I saw 300 last Friday up at the IMAX theater near Lincoln Center.
I didn't expect to really like it much, if at all. It was more an excuse to see a friend and see my first film in IMAX, and on those points, it was more than worth it (any film I even vaguely want to see that's playing in IMAX, from now on, I'm there). I wound up mildly disturbed and extremely angered by the film.
The anger was because, despite my expectations, I thought the first half of the film was terrific, smart, and amazing -- and then the second half was like a different movie, stupid, predictable, full of Hollywood cliches, and a complete betrayal of the characters and world of the first half. I went in with low expectations, was stunned and pleased by its initial brilliance, then watched as the film fell apart and became worse than I had thought possible going in. But discussing why it destroyed itself as a cohesive work is another post . . . maybe tomorrow.
So I was angry about it falling apart as a film, but I was disturbed by the potential political readings that could be put into the film, even when I was enjoying the first part.
The other night I discussed this a little at a tech for a show at The Brick, and the next day one of the actors, who I've worked with often, sent me an email asking me to discuss some of what he had heard about the film that bothered him, its possible pro-war and homophobic aspects. He writes, and I respond (with some editing for clarity here):
I was curious as to your thoughts on that, particularly the latter of the two points [that the film is "pro-war" and homophobic]. I mean, considering the movie is supposedly very faithful to the source material, and the graphic novel was written before the Bush administration, I have to wonder how much of that is just contextual interpretation. On the other hand, although I haven't seen 300, I have to admit that all the "Death in battle is AWESOME!" stuff I see in ads and promos for the movie kind of rub me the wrong way, especially considering there's a war on, now.
Yeah, I read all that [the specific online criticisms he had mentioned] -- and a lot otherwise going on around the web now saying this.
The thing is . . . it really doesn't hold water. The metaphor doesn't hold true for very long any time you try to see "our heroes" as standins for the Current Administration. If anything, it falls more true the other way, with a small group of determined fighters fighting off a large, more technologically advanced invading superpower that makes empty promises about how independent they will be as a state, as long as they allow themselves to be ruled by the Empire.
But again, none of it holds in any way true metaphorically to our current situation for very long. For a large part because it is made clear that this is also a battle between rationality and mysticism (those are the terms used, but it does come off quite a bit as Atheism vs. Theocracy) - which, in our current battle between two theocratic points of view, doesn't work (and our heroes in the film are on the "Fuck Mysticism" side). You can find bits and pieces here and there that may suddenly seem to have "topical meaning," but they can be read so many different ways from so many points of view that it might as well be a Rorschach test. If you are a right-winger and you want to see it as confirming your point of view, you could; if you want to see it as an example of Hollywood liberalism, you could. From the left, you could see it as confirming your point of view as well, or you could see it as an example of the right-wing propaganda machine (an attitude I've seen far too often from fellow lefties - that any Hollywood movie must automatically be a right-wing statement if it's big, and expensive, and popular, when more often then not it's merely stupid and ignorant).
That said, even if the film doesn't work as any kind of metaphor (through non-intention or confusion or whatever), is it OKAY for it to come out in the current climate? That's a harder question. No matter what the intentions of the filmmakers (or Miller in the original comic book), context DOES matter. Even if not meant in any way as any kind of comment on current events, and even with the metaphor not really working properly for any kind of commentary, it comes off as one. As I said last night, I LOVED the first half of the film, before it suddenly, amazing, went entirely into Stupidland (I haven't seen a film go so much off the rails so suddenly since John Carpenter's They Live), but even as I was loving it, I couldn't help but be disturbed by it. My feeling has been for years that The Artist has no responsibilities to anything but his or her vision - if it's an irresponsible Vision, well, hell, that's just part of what Art IS.
But I kept looking at it and really feeling, "Is this responsible in this country right now?" And not feeling good about what I was feeling. "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" is not a universal truth for all times and places (nor is it a universal falsehood), but that seemed to be as close to an idea as the film had in it's pretty little head, and it bugged me. I don't necessarily demand ideas in art (which teeter dangerously close to BIG MEANINGS), but I demand a point-of-view -- a consistent eye or attitude that wants to show me something it is interested in, and, hopefully, with more of a reason to show me something than "Isn't this COOL!"
I know Berit and I (and other people who wrote about it elsewhere) were somewhat similarly disturbed during the battle sequences in the last two Lord of the Rings films for many of the same reasons, and you certainly can't say that when Tolkien wrote any of this, or, as Jackson was really being as faithful to the books as he could, that it was intended as any kind of commentary on the world today -- but the spectacle of our mostly Nordic/Anglo Saxon-looking heroes fighting the evil darkie monsters was at times unpleasant. Wrong time, wrong place.
Of course, given the lead time on how long movies take to make, who the hell KNOWS what the world will be like when it's time for your project to come out.
But, even if you are not intending a STATEMENT, certain choices MAKE one, whether you like it or not. And if you are making one, it's best to be in control of what that statement is, rather than ignoring it. This actually carries over into, as I think I mentioned last night, my current production of Hamlet, where I cast Rasheed as Horatio (in my head) based solely on his qualities as an actor many years ago. Then, I did have to consider what having a black Horatio "meant" in the context of the play. What it really "meant" for me at the start was "uh, black people exist?" But whether I liked it or not, the choice was going to have MEANING, so I had to use that meaning and carry it through as a meaningful decision throughout the text. It became crucial to the play for me, and even if Rasheed had not been able to play the part (and I'm SO glad he's going to), I would have still felt the need to cast the part with a black actor.
As for the homophobia . . . well, to me it comes off about on the level of schoolkids using "gay" as a pejorative. I don't think it's MEANT, again, but it's there, and its bad, though Snyder et al would probably be stunned if you called him on it, as many kids would be about saying something is gay being homophobic. They'd just think you were a spoilsport and WAY-too PC. The fact that the pretty, effeminate Persian god-king also has a harem of half-naked women, talks like Geoffrey Holder in an echo chamber, and looks like he could crush a normal-sized man with his bare hands just confuses everything, too. It just feels more like Snyder and company fell into the "powerful yet effeminate villain is creepy" cliche that's been going around forever. It's not great, but it comes right at the time when the movie goes from being really good to being nothing but a pack of Hollywood cliches, so the casual homophobia just feels like one more stupid Hollywood bit that's just been thrown in. The potentially pro-war attitude, intended or not, is deeper, nastier, more insidious, and more dangerous.
So I was disturbed, and I was disturbed about feeling disturbed. I wouldn't want any kind of suppression of points of view, no matter what, but . . .
Maybe if the film actually HAD a clear point of view (not a MESSAGE, a hit-you-over-the head thing, just a point-of-view), even an awful one, it would not be such a problem.
IWH
I didn't expect to really like it much, if at all. It was more an excuse to see a friend and see my first film in IMAX, and on those points, it was more than worth it (any film I even vaguely want to see that's playing in IMAX, from now on, I'm there). I wound up mildly disturbed and extremely angered by the film.
The anger was because, despite my expectations, I thought the first half of the film was terrific, smart, and amazing -- and then the second half was like a different movie, stupid, predictable, full of Hollywood cliches, and a complete betrayal of the characters and world of the first half. I went in with low expectations, was stunned and pleased by its initial brilliance, then watched as the film fell apart and became worse than I had thought possible going in. But discussing why it destroyed itself as a cohesive work is another post . . . maybe tomorrow.
So I was angry about it falling apart as a film, but I was disturbed by the potential political readings that could be put into the film, even when I was enjoying the first part.
The other night I discussed this a little at a tech for a show at The Brick, and the next day one of the actors, who I've worked with often, sent me an email asking me to discuss some of what he had heard about the film that bothered him, its possible pro-war and homophobic aspects. He writes, and I respond (with some editing for clarity here):
I was curious as to your thoughts on that, particularly the latter of the two points [that the film is "pro-war" and homophobic]. I mean, considering the movie is supposedly very faithful to the source material, and the graphic novel was written before the Bush administration, I have to wonder how much of that is just contextual interpretation. On the other hand, although I haven't seen 300, I have to admit that all the "Death in battle is AWESOME!" stuff I see in ads and promos for the movie kind of rub me the wrong way, especially considering there's a war on, now.
Yeah, I read all that [the specific online criticisms he had mentioned] -- and a lot otherwise going on around the web now saying this.
The thing is . . . it really doesn't hold water. The metaphor doesn't hold true for very long any time you try to see "our heroes" as standins for the Current Administration. If anything, it falls more true the other way, with a small group of determined fighters fighting off a large, more technologically advanced invading superpower that makes empty promises about how independent they will be as a state, as long as they allow themselves to be ruled by the Empire.
But again, none of it holds in any way true metaphorically to our current situation for very long. For a large part because it is made clear that this is also a battle between rationality and mysticism (those are the terms used, but it does come off quite a bit as Atheism vs. Theocracy) - which, in our current battle between two theocratic points of view, doesn't work (and our heroes in the film are on the "Fuck Mysticism" side). You can find bits and pieces here and there that may suddenly seem to have "topical meaning," but they can be read so many different ways from so many points of view that it might as well be a Rorschach test. If you are a right-winger and you want to see it as confirming your point of view, you could; if you want to see it as an example of Hollywood liberalism, you could. From the left, you could see it as confirming your point of view as well, or you could see it as an example of the right-wing propaganda machine (an attitude I've seen far too often from fellow lefties - that any Hollywood movie must automatically be a right-wing statement if it's big, and expensive, and popular, when more often then not it's merely stupid and ignorant).
That said, even if the film doesn't work as any kind of metaphor (through non-intention or confusion or whatever), is it OKAY for it to come out in the current climate? That's a harder question. No matter what the intentions of the filmmakers (or Miller in the original comic book), context DOES matter. Even if not meant in any way as any kind of comment on current events, and even with the metaphor not really working properly for any kind of commentary, it comes off as one. As I said last night, I LOVED the first half of the film, before it suddenly, amazing, went entirely into Stupidland (I haven't seen a film go so much off the rails so suddenly since John Carpenter's They Live), but even as I was loving it, I couldn't help but be disturbed by it. My feeling has been for years that The Artist has no responsibilities to anything but his or her vision - if it's an irresponsible Vision, well, hell, that's just part of what Art IS.
But I kept looking at it and really feeling, "Is this responsible in this country right now?" And not feeling good about what I was feeling. "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" is not a universal truth for all times and places (nor is it a universal falsehood), but that seemed to be as close to an idea as the film had in it's pretty little head, and it bugged me. I don't necessarily demand ideas in art (which teeter dangerously close to BIG MEANINGS), but I demand a point-of-view -- a consistent eye or attitude that wants to show me something it is interested in, and, hopefully, with more of a reason to show me something than "Isn't this COOL!"
I know Berit and I (and other people who wrote about it elsewhere) were somewhat similarly disturbed during the battle sequences in the last two Lord of the Rings films for many of the same reasons, and you certainly can't say that when Tolkien wrote any of this, or, as Jackson was really being as faithful to the books as he could, that it was intended as any kind of commentary on the world today -- but the spectacle of our mostly Nordic/Anglo Saxon-looking heroes fighting the evil darkie monsters was at times unpleasant. Wrong time, wrong place.
Of course, given the lead time on how long movies take to make, who the hell KNOWS what the world will be like when it's time for your project to come out.
But, even if you are not intending a STATEMENT, certain choices MAKE one, whether you like it or not. And if you are making one, it's best to be in control of what that statement is, rather than ignoring it. This actually carries over into, as I think I mentioned last night, my current production of Hamlet, where I cast Rasheed as Horatio (in my head) based solely on his qualities as an actor many years ago. Then, I did have to consider what having a black Horatio "meant" in the context of the play. What it really "meant" for me at the start was "uh, black people exist?" But whether I liked it or not, the choice was going to have MEANING, so I had to use that meaning and carry it through as a meaningful decision throughout the text. It became crucial to the play for me, and even if Rasheed had not been able to play the part (and I'm SO glad he's going to), I would have still felt the need to cast the part with a black actor.
As for the homophobia . . . well, to me it comes off about on the level of schoolkids using "gay" as a pejorative. I don't think it's MEANT, again, but it's there, and its bad, though Snyder et al would probably be stunned if you called him on it, as many kids would be about saying something is gay being homophobic. They'd just think you were a spoilsport and WAY-too PC. The fact that the pretty, effeminate Persian god-king also has a harem of half-naked women, talks like Geoffrey Holder in an echo chamber, and looks like he could crush a normal-sized man with his bare hands just confuses everything, too. It just feels more like Snyder and company fell into the "powerful yet effeminate villain is creepy" cliche that's been going around forever. It's not great, but it comes right at the time when the movie goes from being really good to being nothing but a pack of Hollywood cliches, so the casual homophobia just feels like one more stupid Hollywood bit that's just been thrown in. The potentially pro-war attitude, intended or not, is deeper, nastier, more insidious, and more dangerous.
So I was disturbed, and I was disturbed about feeling disturbed. I wouldn't want any kind of suppression of points of view, no matter what, but . . .
Maybe if the film actually HAD a clear point of view (not a MESSAGE, a hit-you-over-the head thing, just a point-of-view), even an awful one, it would not be such a problem.
IWH