Paths of glory

Rating: 8/10 (30 March 2007)

Today, a war film has to be an anti-war film, in order to avoid any criticisms. "Letters from Iwo Jima" is the perfect example of this kind of anti-war movie (a genre magisterially inaugurated in 1957 by Kubrick's "Paths of Glory") : the atrocity and absurdity of the war is denounced everywhere, the battles are very realistic and barely bearable, the historical context is so exact that you have the feeling to watch a documentary, and the movie is a humanist one, where it doesn't matter who you fight with, you always fight men. "300" is not an anti-war movie, it's a war movie, and it's the absolute opposite of Eastwood last movie. The war is glorified for its beauty and its goals : it's needed because it's the only way to protect freedom and liberty from mysticism and tyranny. The battle sequences are grandiose and aesthetically filmed with beautiful slow motions. The historical context is just a pretext to tell a story that belongs to an ancient age, and doesn't have any reality or realism. The movie is so Manichean, that the enemy, the "Persans", are not human at all, they're beasts from the darkness, monsters from hell, demoniac figures that stand for evil, whereas the Spartans are perfect and fearless blond heroes, from the mythological world. Some might call it fascist, some might find this approach stupid and childish: and in a way, they're partly right, but on the other hand, I never saw a so epic, fun and grandiose movie since... since, heu, since I can't even remember when.
480 BC, Leonidas refuses to make a gift to Xerces, the god emperor of Persia, the leader of the most impressive and powerful army of the world. In the name of liberty, reason and freedom, he kills all the Persian's men send by Xerxes in Spartes, and goes for war against the powerful Persian army with a fearless spartan army of 300 men, in order to convince the all Greece to fallow his example (Athens, this nation of "philosophs and young boy's lovers" have already stand up against Xerxes...). And then they fight, kill, and died in the fury of the battle, shouting definitive sentences like "Spartans, tonight we dine in hell" and laughing in front of the face of death. And, well, that's about it for the story. But does anyone need a real story if in the gigantic and impressive battle scenes are introduced well enough ? Simple stories make great tales, and that's what's the movie's all about : this is just a myth. Of course, it's simple, violent and Manichean, but, for we're in a mythical world, it's nor racist nor a propaganda movie. The all movie is nothing less than than a speech from Dilos to the Grecs, and is nothing objective and realistic. That's clear in the movie : Dilos tells us the great tale of Leonidas and the 300 Spartans, in his own, subjective and partial point of view : he doesn't tell History, he tells a story. And in his vision, the Persans are all bad and monsters. This is not the reality of the Termopyle battle : this is the Spartan's point of view on it and they exaggerated to transform it in a legend : all we have here is the legend. And this movie has absolutely nothing to see with our contemporary world or with our reality. It's just a dream, a bloody, violent, graphic, dream for little boys, who dream to be a Spartan soldier and to fight the evil Persian army. There's no message here, no morality to find, no American propaganda, and certainly no political point of view : this is just a children's dream.
In fact, all this elements already (including this vision of the Persian empire) were in the wonderful 1998 comic-book by Frank Miller, except for the sub plot with Leonidas' wife (but the all morality of this sequences fits very well the Miller's universe, with its strong women an its rotten politicians). Like "Sin City", the movie totally looks like the comics, from its tone to its colors and photography. The method is also the same : the genre of the peplum, like the "film noir" for "Sin City", is push to its paroxysm. But it adds to "Sin City", which was a little too static, movement, action, and a great sens of epic. The first battle scene is absolutely amazing : it's a sort of peplumesk remake of the "Old Boy" scene, where you see the hero fighting endlessly against ten opponents in a video game traveling. Only that in "300", you see Leonidas fighting against hundreds, and you also watch the others Spartans fighting in the same sequence. I think I never saw something that impressive in a movie.
Zack Snyder really becomes one of the most promising American director with this movie. And if his style isn't perfect yet (some of the scenes still reminds me of an perfume advertising, like the oracle one), "300" is a great movie, important both for the war movie and the epic genre, as well as for the history of comic books adaptations (the use of the slow motions, which recreates the drawings of the comics in motion, and fits the rhythm of a comic-book reading is unseen and totally original). The only thing to determine is how much does the genius of this movie really belongs to Snyder, for if "300" is great, Frank Miller is also responsible of it. And Snyder's first movie, "Dawn of the dead", was a Romero's remake. So, I impatiently wait for Znyder's own projects to see if he's really a talented artist. And if I'm pretty sure his future adaptation of "Watchmen" will be good (even if I'm convinced than only someone like Kubrick could have done it the masterpiece it's meant to be), it won't answer this question.