And Yet, Andrew Sullivan Still Hasn't Produced That 300 Review . . .

My Man Crush Deepens

Sen. Fred Thompson . . .

XOXOXO

However, I think Neal Stephenson's Op-Ed in the NYT regarding 300 was better (unsurprisingly), as are James Lileks' ruminations mixing in his thoughts on 300 and participating in counter protests against anti-war protesters.

From the Thompson piece

I must say that I’m impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.

When President Thompson opens up his Office of Propaganda, I'll be first in line to sign up. Teach me Farsi and let me at 'em, the Mullahs won't know what hit 'em.

Also, from MEMRI, here's the video of the (hilarious) "news" clip from Iranians television regarding the film 300.

It's Time For Mr. Sullivan To Come Out of the Closet

Sullivan needs to come out, and soon.

Which closet you ask? The folks having viewed the film 300 closet, that's which closet.

Can he say with a straight face (or even an honestly gay face), that he hasn't already seen this film numerous times?

I think he's just crafting which side of a variety of issues he wants to use this film as support for.

Does he join the left in calling it homophobic, fascist and racist?

Or does he join the right and call it a rousing return to patriotism and inambiguity in Hollywood filmmaking?

His one (fence straddling) post on this film promised that should he see it, he'd review it, and he's had plenty of time to go out and catch a screening. I have trouble believing that a film featuring so many hard abs and thrusting spears wouldn't immediately pique his interest.

On a similar note, would the promise of hot chicks running around half naked mixed with rousingly old fashion storytelling get my ass into a theatre seat?

Hollywood, I think you know the answer, so make it happen, again and again, and when I mean hot chicks, I don't mean Charlize Theron in fetish wear in a toned down PG-13 version of a bizarre Eurocomic, I mean a kick-ass version of Wonder Woman with plenty of sister Amazons also running around in their mostly naked glory, and go ahead and embrace the R rating, and while you are at it, throw in a little sapphic love play, I won't mind a bit.

(the likelihood that Wonder Woman will kick any sort of ass has been greatly reduced now that Joss Whedon has been kicked off the project)

Succinct Film Reviews: 300 Edition

300, a bloody mess, but a fun, entertaining, manly bloody mess.

300 is a film unlike most films today, that doesn't pussyfoot around when it comes to moral issues. It is painted in comic book colors, with comic book emotions, and states its comic book ethos with conviction and clarity.

This troubled many of the reviewers, leading to insinuations of homophobia, fascism, and racism from various folks (just follow the rotten reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, you can see for yourself).

That can be found if you want, yet the opposite was the intent. This film isn't a great film, yet it is memorable.

It is a shockingly moral film, despite the nudity, blood, and mayhem. At its core it is a call for free people to stand and fight against tyranny, regardless of the odds. It is also a recognition that when free people willingly die for freedom, that often, their example can serve to reverse any defeat in a single battle.

Many reviewers claim there is no bigger political message in this film, but they're wrong, what they mean to say is that they didn't get the political message they wanted from this film.

The concept of steadfastness in the face of human losses isn't popular in some corners of our culture. The concept that warriors who choose the warrior life, do so because they welcome the possibility of a meaningful death in hopes of sparing those at home hardship, is also anathema.

Victor David Hanson does a great job of putting this film in context, his words do so better than I can.

Frank Miller believes in freedom, believes in fighting, and believes that in certain cases, the world of comic books is indeed the world in which we live.

I'm surprised this film is doing as well as it is. It seems on track to do huge numbers this weekend for a non-sequel, non-big name actor picture. People aren't just responding to the visual style, as I'm sure will be claimed in the aftermath of the big grosses. Sin City did this better on a visual and storytelling basis, but that film didn't do huge business. Of the live action + blue screen movies, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was the best looking, but it was a horrid mess of a script.

300 I suspect will be this generations Red Dawn. That film was dismissed as a terrible film (which it is), stupid beyond belief, yet for folks of a certain mindset, it fired the imagination and became an aspirational cultural touchstone.

300 will be consumed in a similar fashion I believe. The lack of ambiguities, the clear disdain it has for 'realist' who wish to capitulate to tyranny, and the good old fashion homosocial (and homoerotic) bonding depicted is enough to give most young men a bit of a chubby (thankfully they mix in enough nude and semi-nude women so the guys won't feel too sexually confused at their tumescence).

It will be interesting to see if the film continues to do big business, or was it just a big weekend followed by diminishing returns. I suspect that the film is far too pro-war and pro-military for 'coastal' types who would otherwise enjoy the spectacle, and it might be a bit too homoerotic and bizarre for 'fly-over country'.

This tension might help the film in the long run. There's something to please most audiences (at least violence and mayhem loving audiences), so if you are willing to engage the film as spectacle, you won't be disappointed no matter the perspective you bring with you to the theatre.

I Know It Might Make Me Sound A Touch Homophobic, But I Really Hope Not Too Many Fans Are Inspired to Dress Like the Characters From the Film

A pack of tourists and a museum docent fanned out in front of "Leonidas at Thermopylae" in the Louvre a few months ago. Spotting Jacques-Louis David's 1814 oil painting of a buff, naked warrior king preparing to lead 300 Spartan troops into battle, a cheerful young American said: "Awesome. I just made a movie of this."

"Really?" said the docent. "… what does it look like?"

The young man shrugged and smiled. "It basically looks like this."

"Well, those men are all naked," the docent said after a long pause.

"Yeah," the man replied. "That's kind of what the Spartans were all about."

Seriously? Doesn't sound like he's joking. Won't stop me from seeing this film it looks interesting enough. Even the latest breathless bit from Drudge about possible political messages embedded within the picture won't keep me away.

300 looks like entertainment, pure and simple, if there's more, I'll survive, all I ask is that I'm entertained along the way.

The quote from the Drudge 'developing story' would seem to be at odds with the above linked LA Times article, here's the Drudge bit

Snyder, who said he intended neither analogy, suddenly knew he had the contemporary version of a water-cooler movie on his hands, the NY TIMES plans to report on Monday. "But the danger is that an accidental political overtone will alienate part of the potential audience for a film that needs broad appeal to succeed," reports the paper's Mike Cieply. Is the film a thinly veiled polemic against the Bush administration, or is it slyly supporting it?

Meanwhile in the LA Times article the politics of the story are framed this way

But reality did intrude slightly as the studio and filmmakers considered the contemporary resonance of the film. "There was a huge sensitivity about East versus West with the studio," Snyder said. "They said, 'Is there any way we could not call [the bad guys] Persians? Would that be cool if we called them Zoroastrians?' "In the seven years he worked on the film, he said, "the politics caught up with us. I've had people ask me if Xerxes or Leonidas is George W. Bush. I say, 'Great. Awesome. If it inspires you to think about the current geopolitical situation, cool.'

Those two quotes would seem to be at odds somewhat, and if they try too hard to be 'sensitive' about the East v West thing, then they've probably ruined the pictures. Hopefully they only pay lip service to that 'sensitivity'.

It's a comic book for crying out loud, the villains are supposed to be villainous and the heroes heroic, to play it any other way and you end up with a muddle along the lines of V for Vendetta.

Clearly, the USA is more easily morphed into the ovewhelmingly superior force of the Persians versus the gutty little (and doomed) Spartans. So to apply current geopolitical realities to that past would be to suggest that the doomed, but striving terrorists, dying but inspiring subsequent generations are the modern Spartans.

If this picture really goes there, then it will be a box office disaster.

I doubt it does, Frank Miller himself is semi-right wing, definitely pro-War on Terror and takes the current threats against our culture very seriously.

He's cooking up for release later this year, Holy Terror, Batman!, and to quote the Wiki,

According to Miller, the comic is a "piece of propaganda" in which Batman "kicks Al-Qaeda's ass."

Enough, said. So I don't think Miller intended 300 to be anti-American propaganda, but we'll see what message (if any) ends up on the screen. Listen to Frank Miller expand on his thoughts regarding patriotism and 9/11, and why he's inspired to show Batman kicking some Al-Qaeda ass. It's astounding that he's the unusual one in the artistic community for wanting to depict the bad guys as the bad guys.