To be honest, I'm not sure why I still even bother reading his reviews. He can't seem to help but inject his political viewpoints into pretty much everything he writes, and combined with his questionable take on "humor," reading his work becomes old, quickly. I guess really the only reason I go to his page anymore is for his occasionally interesting "Answer Man" section, but even that has become tedious and juvenile. It's a shame, he used to be one of the reviewers that I would read religiously, someone whose opinion I would actively seek out when deciding whether or not to see a film, someone whose writing I enjoyed enough that I would go back and reread his review after seeing a movie, just to better appreciate his commentary.
However, with this work on 300, I believe the time has come to swear off Ebert.
In the interest of full disclosure, I love 300. I think it's an incredibly unique film, with a great message about the superiority of Western Civilization. Hopefully I'll get around to writing about it in detail some day soon. But Ebert's review is very strange, particularly given his previous affinities.
Ebert's primary complaint about 300 seems to be that it's unrealistic and over the top. He devotes four of the ten paragraphs of the review to detailing the various aspects of the film that he finds unbelievable, including the muscles of the Spartan warriors, the failure to detail the logistics of a Persian supply convoy, and the extreme scale of Xerxes and his throne (and his makeup). Ebert also takes issue multiple times with the overblown nature of the Spartan dialogue, twice likening it to pro wrestlers taunting their opponents.
These observations are all completely accurate. The majority of the film is overblown and exaggerated. But, as shown multiple times throughout the movie, the story, as shown, is basically one giant pep talk! It is being related by the lone survivor of Thermopylae to an army of 10,000 Spartans, about to go into battle against the Persians at the Battle of Plataea. The events depicted are not intended to be taken literally, they are purposefully exaggerated in order to amp up the Spartan warriors, to inspire them with the sacrifices of their king and their countrymen. For Ebert to spend nearly half his review complaining about the lack of realism is to completely ignore a rather obvious aspect of the film. It's not supposed to be taken literally.
Furthermore, Ebert takes issue with the overly excessive spectacle, the unrealistic proportions, the presumed overuse of CGI and special effects. This is a man who gave three and a half stars to the CGI-laden crapfest that was The Phantom Menace, largely based upon the excessive spectacle. I could actually forgive him for giving 300 only two stars, it's certainly not for everyone. But to do so, for the reasons stated in the review, after giving The Phantom Menace just under his highest rating, is dishonest.
This ignorance is only emphasized by Ebert's final two paragraphs:
But my deepest objection to the movie is that it is so blood-soaked. When dialogue arrives to interrupt the carnage, it's like the seventh-inning stretch. In slow motion, blood and body parts spraying through the air, the movie shows dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands, of horrible deaths. This can get depressing.
"Thousands"? The movie is a depiction of a group of ancient warriors fighting for their lives against an innumerable hoard with spears, arrows, and swords. It's gonna get bloody. For the majority of the review Ebert is complaining about the unrealistic nature of the movie, and then he wraps it up by complaining the that the film is too realistic. Make up your mind.
In old movies, ancient Greeks were usually sort of noble. Now they have become lager louts. They celebrate a fascist ideal. They assume a bloodthirsty audience, or one suffering from attention deficit (how many disembowelings do you have to see to get the idea?). They have no grace and wisdom in their speech. Nor dignity in their bearing: They strut with arrogant pride. They are a nasty bunch.
I'm sorry, "a fascist ideal"? The only aspect of Spartan society, as depicted in the film, that I could see as fascist would be the brutal eugenics of killing malformed or feeble infants at birth. Yes, this is a terrible terrible thing, as difficult to rationlize then as it is today, when it's done regularly in America and around the world, and called abortion. At least in ancient Greece is was done in order to produce warriors better able to defend their country and families from the constant threat of war and enslavement, as opposed to now, when it's done for convenience. And surely Roger Ebert doesn't think abortion is fascist.
Other than that, where does Ebert see fascism? In the voluntary and completely aware self-sacrifice of a group of volunteers on behalf of the greater good? That, and the beauty of freedom, are the only ideals I see being celebrated by the Greeks in 300.
At least, at the very last, Ebert is correct about one thing:
They strut with arrogant pride. They are a nasty bunch.
Damn right.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment