Gory Glory Glorification

Rating: Null/10 (19 August 2007)

300 (2006) *1/2
'300' has earned itself a fairly hefty reputation among the movie going masses as a very good film. I can see why so many people enjoy it. It is action packed, satisfying to blood lust, and it's the kind of rah-rah film that the masses love. And not to step on the toes of the public and insinuate that stupidity and ignorance are beyond common expectations, but I have to wonder seriously about the depth of the mass public's sense of morality.
300, based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, follows the Battle of Thermopylae (the hot gate) through King Leonidas (Gerard Butler). We begin at his birth, where the narrator cheerfully describes that had he not been in good birth condition he would have been tossed among the carcasses of other less than perfect children. The massive army of Persians come to Sparta and tell them that they must kneel to their deity Xerces or be destroyed. Of course, Leonidas kills the messenger and declares war. On being denied permission to go to war by the freakish oracles (who are as we are told traitors to Sparta) Leonidas puts together an army of three-hundred and there is our movie.
My problem with 300 is not its constant graphic violence. My problem is not with the films near relentless pretentiousness. Nor is my problem with the constant stupidity of 300. My problem is the unique combination of these elements which 300 creates into a complete glorification of violence with a dash of racism and a hint of fascism.
The film's visual style and flair allow for some beautiful imagery and astonishing sights. There is no arguing that arduous labor went into creating 300 for the big screen. Zak Snyder shows that he is a good director (His remake of Dawn of the Dead was a very good film, especially considering its material and what it had to live up to). That the film is well made does little to save it from itself in the end. The dialogue is incredibly poorly written, with more cheese than a mouse could stomach. It's pretentious to the point of preposterousness, and preposterous to the point of pretentiousness. When the characters aren't talking about the glory of slaughtering, a narrator does it for them.
300 is essentially nothing more than a feature length portrait of sado-masochistic macho porn on a multi-million dollar budget. It's an offensive film that revels in its violence not to disgust us by it, but to enthrall us with it. Its violence is so stylistic that it can hardly be described as offensive, but it is in how the story feeds off it like the life blood that bacterium suck from a host. The heroes of the movie, all extremely buff white men (since apparently ancient Spartans had ready access to anabolic steroids) go around slaughtering then reminiscing about how great it was to slaughter their enemy, all of whom are either Arabs or freaks, save for one white traitor.
300 defenders will surely attempt to draw parallels with other violent epics such as Braveheart, a film that dealt with essentially the same theme. My response to those defenders would be that films like Braveheart never glorified its violence but repulsed in it - violence was a consequence of the plot, instead of plot as a consequence of violence. It also never separated its characters by race or grace.
300 is so well made that its rather unfortunate it hasn't the legs to tread water in its sea of moral repugnance.
1.5/4