Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeLatest graphic novel-to-film visually stunning, predictable
March 19, 2007 —
Movies today often have a hard time creating truly unique and interesting visual effects. Once every form of creature has been nearly perfected onscreen and action has been visually enhanced to the point of awe, what do you do next? How about making gory, bloody, violent action simply gorgeous?
300 is based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller (Sin City should ring a bell), which is loosely based around the Battle of Thermopylae. In 480 BCE, King Leonidas of Sparta, against the wishes of his council, takes 300 Spartans to fend off what is often said to be millions of Persians at a strategic small mountain pass. They hold the pass for three days, killing thousands of Persians before being defeated. The Persian army was lead by King Xerxes, a self-proclaimed god among men.
In the film, Gerard Butler plays Leonidas. He and nearly every one of his 300 Spartans has a body of "perfection," as the movie makes the Spartans seem like super-warriors groomed from birth to be brutal and perfect in battle. Xerxes, played by Rodrigo Santoro, is a giant of a man with a baritone, echoing voice - oddly looking both masculine and feminine at the same time.
Visually, the movie is amazing, capturing and improving upon image after image from Miller's graphic novel. The gore, violence and action jump from the screen with an elegance and beauty that overpowers the brutality of each image.
The problem, if one views it as such (because I didn't), is that when the action starts it doesn't stop save for a few times, and the endless brutality could be overwhelming for some.
Once you start to look beyond the visual majesty of the film, however, holes and issues quickly become visible.
The film is full of cliched plot devices meant simply to move the story along or put a twist on things. For example, the corrupt ancient's betrayal, the traitorous bureaucrat, the woman (Leonidas' wife) working in secret against the bureaucrat, the finding of a destroyed village to alienate us from the Persians.
Even the very existence of the character Ephialtes, whose sole purpose is to be the betrayer of the Spartans, and the orchestrator of Sparta's downfall, is predictable.
Then there are the numerous creatures that escape any level of realism, often halting the believability more than adding any mystery.
Then again, this isn't a film that is meant to be taken as real, so maybe that's why the creatures were incorporated to begin with. Even the soundtrack, which goes from Gladiator-esque to rock opera, makes it clear that the audience isn't supposed to be relying on the film for any sort of historical factuality.
In the end, perhaps that is why 300 succeeds as it does. The package causes the message to be clear from beginning to end: what you are about to see will awe you, but is in no way real. And there are those moments where a level of truth in the movie captivates.
The truth isn't the truth of the actual Battle of Thermopylae, though. The truth is to the mythos of Miller's graphic novel: the honor of Leonidas, the devotion of his soldiers, the grief a father feels losing his son, the impossibility of the odds, etc.
Miller simply recreated the history in a way that would be appealing to the popular culture, which is exactly what the film does, so perhaps the fact that it wears its flaws on its sleeve is just as much a strength as a weakness.