300:The Aesthetics, The Politics, The Ethics.....

Apr 04, 2007 15:34

Got around to seeing 300 last week. A decent-enough film on a superficial level - I enjoyed it, but it can't hold a candle to Sin City (another Miller adaptation) or Dawn of the Dead 2004 (Zack Snyder's previous work).

AestheticsTwo flaws gaped me straight in the face in regard to the overall execution. First thing - the visuals came off as ( Read more... )

ethics, politics, appreciation, aesthetics, art, reviews

Leave a comment

Comments 10

cearrdorn April 4 2007, 15:11:55 UTC
I really like what the king tells him at the end. "I hope you live forever."

In Spartan terms he just told him to die without honor.

Reply


raging_daemon April 4 2007, 15:44:42 UTC
Clearly Ephialtes regretted his decision, which was rash. Were I him, I would rather clear the field of wounded or help keep guard on that goat path than betray a king that had treated me as such.

Overall this movie goes down as one of my favorites, partially because I was on the "Spartans are awesome, re: Thermopylae" bandwagon since I first learned about it as a wee lad. If I ever get around to it, I may write about exactly what the politico, bleeding heart, vegan-hippie, psycho-egalitarian cunts can do with their desperate scrabble at the walls of reason in regard to the critique of this film...

But all things in due course.

Reply


history wisdomdancer April 4 2007, 16:59:23 UTC
Another misrepresentation in the movie to add: my understanding is that the architect of the overall defensive strategy was probably Themistocles, who used the time the Spartans and Thespians bought to better prepare for the turning-point naval victory at Salamis, and had been instrumental in convincing the Athenians to build their navy in the first place. One of those effete Athenians, in other words, was the real reason Greece defeated Persia. The Spartans wanted to hide in the Peleponnese, where the Persian navy could have just dropped off the Persian army, if the navy was not checked ( ... )

Reply

Re: history raging_daemon April 5 2007, 03:54:57 UTC
It's a movie based on a comic based on a battle that historians still bicker over. It was never billed as a historically accurate portrayal of events by ANY stretch of the imagination.

Because obviously super rhinoceroses, Lord of the Rings style elephant archer towers, and 10 foot tall troll-man beasts took part in the fight.

In addition, Snyder said multiple times that he wanted a visually stunning, action-packed thrill ride of a movie. He wasn't out to make political statements.

Reply


ubermensch April 4 2007, 17:23:22 UTC
A: so did you hear about the new lord of the rings movie?

B: ????

A: its called 300

truth be told tho, the "propaganda speeches" of the movie struck me as more randian than neocon in nature. I kept on thinknig to myself "someone really wants to be john galt"

Reply


mein_eschaton April 4 2007, 18:00:02 UTC
you've really inspired me to see this movie now, your critique is interesting and now i'm intrigued to see how what you said plays out.

...that, and the chick in me wants to see all the pretty costumes! haha XD

Reply

bastardzero April 4 2007, 18:23:53 UTC
I'm not even gay, and I was too busy looking at the oiled up naked men to pay any attention to the costumes.

Reply

mein_eschaton April 4 2007, 19:39:27 UTC
haha yah i was a little apprehensive about that possibility when i saw the preview...

Reply


Leave a comment

Up