an advancement or a regression? You decide

Rating: 7/10 (16 April 2007)

I guess it's true that everything old is eventually new again.
In the early days of movie-making - thanks primarily to budgetary restraints and the logistical problems raised by having to work with primitive sound equipment - directors rarely ventured outdoors to film even their most epic-type adventures. Instead, they were forced to do their filming mainly on a soundstage, shooting their actors in front of a painted backdrop or - when it became available - a more technologically advanced "blue screen," which allowed them to add an array of previously impossible special effects to the picture as well. Then, in the 1950's and 1960's, facing stiff competition from a burgeoning new medium known as television, filmmakers turned to "on-location" shooting as a means of both increasing the realism of their pictures and drawing people back to the theaters. This was seen as a great leap forward for the movies both as an art form and as a business.
Now, in 2007, Hollywood would appear to have come full circle with "300," a rousing sword-and-sandal epic that has been filmed entirely in a studio, using only CGI effects to recreate its ancient Mediterranean setting. Ironically, this is being hailed as a great "innovation" by the very youngsters who would be yelling "That looks so fake" at all the similar themed movies from the 1930's and 1940's. Go figure.
If "300" has the look and feel of a comic book or video game, that is clearly no accident, for it comes from the highly acclaimed graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley. The story is based on the Battle of Thermopylae, which took place in 480 B.C. between the Persians, with a fighting force estimated at between 60,000 to 300,000 soldiers, and the Spartans, with a force of a mere 300 (plus around 700 Thespian volunteers). The Spartans, trained from childhood to be professional fighters, ended up losing the battle but not before inflicting heavy losses on the Persian army and becoming a symbol and a source of inspiration for all those unafraid to march into battle despite tremendous odds against them.
If it weren't for its unique look, there wouldn't be much to distinguish "300" from a hundred other action films. The characters are wafer-thin and stereotypical, and the movie evinces a kind of xenophobia that is more than a trifle disconcerting in a world in which relations between the East and West are none too friendly in the first place. All the Spartans, including their leader, King Leonidas, are light-skinned, noble warriors, while the Persians are dark-skinned, ignoble barbarians, whose general, King Xerxes, comes across as a lisping, mincing, make-up-wearing drag queen. The dialogue and narration, provided by Kurt Johnstad, Michael Gordon, and director Zack Snyder, is invariably cheesy, corny and insufferably self-important, while the actors Gerald Butler, Rodrigo Santoro and Lena Headey pretty much fade into the obscurity of the computer-generated background.
But trying to evaluate "300" apart from its visuals would be as meaningless as judging "Jurassic Park" without its dinosaurs. For the look of the picture is what "300" is clearly all about, and on that level, the movie succeeds spectacularly. The sepia-toned images of roiling land- and sky-scapes, massing armies, and storm-tossed oceans are indeed something to behold and give the film an otherworldly quality that goes a long way towards mitigating the weaknesses in the acting and writing. Even the ultra-violent, blood-soaked battle scenes, though a trifle redundant after awhile, take on a legendary quality thanks to the unreal aura of the scene.
"300" is an interesting enough experience as a one-time thing, but I hope it doesn't signal a long term trend in movie-making. Personally, I rather like the great outdoors.