Zack Snyder's Film 300
Gerrard Butler and a Greek Xerxes and Leonides Battle for Boxoffice
A critical analysis of the recent film entitled 300.
How important is subtext when dealing with an action movie? That really is the operative question when considering the film 300. It’s an important question in our critical deliberation because it is apparent through the marketing efforts and the allocation of screen time within the film itself that 300 is designed to appeal as a high octane “swords and sandals” action film, like Gladiator but with less talk and more lacerating.
The movie is a kind of super-masculine heavy metal ballet, a celebration of decapitation, six-pack abs, impalement and freakish monsters. At this level at least, the film works beautifully, and, if this is what you are looking for in cinema, you will be entertained. It is perhaps the most overwhelmingly aggressive film in recent memory. The majority of the lines are either screamed or barked through clenched teeth. All problems are solved by someone getting stabbed; what discourse there is in the movie is almost entirely political hortation, usually referencing sending armies or not to destroy the invading hordes.
The first impression one gets of the film is the exaggerated masculinity, but not simply in the action (or violence) movie vein. This is an explosive male exposition that goes beyond warrior culture or bravado into the realm of the homoerotic. The Spartans wear nearly no clothing, only leather underwear and long red capes. This is a feature of the graphic novel from which the movie comes; the Spartans here represented are comic book caricatures of Spartan soldiers. The exaggerated physicality of the Spartan soldiers is an idiosyncrasy of the comic book form.
The movie is in no sense historically accurate so it isn’t necessary to give the Spartans historically correct body armor. Furthermore, there is no body hair in this film. Not one follicle. None. The Spartans are Greeks, who, I must tell you, are a hairy people. While it is the custom in our culture for male body builders with well-defined chests to shave them, it seems at least suggestive to have the Spartan soldiers’ legs hairless as well. It is as if this film is an exposition of some alternate universe where human beings evolved in exceedingly warm climates, free from the need for furry chests.
On the surface the film is fiercely heterosexual, fiercely masculine. Leonidas, the king, main character and symbol for all that is good and righteous and manly in the world, has one sex scene in the film, with the only female character, his queen. The villain of the film, the God king Xerxes, is an intentionally feminine figure. It is important to note that Xerxes in the film is not meant to be an accurate depiction of any historical figure. Xerxes here is a Symbol of totalitarianism, sexual perversion and corruption. He is Evil in the most melodramatic and cartoonish sense. He wears ludicrous amounts of gold jewelry, thick black eyeliner and gold makeup and sports the Spartan recommended hairless chest. This film places it’s symbols of femininity in the realm of the evil or the sexually dominated, or as something that doesn’t exist at all.
In the beginning of the film Leonidas must acquire the blessing of a group of religious leaders. Without their approval the King cannot hope to bring the country to war. The priests are disgusting, deformed, inbred monsters that essentially rape adolescent women and are revealed to be traitors to Xerxes. Leonidas never invokes any religious or mystical language when exhorting his men so the main ideological opposition in the film is one between secular reason and religion, which in this context is synonymous with corruption and sexual perversion.
If you want a loud, pretty, bloody movie, there are few as qualified. Forget the plot, history, themes; none of these are edifying. If you can (or wish to) do that, this is the film for you.
