Anti-Rec: 300

[trinityofone]

Okay, I normally don't post reviews of the movies I see early for work, because a) I'm lazy, and b) I figure no one cares. But this movie made me SO VIOLENTLY ANGRY that I feel I have to say something, and I really, really want you to care. And to not see it.

This was the most disgusting piece of pro-Iraq war propaganda I have ever seen. Now, I know the comic was published in 1998, but the movie was made in 2006 and is coming out in 2007, and that reading is very, very clear to me. I may be overreacting, but, well, I don't think I am.

The basic plot of the movie is: a representative of Persia comes to Sparta and demands that the Spartan king, Leonidas, submit to the Persian king Xerxes. (Who looks like a Goa'uld, by the way. This was the one thing in the movie that made me laugh, and I don't think it was supposed to.) Leonidas refuses and, well, kills the messenger. Then, ignoring the advice of the oracles, who are depicted as physically mutated men who prey on young girls, and the law, backed by a council who are portrayed as cowardly, corrupt politicians, Leonidas gathers 300 of his best soldiers and goes to bravely take on the Persian army. There's lots of talk about how "Freedom isn't free, it must be paid for, and the price is blood!" and how the Spartans must think of their wives and sons, and how they go to fight to spread freedom and stop the slavery of the Persians. Okay, yick. I think that's pretty clear propaganda right there, and it alone would have bothered me. But this movie takes it EVEN FARTHER.

The Persian army is depicted as an army of monsters. They are all less than human: they're all horribly mutated in one way or another, hunchbacked and grotesque. They're not white. They're sexual perverts! (And while we get jokes about boy-loving men [this from Spartans, mind you—Spartans who are all dressed in very manly and heterosexual giant leather jockstraps], of course what we see is women engaging in some form of pantomime lesbianism—because why not titillate while also casting moral judgment?) Obviously, they deserve to be brutally slaughtered. It must be the will of God.

Never has a film made me feel so physically ill to be in the theater watching it. And it wasn't all the beheadings, although those were copious. I felt like I was being made to watch a Leni Riefenstahl movie, or the very worst bits of Birth of a Nation. And then there was even more to feel sick about, like the fact that the sole female character's only role seemed to be to allow herself to get raped by her husband's rival—and this was presented as heroic. What a vile, vile piece of trash.

I left the theater and I was angry. I was SO ANGRY. BossMan didn't like it either, but he didn't seem to feel violated the way I did. Again, I may be overreacting, and I almost want to ask some of you to see it so you can tell me if I am. But really, I'd love to ensure that NOBODY sees it. I don't want it to make a cent of money. I don't want some stupid kid somewhere to see it, and like the extreme violence and disgustingly depicted sex, and subconsciously make connections to what's going on in the Middle East. The United States is not the "heroic" Spartan army thrust into epic battle with the "monstrous" Muslims...I mean ancient Persians. And I am sickened that a film such as this could be made—and made so clearly to attract young boys—in order to make even the slightest case that this is so. I feel sick, and I feel furious.

But there's nothing I can do about it, and tomorrow I have to interview David Wenham and try to think of a polite way of asking him how he feels about being in a piece of vile propaganda trash. You know, mixed in with the questions about how much he worked out before donning his giant leather jockstrap and whether he knows Russell Crowe.

I just...I just don't know.

ETA: If you feel strongly about this and want to link to it and spread the word, I would appreciate it. It may do a little good, who knows.

Comments

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

:( That makes me really unhappy, because while it's kind of true in that Leonides went against his co-king and a lot of other Spartans to block that pass... the rest of it, not so much. I really wanted to see this movie, too, because I'm a classical historian and I love this story, the politics of it as well as what was a very brave last-stand kind of thing by a desperate man. Clearly not in this version. I'm wondering why I thought I'd find anything resembling Thucydides's version, which probably wasn't anything near the truth anyway.

Also, Spartan manly men who don't fuck other men? The same Spartans that had to be ordered to screw their wives and produce children? The same Spartans that died out because their were more servants and surrounding people then true-blooded Spartans?

I think I should cry now. *crosses that movie off her list*

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

Ack! Sorry, I don't mean to crush dreams! But really, I think that if you went to this movie you would leave feeling really upset.

The denial of the Spartans' sexual practices was so pathetic and desperate it was almost sad. Even sadder than "Cousins! Totally cousins!"

[chinawolf.livejournal.com]

That's sad. It looked so visually appealing in the trailer, but I'll sure not go see it in a theatre after this review.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

It was certainly visually striking. If you could ignore what it was you were actually seeing.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Hah. I've been ranting about these elements in all American blockbusters for the last 5-10 years now, though I'll believe you it's even worse (friends already ranted at the previews showing all of that clearly, when most were still in love with the imagery).

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, but this is definitely the worst I've seen. Not only blatant, but morally appalling. I think about this in comparison to Children of Men, which was also visually striking (though in a different way), and I really wish I could trick all the people who are going to see 300 into seeing that instead.

[becky-monster.livejournal.com]

*Here through friendoffriend flist*

First up, thanks for the review.

Given that the original material is by the same bloke who did Sin City (which I detested) your main points don't surprise me at all.

I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt, that it might actually be good. Unfortnately not.

Thanks again for the heads up!

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I did not go into this with high expectations based on Sin City, but this shocked me by managing to be worse. Less gory, but the message...ew. I feel unclean!

Anyway, I'm glad I can alert you to it!

[neery.livejournal.com]

Ick. I probably wouldn't have watched that movie anyway, but now you've ensured that these people won't be getting a cent of my money even if it's one of those Sundays where the boyfriend and me are so bored that the alternative to a movie is a vicious fight about politics.

Do you at least get to write a review where you can tear the thing to pieces? Or just the interview? I mean, that would still be a chance to criticize, but personally, I wouldn't really want to do that in an interview with an actor.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

I don't get to write a review! I wish I did; I'd love to make a real, public stance about this film. But we don't really do reviews at this magazine. (We have a review section, but it's minimal, and they're all written by someone else.)

You're right that the interview would not be the right place. And yet, I still want to say something...maybe I'll just ask him if he thinks the film has a message? Really neutral, leaving it at that?

[siria]

What? What? WHAT? alkghjagh. There go any thoughts I might have had about giving the movie a chance for David Wenham's sake. I'm disgusted just reading about it.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

I kept thinking about you while I was watching it. Wishing you were there, so I could have someone to commiserate with, and being really relieved that you were actually far, far away.

[roaringmice.livejournal.com]

Ooh, lots to get angry about with this film. The overtly propogandistic vibe does disturb me, but more even than that is its depiction of women. It's so typical...

Women in sci fi, and in comic books, and in films like this, are either toys for the men, or they ARE men in women's bodies. When they put these sorts of crap in these films, they do it on purpose. They do it because they can, because it's an old boy's network in Hollywood, where the vast majority of screenwriters are men, and they are apparently unable to write real women without falling into traps. And they do it because it's okay, it's acceptable.

Having these sorts of scenes between men, or showing a man being raped, carries entirely different connotations. But doing this to a woman is not only acceptable, it's hot. And that's not cool.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

The attitude to women in the movie is so gross—and the film rejoices in it. It really is like it was made by a bunch of horny, 14-year-old video game fanatics...only the underlying meaning is so much more sinister.

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

Nobody who's familiar with Frank Miller as a comics writer is going to be surprised by this review, sadly. The guy's a right-wing, misogynist joke.

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060207.html

http://comics.ign.com/articles/688/688140p1.html

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

Yikes. Yeah, I've basically tried to ignore Frank Miller, because...well, because he seemed like a misogynist asshole. But that "Holy Terror, Batman!" thing sounds ridiculous and beyond the pale. Much like this movie.

(The Shortpacked comic was funny, though. *g*)

[kalikahuntress.livejournal.com]

Damn this sucks so much, I really wanted to see this movie and I actually liked Sin City despite my issues with the man.

[an-kayoh.livejournal.com]

Ohhh, I'm so disappointed. I saw the trailers and was enthralled...but hmm, nevermind then.

[roaringmice.livejournal.com]

Actually, I saw the trailers and was WTF is that? My husband saw them and thought it looked stupid. We're obviously not the target market!

[stitched-scars.livejournal.com]

(lurker!)

Well, count 3 people out of seeing it then from my end. I was going to see it with my friends, but from THAT strong of a review... definitely no. Really, we only wanted to see it for the imagery that we saw in the trailers.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

The damn thing seduces with its pretty slaughter! (I'm actually only being half-sarcastic there: I, unfortunately, can also see the appeal of stylized violence.) But yeah, it evoked a VERY strong reaction from me.

(hi!)

[inthekeyofd.livejournal.com]

It is based on a graphic novel..hell, I'm still going to see it, numerous times, I love the Gerry and I know the battle that this movie is based on.

The Persians are based on Miller's graphic novel, they are supposed to be OUT THERE..but that's all I can say.

But that battle was bloody and they did fight for their freedom to the death, they did that, it's history..freedom does come with a price, and their price was them dying for it..it only stopped the army for about a week..until Greece could really gather itself up and fight back and defeat the Persians.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I know how much you like him! And I know the Persians are supposed to be out there, and that the battle was supposed to be epic and for freedom and to the death. That's not what I object to—it's the parallels that the film draws, the buried meaning of it. Which I can't ignore, even to enjoy the other aspects of the movie that might have been fun. But that's just me.

[burntcopper.livejournal.com]

....I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but from the sounds of it, it's actually *more* misogynist than the book. There's no raping the wife, the only mutant is an exiled spartan, and the propaganda is much less.

[adrienneherbst.livejournal.com]

That's Frank Miller, alright. He is, as Livia linked, such an extreme xenophobe/misogynist that his comics have long been solely valuable for the insights into the more vile of common white male pathological psychologies & the fears that drive them (in this case, he works women, black people, queers, people with disabilities, religious institutions, the intelligentsia, AND facial piercings into the mix, as well as his baseline persecution complex.)

The movie sounds just as appalling and racist as the graphic novel, although seeing Gerard Butler with a mouthful of spit yelling this trash into the camera is somehow even more offensive? My hope is that people pick up the crap vibes from the trailer, which imo gives you a pretty good idea of how bad the movie is. I laughed my ass off at the shot of the bulked-up ten year old, but all of the propaganda elements-- "Never surrender! Never retreat!" and the racism are really just /right there/. And the freak show elements of (apparently Nubian, although more ubiquitously so in the book) "Persia", and the little kid talking about THE BLACKNESS!!!1 Like, how can you see that and *not* get that this is going to be white-power propaganda?

[adrienneherbst.livejournal.com]

Wow, "common white male pathological psychologies", WTF. Sorry, both ranting AND being a badly-written pompous ass in your journal! D:

[niennah.livejournal.com]

That is so disappointing! I can't believe such a great story has been turned into a piece of propaganda like that. I was reading about the Persian attempts to invade the Peloponnese last summer when I first saw the trailer and was really looking forward to the movie.

Pfft. So much for that.

It's hard to know what to say to David Wenham, though. Could you become involved in a film without realising the political message, especially when the world is, at the moment, so very aware of Iraq and the US? It's hard to see how he could fail to see it in the script, given what you've said, even if at that point he didn't know about the visual aspects of the film. Tricky situation. And what will you say if he asks you if you liked it?

[sweetvalleyslut.livejournal.com]

Well, I never had high hopes (or any hopes at all) for this movie, seeing as it's based off of a *Frank Miller* comic, and the trailer made me giggle because it was so OTT, but I didn't think it was going to be *that* bad. Ugh.

[zellieh]

Well, that's one I won't be watching. Thank you for letting me avoid it.

It's tricky, though, if you have to interview that guy, and be polite. You could just ask him about the 'parallels' between the film and Iraq; parallels is a nice vague word. Maybe talk about the battle scenes, and the horrors of war?

I hope he doesn't ask you whether or not you liked it! Although I suppose you could always say it was 'interesting'(as an example of outright propoganda) or 'fascinating' (as in, like a car crash).

I really hate it when people shove propoganda into film like this. And Hollywood seems to be getting worse. *shudders*

[birdsflying]

Ah, I see frank 'whores! whores! whores!' millar strikes again. SIGH.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

I wish I could blame it solely on him, but unlike Sin City, he neither wrote nor directed the movie...Many, many more people are also responsible.

[shadowhuntress.livejournal.com]

Oh my God, I'm horrified that this is what's lying under that artsy action film exterior. And that my dear 'Diver Dan' David Wenham is a part of this drivel? How awful! I was thinking about seeing this film because the cinematography was kinda purdy, but I will definitely not be giving them one cent of my money. It does make me curious as to what exactly attracted Wenham to the film and whether he had read the source material or got to talk to Miller about it. I'm almost worried about the answer to the first question. :-\

I'll be posting a link to this review in my journal today.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

David Wenham narrates and shows up on screen as one of the Spartan warriors with a rather impressive six pack that I sadly was not able to give my full attention to. He does some fighty stuff and loses an eye, in between narrate-y bits.

I'll admit, I'm not an expert on this period in history—far from. But the whole film reeks of bullshit. And even I know that the Spartans were all about the boy-love.

[aurora]

:(( :((

The trailers looked gorgeous, but I was a bit afraid it would turn out this way, cause, yeah, Frank Miller. :|

[burntcopper.livejournal.com]

It's actually *worse* and more misogynist than the book?

There is no wife raping in the book. there's no mutants on the persian side, a lot less sexual perversion, and ten times less propaganda. I may be ill.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

I haven't actually read the book. Is the Queen of Sparta coerced into having sex with the corrupt politician in the book, and then he says he's going to make it as long and painful as possible? It plays as rape in the movie, at least in my opinion.

And while yes, there is the one Spartan mutant (who betrays them), the Persians are ALL mutants in the film. It's really gross—yeah, make out your enemies to be less than human. Then when you kill their children, you don't have to feel bad!

[toft-froggy.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I will link to you. You know what? Ask David Wenham that. Maybe after you've done the actual interview, and when your boss isn't looking.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I appreciate your post on this. And I am going to ask David Wenham...something. Even if it never makes it into the article, which I doubt it will, I want to ask him for myself.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

Well, if you can see it for free and you're curious, then go for it. Just make sure to take any heart medication, etc. before hand, because you're going to leave ANGRY.

[percysowner.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the review. I was thinking about seeing this based on the TV trailer, but now, I[ll save my money for something better.