Musings from Brian J. Noggle: <i>300</i> Movie Review, As Expected

Ace has a nice rant about the clueless Slate review of this movie

http://ace.mu.nu/

I don't know know to link to each post. The 300 post is the last one from March 8th.

Both y'alls posts have made me want to go see the movie.

# posted by

Anonymous : Friday, March 09, 2007 7:51:00 AM

Here's the comment I wrote to Joe about his review:

Dear Sir,

This is the second review I have read of yours, along with that of The Return of The King, and I must say that your reviews leave me with but one word I can say, and that is 'Wow'. I am going to go through this response as bluntly as possible, and please do listen to my words.

I am going to begin with your first real paragraph. "...with muscular freedom fighters lopping heads off of swarthy villains..." I found extreme problems with this part of a sentence alone. First of all, you mock several times the physical shape which the Spartans are in. I must ask, what do you honestly expect to happen after training 7+ hours a day for over 30 years, because this is what the Spartans actually did. If I'm not mistaken, Leonidis was training for well over 30 years to be a killing machine. I think that training for that long just to be a marathon runner would get one into that kind of shape. So, there goes that series of absurd assertions. Next, the fact that you call them 'freedom fighters', in a very snide tone. I have two questions: first, what gives you the impression that they are freedom fighters? Second, why would that be a bad thing? First, they were more arguably related to the National Guard, defending their homeland and people. Now, finally for this sentence, the comment about lopping of heads. First, it did happen, though not often. Second, have you ever heard of a little bit of fantasy? Oh, excuse me, after reading your Lord of the Rings review, I should remember that anything that isn't a realistic reflection isn't worth one's time. If I may ask, with this set of ideals, why weren't you a History Major? Oh, yes, you must have been! Otherwise you wouldn't be commenting on historic credibility, right, sir?

"...it's not surprising that the movie is morally confused." How? It seems fairly consistent to me: protect your homeland, do what it takes to protect it.

As to your comment about the movie being sluggish and the fight scenes never coming to life, I simply have no witty line for that. I do not know which movie you were watching, however I assume that you know that the execution of the Phalanx actually was meant to work that way. It was supposed to be repetitive and slow, yet effective. Also, the fight scenes were the best which have been put to film in a long time. I'm sorry, but this is true. Though, I, at least, will admit that that judgement is completely subjective, and I truly doubt you should preach personal preference as fact in the newspaper.

Your following paragraph deals with the rivalry between Sparta and Athens, the warriors and the clerics and politicians, and the messenger who came to Sparta. Now, it is common knowledge that Sparta and Athens had a strong rivalry, right? The only problem with the comment made in the movie is that both Athenian and Spartan men had gay tendencies. Next, when you said "Spartan warriors...are...superior...also to Sparta's own clerics and politicians." I have a literary question for you. Have you ever heard of a biased narrator? If not, this is when the narrator tells you only what he wants you to hear, and it is actually a very respected literary technique. However, I'll assume you knew that. Finally in this paragraph, you addressed the messenger and how Leonidis dispensed of diplomatic niceties. I believe this was a slam on this action taken by Leonidis, right? Well, I must say that your review would be much higher quality if you were to include the parts which led up to this event, which would allow your readers to better understand the action and not simply think that it was a superfluous act of aggression. Leonidis did not do this for laughs, he did it because the man came to his doorstep with crowned skulls of other kings. After seeing this, Leonidis was diplomatic enough to allow the man into his city. After this diplomatic action, the messenger proceeded to insult Leonidis's queen, threaten to kill and enslave the Spartans, and threatened the king himself, along with suggesting that the Persian King is a God above Leonidis. Now, I believe the action is justifiable. Perhaps not in modern terms, but, regardless of your wishes to relate this filmto present day, this is movie does not take place in modern time.

Your comment about being armed with only shields and slogans is actually very historically accurate, which I know you love. Those shields were a crucial part of the Phalanx tactics, the slogans part of what made the Spartans hard to destroy morally, and, in fact, the did repel wave after wave of Persians.

Now your review gets interesting. You say that the Persians are in reality and attempt by the director to be modern-day Iran. You're right, it is no accident that the "Asian Hordes" are dark-skinned degenerates. Well, for the degenerate part, I will remind you of a biased narration. It's credibility as a literary tactic has not changed in these few minutes. Now, about the dark skinned part: you know where Persia was, right? At this time during which the battle was taking place, it was the age of the Achaemenid Empire. At this point, the Persian Empire encompassed everything from essentially the Mediterranean Sea to above the Arabian Sea, so modern-day Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and more. So...they were dark-skinned. Also, the commentary of looking like Samurai and wearing burqas may require a little research before stating as a flaw. Much like Babylon before it, Persia was the node of almost all trading, and more trade went through there than America could ever dream of. These burqas and Samurai looks are perfectly understandable, and much more historically believable than their not wearing them at all. Again, to the comment about Xerxes looking effeminate, I must draw your attention back to the biased narration.

"So we're supposed to be thrilled when the foreigners are slain..." No. No, no, no. This is not the "Auslander Raus" ideology in ideology, but rather the ideology of humanity which is "if they try to kill my family, we should defend them." So, to answer your question: yes. We should be thrilled when those who are threatening an innocent people are killed. If they happen to be foreigners, then yes, we should be happy when the foreigners are slain. It is much the same way that there is some thrill in watching football, with no vested interested, and seeing the under-dog team score eight unanswered touchdowns.

So, about your slight insult towards the fan base by saying that if they have developed some brains they cansee some of the flaws. Well, I'm afraid I cannot sign off without commenting on this as well: your comment, first of all, implies that the Spartans of those days did not posses brain power. I think that is interesting, seeing as how they had one of the most devastating military tactics in history, yet to be countered even in modern day. Also, if those people of which you speak in modern day were to 'develop' those brains, which you suggest they did not have to begin with, they would be able to use their reasoning and not simply take the information which you spoon feed them as fact. Take off the blinders, my friend.

To conclude, it would seem that the primary thing I say in this commentary is "biased narrator". I suddenly feel silly saying it so often, for you obviously understand it well. The next time I teach a class an English Literature and Composition class, I will use your works as the best examples of biased narration.

Your sincerely disappointed reader,
Brandt

# posted by

Anonymous : Monday, March 12, 2007 10:03:00 AM

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?

# posted by

Anonymous : Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:48:00 PM