Other people have responded in a similar manner. The general consensus is that escapist fantasy movies like 300 and other comic book movies should not be looked at too deeply. They are tales that use general archetypes to tell a story. The good guys wear white, the bad guys wear black, and never the twain shall meet. In other words: no shades of gray.
But, folks, I am a nerd! A comic book and movie nerd to be exact and I do expect shades of gray in my escapist fantasy. Let’s forgo any comments on the possible racial/gender issues that the movie may or may not raise. (Being neither Persian or sly, I may not have had the qualifications to raise such issues in the first place.) Here is a list of five things I look for in escapist fantasy, and where 300 either satisfied or failed the criteria:
Top Five "Shades of Gray" that make for good comic book movies.
1) In comic book movies, the good guys should be... kinda bad.
A good example would be Wolverine in the X-Men movies. Comic book geeks around the world were so happy with Hugh Jackman's pitch-perfect rendition of Logan's bad-ass-itude and anti-hero angst.
Moral ambiguity is a must for any memorable comic book movie hero. Another good example would be Tobey Maguire's Spiderman/Peter Parker. He may not be as bad-ass as Wolverine, but if Spiderman wasn't haunted by his guilty implications in his own uncle's death, he would just be a super-powered professional wrestler.
Where 300 went wrong: The hero, King Leonidas, was not really that deep. According to the story, here was a man who was leaving his beloved wife, his son, and the city he ruled to fight in a hopeless battle sure to end in the slaughter of himself and all of his most trusted friends. I don’t care if he was the most dedicated warrior in the whole entire world, it would have helped if his character showed more than just annoyance of having to go through the whole exercise. 
What if his character showed real second thoughts about fulfilling his warrior’s code, at the expense of a long life with his wife and son? I think that would have been a natural human emotion that any warrior would have to wrestle with, no matter how deeply indoctrinated he/she is to the warrior code.2) In comic book movies, the bad guys should be a little sympathetic.
Remember that scene in the first Matrix movie, where Smith was tortured Morpheus while explaining how humanity is a virus.
That was a truly creepy scene, because somewhere deep inside, you could sympathize with his logic. You might not agree with the logic, but you could sympathize. And thus the bad guy was that much more scary...Where "300" went wrong: The character, King Xerxes, was played to be the total opposite of scary or sympathetic.
I mean why waste 1,000,000 warriors on pissant little Sparta. Wouldn't it have made sense for him to conquer the weaker Greek territories armies, surround the city, and then destroy Sparta through political dissention and/or open warfare? Xerxes was wasteful, not in the least sympathetic, and his cause made no sense.3) In comic book movies, the good guy and bad guy should have a rapport.
Notice how in all the Spiderman movies, Peter Parker has some sort of personal connection with the "Big Bad"? The Green Goblin was a potential father figure who connected with Peter Parker's scientific side.
Doctor Octopus also had a connection with Peter, because essentially they were both nerds in love. 
That connection made it all the more tragic when these characters ultimately went bad.Where "300" went wrong: The movie overlooked a major issue that would have added some depth to the narrative. King Leonidas and King Xerxes were both monarchs presiding at the very moment on history when the monarchy was dying making way for messy, “shades of gray” democracy. That would have been an awesome way to build rapport for the two, by highlighting how each ruler handled the decline of the monarchy. King Leonidas sacrificed himself to make way for a system that would promote individual freedom over ordained rule. Xerxes on the other hand decided to ride the whole royalty thing to its ultimate, decadent end, because he knew that as soon as he stopped warring, he would have to deal with million little annoying details with running the world (food supply, infrastructure, trading rights, tort law, corrupt ministers, and noisy special interest groups). Both characters may have been kings, but they were as trapped by the system as any other citizen.
That kind of rapport was inherent in the comic, almost gift-wrapped for the movie makers. It's a crime they squandered it.4) Comic book movies should be pure spectacle.
Stunts, special effects, computer graphics! No comic book movie should be without them! The Superman movies got it right, the Spiderman movies got it right, and the X-Men movies got it right. Just make sure that the spectacle serves the story, not the other way around.
Where "300" got it right: No denying it, "300" was a shot by shot spectacle.
Every frame looked beautiful. The best part was that spectacular long take of Leonidas fighting the Persian warriors; as the film speed sped up and slowed down to highlight dramatic impacts. Phenomenal fight choreography, photo composition, cinematography and direction!5) In comic book movies, the good guy should never win.
Sure they can win the battle, they can save the day and they should have a moment of glory. But... that moment of glory should be fleeting; at best... and ultimately the moment of victory should be rife with regret and sacrifice. Superman and Lois Lane should never live happily ever after, Peter Parker should never get rich, and the X-Men should never be accepted by the humans that they fight daily to save.
Where "300" got it right: SPOILER ALERT!!!King Leonidas sacrifices himself and his 300 at Thermopylae and dies in a hail of Persian arrows, and for what? Just to prove the "God King" was nothing more than human. Such a great ending!
Too bad I could have cared less...
2 comments:
(facebook says my reply was too long, the fascists)
First, let me self-identify as a nerd. Thank you.
Second. I did enjoy the movie for the $10 and 2 hours out of my life that it was worth. No more, no less.
I definitely agree with your analysis of what makes a good comic book movie adaptation. I think that's key: adaptation. Most comics obviously have months and years to develop characters, their relationships, and story lines. The movie 300 didn't have such a luxury. And this is my only real question of your 300 critique. Is it the fault of the movie or is the flaw inherent in Frank Miller's original comic, which in itself is an adaptation of an old tale? We know the story and how it ends, so how does the author deal with the in between. I never read 300 as a comic. So I defer that judgment to others.
I also agree with your assessment that King Leonidas is portrayed as a one-dimensional cardboard cutout of a hero with great abs. You're bang on when you say that we need flaws in our heroes so we can empathize with them, and that we need some sympathy for the bad guys to make them more compelling. We don't get those feelings from Leonidas's hubris or Xerxes megalomania. Nor do I feel anything for the traitorous hunchback, who's the Spartan equivalent of the spoiled, rich fat kid who goes on a shooting spree because he was picked last for dodgeball.
Okay, so we’ve established that the character development is sub par, dialog is contrived, and the story is linear with good and bad as polar opposites with no in between. Here’s where I play devil’s advocate: the story is being narrated through Dilios. To Dilios, Leonidas is the greatest of the greats and the king of all kings. The battles are glorious and the heroes die like men with their spears lodged firmly in their enemies’ throats. Dilios cannot spin a tale of how his fellow Spartans screamed like lambs at the swords of the Persians, that they felt fear, had doubts, or that Xerxes is actually an okay guy, he’s just misunderstood. Dilios is telling the tale of the stand against the Persians and extolling the virtues of Leonidas to drum up support for the troops. He’s the Fox News of Sparta: embellishing, censoring, sanitizing, and most importantly removing those nasty little shades of gray.
There’s a lot going on here. It’s a myth, told through a comic, told through a movie adaptation, that being told through a man who’s part of the myth.
Now that I’ve completely ruined my lunch break, I need to scrounge for nourishment.
ASIDE: Did you notice that every now and then, especially when Leonidas was being flippant with the Persian envoys, he would take on a bit of brogue that’s reminiscent of Sean Connery? And I have a special comedic affinity for Sean Connery in my heart, so I would burst out laughing in the theatre so people around me thought I was mental.
Post a Comment