300 and counting

300 (2007) is the gayest thing I've ever seen. It's fantastic. Don't get me wrong: it is a pretty bad movie. Plus, it adds to the whole ultra-nationalistic freedom-or-death narrative. Because of this, it is difficult NOT to interpret it on some level as being a political allegory for today. But Iran should get over it. It's a weak connection, if you ask me.

RETRACTION (STARTED) SOME 59 MINUTES LATER:

I apologize for having to print a retraction. But I just wrote two pages in my film journal on this film. I vow to write only one page per film, but when I am on a roll, I don't just stop. I have to write as completely as possible. Apparently, I had more to say than just address Iran's taking offense.

I was wrong. I don't think 300 is "a pretty bad movie." Sure, I pointed out in my journal the things about it I found problematic, such as: turning the strong queen who is equal to her king into a whore, David Wenham's overly serious narration which is poorly written (it is redundant), and likening King Leonidas to Christ at the end (when throughout the whole film his visage reminded me of Moses and Ivan the Terrible). Oh, and I couldn't stand that they recalled a lot from Gladiator (2000) and Braveheart (1995).

What did I like about it, then, you ask? Well, I did like the relationship between the king and queen until she put out to help her king. I did like the stunning visuals you keep hearing about, but for me it was more about the beautiful color palate (the gold and red are just gorgeous together). I liked that there was no prologue or epilogue. You're plunged right into it, albeit by Wenham's stupid narration. But you're introduced to Sparta through Leonidas' developing into that unique brand of Spartan warrior, not "In the 5th Century B.C., Sparta was..." Blah blah blah.

I cannot remember the specifics of Sin City (2005), but I imagine it was like this, too: there may be a lot of blood, but you don't see many bloody faces and bodies (but there ARE decapitations!) and the CGI blood splattering is like that famous scene from The Matrix (1999). Like Neo, the blood never touches the ground. For me, this seems like a comic book as an action movie. And 300 is; it's based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley. The incessant slo-mo reflects the script's source material (not history!), and it's most apparent in these parts where the blood never touches the ground. Because they're moving so slowly, it's as if the pace is paralleling the pace at which you read a comic. There's action, but it's dissected and you have to see/read it in increments, frame by frame. Plus, when there is blood splatter in comics, it shows the action by being drops in the air, falling. You never see it touch the ground. Do I make sense?

Plus, with the blood being so obviously CGI, I think this says something about violence in entertainment. Because it doesn't seem real and it doesn't look real, I think the film's technology is playing with what we expect from an action movie. It's like a concession. "Yeah, we'll give you violence and gore, but it will not be realistic." Compare with former epics centering around battles where you see UP CLOSE the arrow going through the eye or the sword stabbing the chest. Also compare with movies whose violence is so realistic you think you're really watching them blow each other's brains out. (See The Departed [2006].) There's just no dwelling on their slashing up the bodies of the enemies. This may sound paradoxical considering all the violence and blood and gore in the film, but: there's no glorification of the gore. Because it's fake and the filmmakers are totally embracing this!

Not to mention, this stylized blood splatter and battle torture do make our bloodthirsty heroes more sympathetic. Easier to root for even if they've disemboweled so many faceless foot soldiers in the army of a megalomaniac.

On a lighter note, consider this because I already have. Gerard "Gerry" Butler: A star is born. This will definitely do for him what Gladiator did for Russell Crowe. That's OK. He's a very fine actor, one of my favorites. He was the best damn thing about the cast. A terribly likeable king because he's smart, clever, and lovable. He's also the best warrior.

What else did I like? I loved that it was so gay. Besides the obvious homoeroticism, the leader of the army of craftsmen who joined the 300 Spartans looked as if he got lost finding the S&M club or leather bar. The evil Xerxes is just a really TALL drag queen! The two young soldiers and their ironic repartee. They made it fun! ("Oh, I'll watch your back.") Won't you just! And along these same lines, I also enjoyed the objectification of the male body (Casino Royale [2006] has started such a wonderful trend, don't you think?) I should probably call it a "male physique" because let's face it: they're a specific type. They're not average Joes. Oh, but there is some objectification of the female body, of course. Quite shocking to see the queen's tits, really. Oh, and there's also a gaze on The Other, which was a bit grotesque. Damnit, will things never change?

I have to say that if you enjoyed Mr. Craig's crotch-shots, if they were so mesmerizing that you couldn't look away it was too funny, then you'll just laugh your ass off throughout this one. Because you feel naughty (!) for liking it so much.