Saturday, March 24, 2007

No Cheers for 300

So this is some new genre of film-making and Frank Miller is supposed to be its high priest? And like we have found inane euphemisms for all kinds of things in life these days, we have started calling comic books as graphic novels?

I must admit that I had really looked forward to 300 – the battle of Thermopylae occupies quite a distinguished place in history and for history buffs like me, the spectre of watching an action filled historical with the heroic Spartans and the legendary armies of the Achamaenians was quite mouth-watering.

Unfortunately, 300 is not a historical movie at all – the visuals might look stunning to naïve 10 year olds who perhaps are only interested in that kind of stuff, but it does no justice to more serious pursuers of historical movies. The fanatical heroism that Sparta has always been known for has been treated, for want of a better word, in some kind of an immature manner – you do not feel any kind of a glowing pride as one might have expected of the bravery shown. I also could not fathom the reason for the sudden volte-face of the Judas of ThermopyaleEphialtes (who for no reason that I can think of, is shown as a hideous, diseased hunchback – a kind of throwback to the Golum of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings – must things be unnecessarily distorted, just because it is a comic book?) – He says that he wants to fight for Sparta and redeem his father’s honour etc and yet, rejection of admission into the Spartan army suddenly makes him so vengeful that he turns against them? Or for that matter, even if Leonidas is unable to employ Ephialtes as a member of the phalanx, couldn’t he possibly have given him some other role to play in the Spartan army? Historically, there have never been any reports of Persian armies employing war elephants and Frank Miller perhaps deserves credit for introducing war-rhinoceroses for the first time ever.


The Monument to Leonidas in modern day Thermopylae

But perhaps, most of all, what was so disconcerting to me, as a viewer in India, was the not-so-subtle racist underlining that permeates the movie. And while some may just call it historical inaccuracies, I can’t buy that line of thought. It is quite simply put, an effort to show everything Asiatic and Oriental as quite debauched and barbaric, as against a superior and honorable Occidental culture. Can anybody pray tell me who gave Frank Miller the absurd idea of showing Xerxes as some weird, body-piercing Nubian assassin rather than the Achaemenid prince with full beard, long gown like dress and a crown on his head that stares at all in countless stone reliefs found in Persepolis? And are those Halloween type mask wearing monsters supposed to be a good illustration of the legendary Immortals of Xerxes? Perhaps, one would do well to remind Miller that both Iranians and Greeks, neighbours in the Mediterranean for centuries, do not look all that different from each other – his fetish for depicting all the Persian soldiers as some kind of dark devils is rank racist.

A depiction of Xerxes-I from a stone relief in Persepolis

7 comments:

sbkt said...

"Frank Miller perhaps deserves credit for introducing war-rhinoceroses for the first time ever"
LOL!
Boy, your review is so much better than mine.
I was so disappointed by the movie I later went to a bookstore to check out the comic book, and it was exactly the same, word for word. That's the moment I resolved never to call a comic book a graphic novel again.

Ya, the subtle racism offended me too. I had gone to the movie with two friends who happen to be white, and later they were like 'we understand how you feel but its just a movie'. And I suddenly felt bad for all those anti-Pakistan dialogues in Ghadar, etc :-D. I guess its different when the gun's pointed the other way ;).

But what bothered me even more was how crude the movie was in its emotionalism: like some bad bollywood drama. Esp that sequence where this dude dies and his father says:'i am sorry I never told him I loved him'. I was like, pleeeeeezzzeeeee.....

Suratna

Nihonshu said...

You are just plain ignorant.

The movie 300 is based on a comic, a FANTASY-comic thats loosly based on history - not at all atempting to depict any form of accurate history (wich for your concerns doesnt exist in this matter, since the battle is shrouded in legends and classical greek hero-worship).

So since you didnt understand the purpose of the movie, that it was pure fantasy - your review is crap.

The Aimless Vagrant said...

Dear Nihonshu

The Battle of Thermopylae does exist in history - there are definite sources and historical proof of that - only minor elements of it are under a cloud.

For all your nonsense, you did make a point that 300 is a comic novel - only that it is too "comic" to have any kind of dreams of being accepted as a historical movie.

And my dear friend, it is time for you to take a few lessons in history one more time.

Anonymous said...

I think you take yourself too seriously when you´re disappointed by the lack of realism in a film that's entirely myth and fantasy.

I'm Scandinavian and I would very much like to see a realistic story about vikings on the big screen. But take a look at the vikings in this upcoming action flick:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/pathfinder/hd/

In this movie, the vikings are portrayed as grotesque monsters, orchs basically! Do I get offended? NO! It's just fantasy. Hey, let's see a movie with evil vikings and noble indians. Sounds like fun!

Lighten up, will you.

The Aimless Vagrant said...

Indeed, perhaps, my review did seem a little too harsh on the movie. Myth and fantasy - well we can allow some leeway to the makers of the movie.

The Aimless Vagrant said...

And I checked out the trailer for PATHFINDER - the Vikings may indeed look like monsters or ogres, as you mention - but from what I gathered, that is more because of the typical Norse headgear that the Vikings in the movie are wearing.

Anonymous said...

Actually, contrary to what you may learn on the *internet*, that is not "typical norse headgear"! There is nothing that suggests that vikings wore helmets with horns into battle. That is a 19th century misunderstanding. If vikings ever carried helmets ornamented with horns, it was most likely for ceremonial purposes. And they most certainly did NOT look like the ones in the trailer...!! Believe me. It's a distortion of truth equal to the look of the Spartans and Persians in the 300 movie.

Nevertheless, they look kind of cool, and that's the whole point.