Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Greek to Me

I haven't seen 300 yet, but John Rogers at Kung Fu Monkey has a really interesting take on the politics of the film.

For all the insistence of right-wing folks that the movie is a metaphor for America kicking some Iraqi/Iranian ass, Rogers makes the case that the movie's political meaning is decidedly anti-American. Interesting stuff.

8 comments:

Smitty said...

You know, as I watched the movie, I was too awed by the level of blood. Eating breakfast, standing there talking, whatever, they were bleeding. It wasn't until after I got off of my glowing high of watching that much ass-kicking that I reflected on the movie. I am glad for what Rogers wrote, as I thought it wasn't a bad excuse for Bush Administration support but couldn't explain why I thought that. But believe me...when you watch it, you're not thinking of much but "wooooooooooooowwww..."

But that massive pile of shit King Arthur was a blatant stab at supporting the Iraq war. It came out in 04. The culminating line...the point at which Arthur finally talked the Knights of the Round Table to go ahead and defend England (the Romans), was the point at which he said something to the effect of "it is honorable to die for the freedoms of those in another country."

Mike said...

Interesting indeed. Excellent write-up.

(Though I still haven't seen it.)

Thrillhous said...

That King Arthur movie was definitely lame. Just didn't seem to go anywhere.

Haven't seen 300 yet. Sounds like a pretty good time.

Smitty said...

If by "good time" you mean nearly two hours of slaughter inspersed by gratuitous sex scenes with hot Greek chicks, then you sir have understaed it. It is a riotous time indeed. A cornucopia of Awesome.

sideshow bob said...

300 is definitely bloody, but not in a Quentin Tarantino kinda way...more cartoony.

A pretty good flick, overall.

Mr Furious said...

One of the commenters over at Rogers' place mentions that the film has more to do with Miller vs the industry than pro- / anti- America or War.

This is probably true. As a reletive "insider" in the comic world (not to the dgree of Rogers) I can attest to the fact that Miller is a fucking lunatic when it comes to that. He is truly a tortured artist-type, and carries the biggest chip known to man on his shoulder.

He is also a genius. But his best work was when he was struggling against the "man" (working at DC or Marvel) rather than what he has done since breaking those bonds.

I own a first edition of the 300 book, and what's funny is I've never actually read it. I even recently lent it to my brother-in-law who had just seen the film and loved it. I bought the book simply because I love Lynn Varley (Miller's wife, BTW) painting over Miller's inks. After years of Sin City black and white work, I longed for the color. Flipping through the book after buying it, I was fairly turned off, and never picked it up again.

Oh and for all of Rogers brilliant analysis, he admitted a week or two back that he had once declared that book "unfilmable" and served himself some serious crow.

Mr Furious said...

Miller must-reads:

The Dark Knight Returns (obviously)
Batman: Year One
Daredevil: Born Again
Daredevil: Elektra Saga
Wolverine miniseries
Sin City (the original Marv arc)
Ronin

Tokyo Joe said...

Thanks MF for the great insider info. Actually, I never really thought 300 was either pro America in the first place (but maybe I was too overwelmed by sheer awesomeness to notice). But I think Roger is reading a bit too much to actually call it anti-American. To say that just because it doesn't get behind the "everyman" concept that was highlighted in other movies is a bit of a stretch. By that same logic, GI Joe is about as anti-American as one can get.