Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Looking Closer

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Opus on “300”, and More on Why I’m Not Getting in Line

Opus on “300”, and More on Why I’m Not Getting in Line

Last updated on: February 9, 2013 at 9:12 pm by Jeffrey Overstreet

Opus on “300”, and More on Why I’m Not Getting in Line 2013-02-09T21:12:53-07:00 Jeffrey Overstreet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I’m responding yet again about the movie 300 for this simple reason:

I have been baited, again and again, into extremely violent or explicit films that proved to be empty… and worse, even abusive to audiences.

I have been told, “You have got to see it!”, and I’ve been promised that all of the graphic material was justified because of what it meant. “It’s about fighting for freedom! It’s about fighting for a higher cause!”

Most of the time, I’ve regretted it. While a character or two might say a few words about honor and courage in the film, they’re really just saying them. Time and time again, I’ve staggered out of the theater, weary, dispirited, beaten down by all of the graphic bloodshed on the screen, with precious little to think about or discuss. And I haven’t learned the slightest thing about freedom, truth, love, or what’s worth fighting for.

Dick Staub blogged yesterday that I’m just dismissing 300 as blood, guts and sex. If I understand him correctly, he’s saying that I missed the point as to why it’s popular:

It would be easy to dismiss 300 and to explain it’s popularity among young men by pointing out its gratuitous nudity and mind-numbing, over the top violence.

Reviewers I respect have taken this position–Jeffrey Overstreet decided not to see the movie commenting, “300 is rated R because it is an elaborate display of graphic bloodshed and sex… the film exists primarily to show off dazzling digital effects and to thrill audiences with a spectacle of gratuitous violence.”

I think there may be other explanations for the popularity of 300.

First of all, Staub’s excerpt of my post is misleading.

I did not say “the film exists primarily to show off dazzling digital effects and thrill audiences with a spectacle of gratuitous violence.”

I said this: “While reviewers are divided over whether the film is worth seeing, they almost unanimously agree that the storytelling is shallow and insignificant, and that the film exists primarily to show off dazzling digital effects and thrill audiences with a spectacle of gratuitous violence.”

See the difference? I was telling you what *other people* claim, not what I claim.

Okay. Now onto his point that there “may be other explanations for the popularity of 300.”

I agree. I’m sure there are plenty of explanations for why people would watch 300.

There are also plenty of explanations for why people watch the World Wrestling Federation. You can easily excuse all of the WWF’s excess, brutality, and sexploitation by saying, “Well, people are easily drawn into cheering for a symbolic battle of good versus evil.” But if we stop our analysis there, well, we’ve just thrown the door open wide for all kinds of exploitation.

Again, I haven’t seen 300… and I’m holding back based on the responses of some thoughtful moviegoing friends. So, to “flesh out” some of the reasons why I’m not convinced I need to see the film, I’ve obtained permission from Jason Moreheadto re-print his full review of 300 at Looking Closer.

You can read it there now, and maybe you’ll see why I’m not too keen on seeing Zack Snyder’s film “about freedom” at this point.

In fact, I would be very pleased if the film represented all of the things Staub suggests it does.

But I have yet to read a persuasive review that tells me just how the film accomplishes all of that noble stuff about freedom and virtue and fighting for something meaningful.

Friends who have attended the film have testified that the young men who are making the film a box office success are not walking out of the cinema talking about freedom and virtue… but about just how many cool ways that human beings were butchered in the film.

That’s not encouraging.

Hey, I speak as a big fan of Fight Club and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and Branagh’s Henry V. I think Full Metal Jacket and The Thin Red Line are great films. I don’t mind battle scenes, so long as they are essential to a meaningful work of art. They have their place in a story where a great deal is at stake … for characters that have been powerfully developed.

But I didn’t care for Braveheart, or Gladiator, or Troy, because the plots felt like excuses to unleash big screen mayhem. They were simplistic frameworks on which to hang far more violence than we needed to see. The violence was portrayed with so much energy and so much screen time that the rest of the story was given short shrift. I wasn’t drawn into complex and interesting characters. Sure, there were moments in which these things began to emerge (I’m intrigued by how Gladiator scratches the surface of an interesting story about father/son relationships), but then the film’s urgency to get to the next big spectacle of bloodshed left me reeling, wanting so much more storytelling.

Those films exhausted me. And they undercut their own messages so severely that most of the guys I know left the theaters raving about moments of exhilarating death blows rather than how the story might change their lives. Just watching people shred each other while shouting “freedom!” doesn’t do anything for me. I’d rather watch football.

It’s all as disingenuous as a movie about a husband avenging the death of the wife he loved above all else in the world… a husband who stops along the way to “seize the day” and make love with a sexy princess who has a crush on him. Ahhh… the power of love. (Ahem, Braveheart, ahem.)

And what about 300‘s sex scenes? Perhaps they are depicted responsibly. Perhaps they are meaningful, appropriate, and contribute significantly to the story. I don’t know. But based on what I’m reading in the reviews, I have a hunch….

If I’m going to see 300, that will happen because someone convinced me that it’s a meaningful, worthwhile work.

As it is, I’m missing too many great films right now. (There are some masterpieces being revived on the big screen in Seattle right now, and I’m missing them all due to deadlines. I haven’t seen any of the local Christian film reviewers or cultural commentators blogging about the historic significance and meaning in films like Renoir’s The Rules of the Game or the revival of Jacques Rivette’s films…. and these are films that remain important for decades, regardless of the latest innovations in animation.)

I understand that Staub is trying to address why 300 is popular… and as far as that goes, I respect his insight and even agree with him. Staub has a lot of wisdom when it comes to cultural trends and why they happen.

But here, Staub is talking about the audience, why they are buying tickets, and what the seekers are looking for. I, on the other hand, am talking about the film itself, what it delivers, and how it won’t give those seekers
what they’re looking for.

Sure… people (mostly men) are flocking to 300, and they may find some glimmers of meaning to help them make sense of the madness in the world around them. But the question remains… is the work actually honorable and meaningful? Should we embrace it and encourage more films like it? Or are we kidding ourselves, and coming up with a convenient excuse for our enjoyment of sex and violence?

I’m just asking.

If we really want to stimulate cultural discussion about important themes, I suggest we focus our attention on films that explore those themes in responsible, rewarding, exemplary ways. If your high school boys are really so interested in history, I suspect that I can find a few that will teach them a heckuvalot more than 300 does. Again, I may be wrong. But it’s just a hunch…

As always, I reserve the right to be wrong.

*(For the record, I thought Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven struck a better balance than most … especially Scott’s director’s cut. That movie actually tried hard to be about something, even if I still don’t like the conclusions it reached.)

Previous Post

March 20, 2007

Film Forum: The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Premonition, I Think I Love My Wife

Next Post

March 22, 2007 One of My Favorite Clowns

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog Bloggers on "Through a Screen Darkly" Browser Coming Soon Endorsements Fiction Books Film Forum Film Reviews Inspirations Interviews Journal Kindlings Muse Movie buzz Music Reviews Non-Fiction Books radio Reviewers on "Through a Screen Darkly" The Auralia Thread Through a Screen Darkly Through a Screen Darkly - Bonus Materials Top 10 (or 20 or 100) lists Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 July 2003 May 2003 March 2003 September 1999

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many wise men visited baby Jesus?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Four Two Three The Bible doesn’t say