300 (not members)

[Wensleydale]

The Braveheart Commitee Meeting

Producer: So, Mel, you want to make a film about... William Wallace?

Mel Gibson: Uh, yeah.

Producer: *shuffles through the script* Uh, I see you've included some... interesting new features.

Mel: Uh. Yeah, well. I wanted to capture, like, the FEEL of these scotsmen, you know? How they fought and all.

Producer: Mel, I'm sorry to tell you this. There is no evidence at all that scotsmen ever. Ever. Ever. Did moonies at the english.

Mel: Oh, that's the comic relief.

Producer: Riiiight... and this love scene?

Mel: Uh, well. It's an ACTION movie. Come ON, the woman's husband has a fetish for his advisor.

Producer: I see. And... all this completely made-up crap about Brucey-boy betraying Wallace?

Mel: Uhm. Uhm... well, like, I made that up to make Wallace look... um... better... yeah...

'Nuff said? :P Historical action movies tend to be crapz0rz where it comes to historical accuracy.

[Kalos Mer]

Not a fan of Braveheart, either.  I mean, I guess my position is taking shape as 'don't do historical action movies'.

Although again, Braveheart did succeed better than 300 at actually keeping some more drama/intrigue than 300 did, to my sense at least.

[SA]

If you misinterpreted that statement, my apologies.  I was being ironic (hence why I parenthetically pointed out that I was about to actively engage in such "quote-unquote" foolishness alongside you), but it can be hard to achieve without on a message board without obviously identifying the fact, which then defeats the purpose...

Besides which, if I was being serious, it would be rather hypocritical to continue this discussion (as I will now do) let alone entering it in the first place. (Ever laughed at someone who criticised a thread then proceeded to post a Masters Thesis-worth of tripe?  It's absurd)

As to the idea that we shouldn't do historical action movies, why not?  They often achieve tremendous commercial success (and if you don't think that's a good enough justification, you may not enjoy the 21st century all that much), and they can be highly entertaining to all but the most ardent intellectuals.  I say "Do 'em hard and fast, and I'll pay to see them again and a again as long as they're good movies."

Remember, 300 wasn't made for historians, which is a shame because I too am irritated by historical inaccuracies, but all that means is that we must wait for a film that is more accurate.  If such a film never comes, that's cool.  I'll watch Discovery Channel instead.

EDIT: 300 looks like Historical Fantasy to me.  A shade different to historical action, even if that's how it's advertised.

[Kalos Mer]

I am not ashamed to call myself an ardent intellectual.

I am well aware that the Dollar is king in Hollywood, and that the American public very much likes historical action movies.  The American public as a whole seems to have little patience for movies with intricate plots or with subtlety anymore, if indeed they ever did.  I simply disdain this 'dumbing down' of the greatest generations of our ancestors to appease the common throng.   </elitist>

The noble memory of Thermopylae could have been used for so much more than a sequence of gratuitous sex and action scenes linked together with clipped, shouted dialogue. (Remember when movies used to have speeches in them?)

As a classicist, and particularly a historian and Homerist, I'm especially embittered because the traditions I've given my life to have already been gruesomely bastardized by two additional movies in the past 3 years (Troy and Alexander)  To see it done a third time, and especially to the story that made me who I am today, has struck a particularly potent nerve.

I don't need a '300' made for historians.  I just wanted a '300' for thinking, literate people.  (I am, however, aware that in the modern United States, targeting a movie at thinking, literate people guarantees rather small revenue.)

[SA]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and there is nothing elitist in your comments.  If they made an intelligent, provocative film out of Thermopylae, I'd by ecstatic, but we will not see such a film on a budget of 300's scale without first educating the masses on the "qualities" of a "good" movie.  When the public smartens up, then maybe Hollywood will be willing to spend 50+ Million on a good film (so-called).

Of course, that assumes one needs such a budget.  How much would it cost if The Lion in Winter was made today?  Probably a fraction of your average modern blockbuster.  Damn I love that movie.

But let's not lose faith in the viability of film as art.  I'll be seeing 300 as soon as it comes out in Oz, and you can be assured I'll like it a lot more than you probably did, but when (that's when, not if) they make the faithful, artistic and articulate film we're all longing to see, I'll be all the more enthusiastic.

[Túrin]

I'm going to see the movie tonight!

I agree with SA's sentiments: I won't be minding history too much and just enjoy the movie.

@ KM: Try not to let it get to you. ;)

Túrin

[Kalos Mer]

*sigh*  I know, I know, you guys are right.  It's just really hard to take the dumbing-down of Western Civilization when it strikes at the heart of my most beloved stories, you know?

First they brutalized Homer (the first word of the Iliad enjoins the goddess to sing of the *wrath* of Achilles, not the *whining* of Achilles).  Then they wimped out on Alexander.  And now this...

It's just... there doesn't seem to be any going back from this, you know?  No way to reverse the tide of anti-intellectualism in film and the public consciousness generally.

I recently had a chance to go and give presentations to a couple high schools about Indo-European.  I took the opportunity to do a quick survey about a couple things I've been curious about.

Out of 146 students asked total, *12* said that they still read fiction for pleasure.  *2* said they read nonfiction for pleasure.

These sorts of things get an old-beyond-his-years scholar rather down in the dumps, you know?  I mean, at least truly old scholars have the grim consolation that they'll die before the situation gets too much worse.  I can look forward to (hopefully no more than) another half century or so of it.

[Túrin]

So I went to the movie expecting some devoid-of-content bashing, and I got what I paid for. I really liked the movie.

That said, the complete lack of a story (in the moral sense) still shone through, and hurt even a movie of this kind. Seriously: saying "We fight for a just cause" three times does not make it any more true than saying it once. Saying why this is true would, but the short answer they gave ("Freedom") didn't make any sense, given the nature of Sparta and the complete lack of explanation of the relations with the other Greek states and with Persia.

Oh well. At least I had an enjoyable evening.

Túrin

[SA]

...given the nature of Sparta...

Come to think of it, those Spartans were pretty horrible bastards...

[SDragon]

*sigh*  I know, I know, you guys are right.  It's just really hard to take the dumbing-down of Western Civilization when it strikes at the heart of my most beloved stories, you know?

First they brutalized Homer (the first word of the Iliad enjoins the goddess to sing of the *wrath* of Achilles, not the *whining* of Achilles).  Then they wimped out on Alexander.  And now this...

It's just... there doesn't seem to be any going back from this, you know?  No way to reverse the tide of anti-intellectualism in film and the public consciousness generally.

I recently had a chance to go and give presentations to a couple high schools about Indo-European.  I took the opportunity to do a quick survey about a couple things I've been curious about.

Out of 146 students asked total, *12* said that they still read fiction for pleasure.  *2* said they read nonfiction for pleasure.

These sorts of things get an old-beyond-his-years scholar rather down in the dumps, you know?  I mean, at least truly old scholars have the grim consolation that they'll die before the situation gets too much worse.  I can look forward to (hopefully no more than) another half century or so of it.

I completely understand how butchering stories for the sake of the masses is worse when they're some of your personal favorite stories. When Spiderman came out, the one question that constantly made me cringe was, "What are webshooters?". I can only presume you have the same reaction to, "But the lobstermen were cool!".

That said, it eventually got to the point where I said "screw it. They're not going to tell the same story I've enjoyed all these years, but with any luck, at least it'll still be a semi-decent movie." In fact, it's gotten to the point where I see the commercial success as a compliment to the story; If even such a chopped-up version has such strong appeal, then surely the original is that much better (the inverse of this, of course, is that commercial failure can "only" be due to the hack-job adaptation. It's a win-win situation)!

In short... I dunno. I agree with everybody here, but I really do sympathize.

[Sarandosil]

This will probably betray my political leanings, but...

I felt that whoever made this movie was either very confused about what freedom or liberty mean, or were very confused on where they wanted this movie to go. I didn't go in expecting any historical accuracy (and that era of history isn't my strong point anyway), but it blew my mind that they overlayed the lofty speeches about freedom and liberty over a totalitarian society that emphasized militarism and conscripted children in preparation for it. Historical accuracy obviously wasn't too much of a concern, so the least they could have done is actually change it enough and portray an idealised  free Spartan society. Hollywood movies generally have no intellectual merit to them, I'm not expecting that so much either but when other movies dumb down the ideas presented they at least work out the events in the movie to not contradict the entire theme they're presenting. At no point in the movie did any of the ideals they presented- reason, rationality, freedom, liberty etc. have any concretes in the movie they could point to, in fact just the opposite- a blind adherence to duty which many cultures did emphasize historically, but have no place being lumped in with the individualism inherent in most people's conception of liberty.  The dialouge seriously felt like something they just tacked on to fill the gaps between action scenes, and they only went on about freedom and liberty simply because of our own cultural affinities.

At some point it occured to me that it's probably a reflection of the fact that the words freedom and liberty have become so ingrained into people by rote that you could overlay them onto anything and people would not notice any contradiction because by and large no one has an inkling of the philosophic underpinnings that gave rise to the popularity of these concepts to begin with.

The other part that bothered me was that this strikes me as a thinly veiled political movie, although I'll admit I'm probably just reading too much into it. It says to me BOO! Terrormarists are coming ta take away yer freedomz, you should be prepared to blindly hand over your life to protect teh freedomz.

If I knew more about the history of the era I'd probably have twice as much to complain about.