You might find this http://robin-d-laws.livejournal.com/198752.html from elsewhere in my friends list, to be of interest. Personally I haven't seen 300, and probably won't, going by what others are saying.
There's a lot there that I agree with. Apart from the atrocious abuse of history (and for anyone who hasn't already heard me say it 30000000000 times, "If it's not supposed to be historically accurate or even anything but a fantasy, why use historical characters, events, and dialogue?"), I found the overuse of graphic effects seriously detracted from my enjoyment of the film. Most of the things that they did would have been really cool... ONCE! But instead they used them over and over and over again until they totally cheapened the effect and made it no more than ordinary. Spectacle evokes wonder *because* it's used sparingly.
And the whole idea that one is presented with visual images that are intentionally exaggerated in order to depict the exaggeration of someone telligng a story...that just doesn't fly for me. Images don't work that way. Images represent what someone sees--that's the whole point of a story like Rashomon and its many imitators: people *see* things differently, but what they see is reality to them. People are justifying the ridiculous grotesqueries of '300' by saying "Oh, that's the propaganda story that Delos is telling" but that doesn't work--if that's propaganda, it isn't what he believes he saw, it's a lie (or an exaggeration) he's telling other people, and so a visual representation of that is a lie to the viewer if the viewer is supposed to know that it's not really what Delos saw.
No, IMO the film is gruesome and distasteful in conception and overblown and bombastic in execution. I know it's some people's cup of tea--to each his own--but it's not mine.
Well as far as the , "If it's not supposed to be historically accurate or even anything but a fantasy, why use historical characters, events, and dialogue?" in this case I'm liable to give them a partial pass.
This pass is because the "historical" version is, in the Greek records anyhow, largely a work of fiction as well. The "historical" quotes were likely never uttered, the "historical" numbers are way beyond wrong even given the standard exaggeration of Persian numbers that infest Greek records (Herodotus was big on huge inflations ). So even a faithful rendition of his version would (while closer to reality than the movie) still be significantly more fiction than truth.
Oh, I went into it with my eyes open--I wasn't sure whether it was going to be awful or really good. I was willing to take some of the arguments I'd heard at face value, and I'm not so much of a purist that I can't enjoy at least a *little* bit something that I think is seriously flawed in other ways. If it had just been the history issues, that would have been one thing. Despite having arguments with Liz about it, I was able to enjoy "Elizabeth", and I quite liked large parts of "The Patriot" (though I really can't say I was able to stomach "Braveheart"--I feel about that the way Peter feels about "A Knight's Tale"--which is, of course, *TOTAL* fiction).
But the disquieting modern metaphor, the overdone visuals, and the sheer nastiness of parts of it--what is the *point* of so much slow-motion blood spurting? really caught me off guard.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-03-16 03:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-16 04:00 pm (UTC)And the whole idea that one is presented with visual images that are intentionally exaggerated in order to depict the exaggeration of someone telligng a story...that just doesn't fly for me. Images don't work that way. Images represent what someone sees--that's the whole point of a story like Rashomon and its many imitators: people *see* things differently, but what they see is reality to them. People are justifying the ridiculous grotesqueries of '300' by saying "Oh, that's the propaganda story that Delos is telling" but that doesn't work--if that's propaganda, it isn't what he believes he saw, it's a lie (or an exaggeration) he's telling other people, and so a visual representation of that is a lie to the viewer if the viewer is supposed to know that it's not really what Delos saw.
No, IMO the film is gruesome and distasteful in conception and overblown and bombastic in execution. I know it's some people's cup of tea--to each his own--but it's not mine.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-16 10:35 pm (UTC)This pass is because the "historical" version is, in the Greek records anyhow, largely a work of fiction as well. The "historical" quotes were likely never uttered, the "historical" numbers are way beyond wrong even given the standard exaggeration of Persian numbers that infest Greek records (Herodotus was big on huge inflations ). So even a faithful rendition of his version would (while closer to reality than the movie) still be significantly more fiction than truth.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-16 04:23 pm (UTC)"Why did you go?"
no subject
Date: 2007-03-16 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-16 05:20 pm (UTC)But the disquieting modern metaphor, the overdone visuals, and the sheer nastiness of parts of it--what is the *point* of so much slow-motion blood spurting? really caught me off guard.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-16 05:05 pm (UTC)Pokiemon does it better! LOL