Later. Thoughts. *Spoilers.* Head-Against-Wall Sessions.

May 21, 2007

This review contains a couple of spoilers. If you have not seen the movie, and you like surprises, go play a video game, or something.

“28 Days Later” scared me so much that I found myself hanging out in virtual stranger’s dorm room one evening, telling said virtual stranger that I just couldn’t “be alone right now.” I was so creeped out that I turned into a creep.

“28 Weeks Later” is even more terrifying, and it’s just too bad that one wants to take half the characters and feed them to the rampaging infected. “Days” was populated with characters you cared about. “Weeks” kills off or transforms the only compelling and/or sympathetic folks, leaving us to cheer the infected on. This is all besides the fact that what starts out to be a tense and clever story manages to degenerate into a splatter-fest that literally murders its own plot.

To recap if you’re not up-to-date on all the “28″ goodness: The original movie, starring the paragon of elfin good looks otherwise known as Cillian Murphy, concerns the aftermath of a deadly virus outbreak in Britain. Mr. Elfin Good Looks is a coma patient who wakes up naked (yay!) in a London hospital, only to discover that the city is almost devoid of human life, and the majority of the remaining living are violent ghouls. The cause of the devastation can be traced back to idiot activists who unleash a pathogen known as Rage – those infected are not zombies in the strictest sense, but they are more than willing to chomp on their victims. Their desire is not to feed, however, but to destroy – and there is something more eerie about this concept. Our hero hooks up with stray survivors, the awesome Naomie Harris among them, and struggles to stay alive, and more, in a world where not only the infected have gone mad.

None of the characters from “Days” are included in “Weeks.” The sequel does, initially, create an alluring premise: to what extent can a devastated society, or devastated family, rebuild? Early on in the movie, a variety of concepts intersect: courage and cowardice, violence and tenderness, the idea of Britain as a closely monitored society, the old chestnut regarding the road to hell and what it’s paved with, the sly reference to a “Green Zone” at the heart of a ravaged nation, and so on. None of these ideas are explored at any length, however, save for the bit about good intentions leading to grotesquely horrifying consequences. In order for said horror to fully resonate, however, one has to be invested in the story and the characters. I just couldn’t do it.

The kids. Oh dear Lord, the kids. Played admirably by the (wonderfully named) Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton, they are nevertheless so annoying as to make you want to beat yourself to death. Imogen’s Tammy, a supposedly protective older sister, is especially badly drawn; what kind of dumbass would take her little brother out of a secured area and go as far as to touch a possibly infected corpse for the sake of retrieving a memento of a dearly departed mum that was, mind you, apparently destroyed by the very virus the little morons have risked unleashing? There’s a sociopathic streak to Tammy that, while driving the plot forward, makes the consequences of her actions almost unwatchable. Compare her to Hannah, the teenage girl featured in “Days” – Hannah’s immaturity is tempered by her ability to do and say the right thing when called upon. If the filmmakers wanted Tammy to be Hannah’s exact opposite, they’ve succeeded, but to what end? And how the hell does Tammy get away with it? The movie poster reads: “Deadly force will be used to protect this area.” Riiiiight. This is why the kids have plenty of time to steal a bike, take a joy-ride, get halfway across the enormous city of London, jump on a trampoline, and raise hell after having been spotted by a sniper.

The U.S. Military, meanwhile, is so inept as to make our real-life “strategery” in Iraq look brilliant by comparison. Studly Jeremy Renner, a subdued Rose Byrne, and a perpetually pissed-off Harold Perrineau manage to come off as much more than just drooling idiots, but they don’t have that much material to work with; the movie’s perpetually shifting focus is regrettable in this sense. And it does not help that badass Robert Carlyle is completely wasted in the role of the only compelling civilian character.

I can fly a 747… no, I can fly the Starship Enterprise through the plotholes. Stories like this require the willing suspension of disbelief, but it’s equally important for the film to make sense based on the criteria initially established by the filmmakers. While the uncanny works well as a stylistic device – using it to advance the plot is a cop-out. One of the best moments in “Days” involves a kid screeching “I hate you” at Cillian Murphy’s character – this is the only instance in which an infected person speaks. The deviation from the norm is both sickeningly fascinating and acceptable in regards to continuity issues, because the writers do not proceed to spin an giant plot-arc out of this. By contrast, the entire second half of “Weeks” hinges on a infected acting bizarrely out of line for what’s considered “normal”- and this behaviour is taken for granted. One could argue that a mutated strain of the virus is involved, but then again, no people infected through this particular carrier exhibit similar traits. Wtf, mate?

This is all beside the fact that the very act of re-infection is completely implausible. I can think of half a dozen more believable plot devices off the top of my head, and I haven’t even had a cup of coffee today. Naturally, the entire sequence is terrifying. For what it’s worth, it’s extremely well done, as are the majority of the following sequences. But these are islands of good horror craftsmanship that are strung together in the most perfunctory of ways. I have tremendous respect for film writers, these film writers in particular – the subject matter is weightier than it would appear to a casual observer. The shadows of Danny Boyle and Alex Garland stretch far, and labouring in their presence must have been an added challenge. This is why I stop myself short of blasting the movie – but only just so.

“28 Weeks Later” is a classic, pee-your-panties thrill-ride, but it also wants to be taken seriously. It wants to generate discussion and provoke commentary and debate. It wants us to talk war, violence, and collateral damage. It’s an admirable effort, and it almost works. I am, however, still stuck on how a glorified janitor could have unlimited security access in a restricted area so recently devastated by a horrific virus – a virus that is a character in itself, or could be, if the filmmakers would only allow us to understand it a bit more (instead of focusing on those ketchup-smeared extras all the time).

h1

How “300″ Spartans Drop-Kicked Me Down the Rabbit Hole

March 20, 2007

Modern-day storytellers are circumscribed by reductivism. Adopt a classical method – and you’re out of touch, a coward channeling a bunch of unfashionable dead white guys. Adopt a classical method and innovative technology – you are not merely out of touch, you are also a corporate whore.

This is the problem with much of the critical reception surrounding “300.” The mention of the “war-weary times,” (as if most of us know what it’s like to be war-weary in the first place), the shudders of horror at the stylized violence, the sneering suggestions that the filmmakers are not self-aware when it comes to the various forms of eroticism the movie portrays – these things add up to the feeling that we are missing something here, something older and much more mysterious. The both sincere and studied critical responses point to a self-devouring culture that couldn’t appreciate a fun mythology if it stomped on said culture’s collective bum with a big, sandaled foot.

The reactions of ethnic Persians to this film are understandable and important – on a variety of levels, myths are (to borrow a word from today’s fashion experts) fugly, and we should not forget that. But Persians aren’t the only ones who ought to feel at least slightly uncomfortable: the movie aims to kick you around no matter who you are. It’s a splendidly wicked story; it doesn’t quite push one’s buttons as much as jackhammers them.

The end result is both pleasurable and painful to watch – the post-battle tableau of pierced, bloody, beautiful Spartans, arranged as lovingly as figures on the Sistine Chapel, can be read as a nod to the death-cult of warfare, an exercise in spiritual ecstasy, a pin-up worthy seduction, etc. The image is attractive and terrifying at the same time. And perhaps one of the reasons why “300″ is such a hard pill to swallow for some has to do with the way in which it doesn’t invite interpretation – you can simply sit back and let it pound you, and there is some guilt inevitably attached to that, no?

“300″ also speaks to the viewer visually – the dialogue is the backdrop, and not the other way around. This set-up reminds me of the band Nightwish – masterful guitar-work and very secondary lyrics. The film is also visual in the manner of Little Red Riding Hood re-tellings (no, no, I’m not just saying that because of the Spartans’ blood-red capes) – identity is created through colour, through artful, manipulated imagery. This style is classic in the way that folk tales are – and as lovely and dark as the deepest recesses (rabbit holes?) of the creative mind. It’s no wonder that the film begins and ends with the words of a storyteller.

The Spartans were, as the fictional Xerxes put it, a “fascinating” group of people, noble and savage, and so is this twisted, gorgeous spectacle of a narrative. Said narrative is told from their perspective and with them in mind; we in the audience are the soft-bodied, pathetic, popcorn-littered bystanders. It’s a great device and it doesn’t have to alienate the viewer – especially if the viewer can tear himself or herself long enough from post-structuralist Marxist methodology, or whatever it is that the kids are snorting these days.

“But Natalia!” You might say. “Don’t be all lame and interpretive and crap! Let’s talk codpiece!”

Yes, indeed. No matter how you spin the other aspects of the movie, there is always the film’s spank-you-with-a-copy-of-The-Histories attractiveness, the twinkle in King Leonidas’ eye that keeps on suggesting that we will, at some point or another, get to, at the very least, hold his spear.

h1

“300″ – Reaction & Review.

March 16, 2007

“300″ is popular because it combines a classic narrative and a revolutionary technique. The story – related by an Ancient Greek for Ancient Greeks, mind you – is an invocation of a true myth: bloody, biased, sexual, exaggerated, and morally ambiguous. This myth is channeled by Miller and Snyder into lovingly constructed bursts of images and sounds – a modern take on the age-old act of storytelling.

It’s understandable why our country’s established cultural elite should wrinkle their noses at such unapologetically dark and unpretentious fare.

The kids, however, get it – and the kids are alright.

- Me.

(As written to the editors of TIME – who will never publish this, but may chuckle for a bit – minus a comma error)

In response to this (I usually like Corliss’ stuff, if only because I think he’s a cool writer, don’t know what happened here), and other assorted intellectuals. With a special shout-out to Comrade Che.

h1

Because this is more fun than writing my own reviews

March 11, 2007

Oh what the hell – I’ll link to Stephanie Zacharek’s review of “300.”

The world may wonder which character in this computer-generated extravaganza is President Bush’s stand-in — but that’s the wrong question to ask.

Yes.

But the film has a poreless, waxen quality, as if all sensuality had been P.airbrushed out of it: The actors struggle valiantly to take hold of their characters, but deep down they know they’ve donated their bodies, and their faces, to science.

No.

Dude, you got turned on by that “hair” scene in “Possession” (I know it was, like, years ago, but I have the memory of an elephant), and now you’re telling me this?

To each their own, I guess.

Spartan he-men spout declarative sentences like “Only Spartan women give birth to real men!”

No.

Queen Gorgo said that. That quote is actually historically attributed to her. Well, supposedly. I wasn’t there at the time.

…and sneer at their fellow city-staters, the Athenians, calling them — with straight faces — “boy lovers.”

Yes.

I’ve read that Spartan culture tended to be more heterosexual than Athenian culture – at least by the Ancient Greek definition. I’ve also read that there was definitely some sneering between the two cities, and that the biggest sneerer was actually Aristotle. Though then again, I wasn’t there at the time.

“300,” even with its impressive vistas of computer-generated soldiers, is just a throwaway epic.

Yeah, and this is coming from someone who thought that “White Noise” had a genuine element of spookiness to it. Riiiight. Us elephants – we never forget.

Seriously, has no one picked up on what the genuinely bad elements are in this movie? I’ll make it easy on the planet, it’s basically two things: 1) David Wenham’s narrating – I like films with narrating, but he is trying to do some sort of weird pirate voice… I keep expecting him to bust out with an “arrrr! Shiver me timbers!” He sort of makes up for it by looking, to put it mildly, architecturally impressive, but this element still, ah, rubs me the wrong way. 2) The sex scene. Now, I’m probably biased, because I thought it was going to be mind-blowing after Gerard Butler said something to that extent. I can see how it could have been mind-blowing (and grinding, and *cough*), and the fact that it didn’t work has nothing to do with the actors, who were very much on top (yes, I meant to write that). No, the problem has to do with the fade-outs, the music, and the slow motion. It just doesn’t grab me because of the way that it was put together – although my standards are ridiculously high in this regard. As high as Mr. Mackie when he attempts to run away to India, in fact.

Alright, I’m done now, I swear.

P.S. Let’s give Stephanie Zacharek some credit, though, at least she doesn’t imply that “300″ fans are a bunch of brainwashed Nazis. In this sense – her review is refreshing.

h1

Tonight We Dine On Spilt Milk

March 10, 2007

Just because it’s fun to rip apart the other end of the spectrum… Here is my (cheeky) take on Slate’s review of “300″ (I’m not linking to it – they rot enough people’s brains as it is):

“A Movie Only a Spartan Could Love”

But tell us how you really feel about the unwashed masses, Ms. Stevens!

If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war.

Ohhhh. Looks like someone hasn’t been drooling on their Cultural Studies texbooks. I could say pretty much all I want to say right now… But I want to give Dana a chance to make a total fool of herself first, because at this point, she’s only halfway there.

Since it’s a product of the post-ideological, post-Xbox 21st century, 300 will instead be talked about as a technical achievement, the next blip on the increasingly blurry line between movies and video games.

Post-ideological – is that, like, the new po-mo with spice? You know, it’s the same-old complaint I still remember as being related to Elvis shaking his pelvis, but as long as you can dress it up in snazzy rhetoric, I suppose you’ll be able to charm someone.

Directed by Zack Snyder, whose first feature film was the 2004 makeover of the horror classic Dawn of the Dead, 300 digitally re-creates the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., where, according to classical history and legend, the Spartan king Leonidas led a force of only 300 men against a Persian enemy numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

The “raging clue” is in bold. It’s all you need to figure out what I’m saying.

The comic fanboys who make up 300′s primary audience demographic aren’t likely to get hung up on the movie’s historical content, much less any parallels with present-day politics.

She’s got claws – raaaaar. It’s just too bad that she uses the gendered term “fanboys.” Sorry Dana, in the post-ideological universe, it pretty much means you’re sexist scum. Hey, I didn’t make up the rules. You’re the one who assumed that I am a boy! Now I have to send you to Tolerance Camp.

But what’s maddening about 300 (besides the paralyzing monotony of watching chiseled white guys make shish kebabs from swarthy Persians for 116 indistinguishable minutes) is that no one involved—not Miller, not Snyder, not one of the army of screenwriters, art directors, and tech wizards who mounted this empty, gorgeous spectacle—seems to have noticed that we’re in the middle of an actual war.

If chiseled white guys aren’t your thing, Dana, there’s plenty more you can choose from on satellite. No need to be bitter that this particular film did not cater to your needs. Now about that “actual war” business… Yeah, you’re sort of right. It was an actual war – millennia ago. Now, now, if I am self-absorbed enough to write a blog, I probably shouldn’t complain too much about self-absorbed hipsters who view the entirety of the world’s brutal history through the tiny prism of their day-to-day experience… But I feel I ought to get a freebie after the “fanboys” bit, no?

Anyway, I did a little something called “research” on Frank Miller’s odius comic book. And I found out that said odious comic book came out in, like, 1998 – way before Bush & Co. took over the White House. The only conclusion I can draw is that Frank Miller is an evil wingut psychic. Haha!

Oh, and don’t even try to dump that shit on Zach Snyder, considering the fact that the film follows the book in practically everything.

With actual Persians (or at least denizens of that vast swath of land once occupied by the Persian empire).

Oh dear Eru… Iraq = Mesopotamia. It was conquered by Persians. It does not equal Persia. But whatever, we don’t care about that, since when it comes to oppressed people, their identity ceases to matter.

In interviews, Snyder insists that he “really just wanted to make a movie that is a ride”—a perfectly fine ambition for any filmmaker, especially one inspired by the comics.

Those anti-intellectual comics! They never use phrases such as “hegemonic discourse”!

And visually, 300 is thrilling, color-processed to a burnished, monochromatic copper, and packed with painterly, if static, tableaux vivants.

This was thrown in here just to trip up the unwashed masses, naturally.

But to cast 300 as a purely apolitical romp of an action film smacks of either disingenuousness or complete obliviousness.

As a fan of fairy tale and myth and oral storytelling, I kinda thought so too…

One of the few war movies I’ve seen in the past two decades that doesn’t include at least some nod in the direction of antiwar sentiment, 300 is a mythic ode to righteous bellicosity.

… Until you brought this up, at which point I realized that you didn’t give a shit about storytelling at all. Though it’s funny that the film did not conform to your particular ideological standpoint – considering the fact that it basically paints the Spartans as people who would be looked upon as sociopaths today. Attractive sociopaths who have an interesting narrative of their own, but sociopaths nonetheless – Leonidas’ grinning desire for death should have clued you in.

In at least one way, the film is true to the ethos of ancient Greece: It conflates moral excellence and physical beauty (which, in this movie, means being young, white, male, and fresh from the gyms of Brentwood).

Anything but youth, whiteness, and maleness! And the gym! Holy shit! I’m not really sure how the word “moral” figures into all this – since morality, or, at least, what we cuddly Westerners define as morality is pretty much a non-issue for blood-thirsty, self-destructive, fanatical Spartans… But hey, if you want to believe that this film was made by simple-minded fools – if that makes you feel better about your own lefty credentials – by all means, continue.

See, you obviously can’t conceive of a narrative in which fanaticism would be attractive – but I can. Guess it might have something to do with my background as an “oppressed person…”

Here are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with the “bad” (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown people. Disfigured people. Gay men (not gay in the buff, homoerotic Spartan fashion, but in the effeminate Persian style). Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians. Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws. Elephants and rhinos (filthy creatures both). The Persian commander, the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is a towering, bald club fag with facial piercings, kohl-rimmed eyes, and a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him.

Here’s where the issue of NARRATIVE comes up again. Alas, if Dana was not busy racking up the ways in which “300″ rankled her delicate sensibilities, she might have noticed that the entire film was narrated by a Spartan for Spartans. The audience have the role of passive witnesses. What’s going on here is a re-telling of an oral tradition which is mediated completely through the Spartan experience – a tradition which is then further inscribed by Frank Miller’s own fiction. It’s a fucking story, by Sparants, for Spartans – and Frank Miller is our Virgil. It’s a story of a brutal Other who faced another brutal Other – with all the metaphoric consequences.

In the immortal words of Kevin Smith: “Read between the lines, bitch.”

Meanwhile, the Spartans, clad in naught but leather man-briefs, fight under the stern command of Leonidas (Gerard Butler), whose warrior ethic was forged during a childhood spent fighting wolves in the snow. Leonidas likes to rally the troops with bellowed speeches about “freedom,” “honor,” and “glory,” promising that they will be remembered for having created “a world free from mysticism and tyranny.”

See above.

(The men’s usual response, a fist-pumping “A-whoo! A-whoo!” sounds strangely fratty.)

When was the last time you were at a frat party anyway?

But Leonidas is not above playing the tyrant himself. When a messenger from Xerxes arrives bearing news Leonidas doesn’t like, he hurls the man, against all protocol, down a convenient bottomless well in the center of town. “This is blasphemy! This is madness!” says the messenger, pleading for his life. “This is Sparta,” Leonidas replies. So, if Spartan law is defined by “whatever Leonidas wants,” what are the 300 fighting for, anyway? And why does that sound depressingly familiar?

If you weren’t so busy deconstructing the film, you might have noticed that Leonidas, offensively hot and masculine as he is, is not a true-blue hero. That word – “tyrant” – those evil filmmakers, they wanted you to use it. Leonidas is a tyrant, and I suppose you want a gold star for figuring that one out, except that us silly “fanboys” and, *gasp*, “fangirls” – we’re ahead of you.

Another of the Spartans’ less-than-glorious customs is the practice of eugenics, hurling any less-than-perfect infant off a cliff onto a huge pile of baby skeletons. Unfortunately for the 300 at Thermopylae, this system of racial cleansing isn’t foolproof: One deformed hunchback, Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), manages to make it to adulthood and begs Leonidas for a chance to serve Sparta in the 300. Sure enough, when he’s turned down, the hunchback confirms his moral weakness by accepting Xerxes’ offer to join ranks with the Persians.

How DARE Frank Miller use actual historical facts (i.e. eugenics) in his storyline? How DARE he make the anti-heroes look so damn attractive to themselves?

*I throw my copy of Master and Margarita at Dana Stevens at this point*

Meanwhile, back home in Sparta, Leonidas’ wife, Gorgo (Lena Headey), engages in some plot-padding political intrigue with the evil Theron (The Wire’s Dominic West, looking particularly risible in classical drapery). Theron wants to persuade the Spartan council not to send reinforcements to the desperately outnumbered 300 (what is he, a Democrat?).

See my comments regarding the year that the comic book was published. Anyway, people who think outside the box are so much more attractive. Although then again, what right do I have to talk about attractiveness? After all, I liked seeing Leonidas’ evil, oppressive, white-boy bum.

The noble and sexy Gorgo finally gives herself to Theron in exchange for a chance to persuade the council. “This will not be over quickly,” the villain warns as he pins her against a temple pillar. “You will not enjoy this.” It might have been Zack Snyder himself whispering in my ear, and he would have been right.

Hey, it’s cool if you have different taste than I do. I’m a big fan of vodka on the rocks, par example (see, I use trendy French-isms too!), and I don’t expect everyone to enjoy it.

The difference between you and I is clear, though: I don’t normally imply that the whiskey drinkers are stupid cunts.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers