300: Don't Look Too Closely
Lately, '300' has been catching some flak for its demeaning portrayal of women and glorification of Whitey (the bad guys are a horde of lumpy, deformed perverts with skin black as pitch). Let's put on our hip boots, and wade out into the swampy muck of lit-crit.
First off, I have to admit I knew absolutely nothing about Frank Miller prior to 300. I don't read comic books, I had never heard of him before this project, but apparently he's known for writing women poorly. Either they're lusty, moisture-drenched prostitutes who exist solely to get killed, or they're really men. When Leonidas leaves for battle, his queen doesn't show any tears, but instead gives him the stoic, soldierly admonition "come back with your shield, or on it". In Miller-World, weakness is a feminine characteristic (= bad), and therefore the women he admires can't display it. On the other hand, male villains like Xerxes and the Joker are depicted as weak, androgynous, and dandified.
For Miller to have that reputation is quite an achievement in an industry riddled with misogynist tropes. In comic books, female "superheroes" are almost always costumed in ridiculously impractical crime-fighting outfits. In the middle of gun battles, they stop to open their mouths and assume kittenish centerfold poses. Just once, I'd like to see Superman fight off a gang of muggers while wearing four-inch stilettos, pasties, and a G-string. And you'd never catch Batman stopping to pout for the camera in a pair of skintight, assless chaps. (Of course, we ARE talking about a film filled with ripped dudes in leather codpieces....)
Now I realize I'm not the main audience for these things, but I object to the geek-culture notion that it's somehow cool and OK and empowering to have these weird fantasy comic-book women flaunting unrealistic bodies while kicking bad-guy butt, because it's "ironic" and not being done seriously. In order to qualify as irony, it has to challenge the conventions it's supposedly mocking, not simply carve out a narrative space using the same tired cliches and declare it immune to conventional criticism just because it's self-conscious.
To be fair, one could similarly fault Miller for painting men one-dimensionally. He reduces masculinity to the simple formula muscles + toughness + killing + did we mention that Spartans aren't gay? = MANLY MEN. Throughout the book, male privilege is fetishized. The Spartans constantly subject each other to physical punishment and poke fun at the "boy-loving" Athenians. The irony, of course, is that homosexuality was a huge part of Spartan culture. Adult men were encouraged to take young teenage boys as lovers. Wives were kidnapped, shaved, dressed like men (!), then kept sequestered in barracks. Conjugal visits were limited to the minimum necessary for procreation. This fact gets conveniently swept under the rug here.
As for racism, I did wonder, when I read the book, why Xerxes was portrayed as a sort of transvestite African hip-hop god. All that's missing is a Mercedes hood ornament around his neck. Again, in geek culture, that's nothing new. Bad guys and aliens are often given Asian/African features and accents (see, for example, Star Wars I, which I recommend you don't, because it's really bad. That movie is full of layers and layers of nonsense. It's like a lasagna of stupid.)
Another criticism being levelled at 300 is that it's apparently full of thinly veiled America-vs.-Iraq propaganda. There's lots of talk about how "Freedom isn't free, it must be paid for with blood," and so forth. That's worrying, for a couple of reasons. One, Spartans weren't "free". They were a highly repressive proto-fascist society intolerant of difference and dissent. Sure, they weren't slaves, but only because they chose to submit themselves to the state (the alternative being death or banishment). Both Leonidas and Xerxes have the desire to bend men to their will, but Xerxes is only "bad" because he has the wherewithal to conquer the world.
And secondly, I have...um...issues with viewing historical events through the lens of current affairs. Particularly when the historical event is being presented as a cut-and-dried battle between good and evil, while the current event is messy and complicated and fueled by faulty intelligence and a complete lack of policy apparatus. In both cases, phrases like "strength" and "freedom" and "sacrifice" are repeatedly invoked as justifications for war, but these words become downright Orwellian when used to peddle a modern-day war of choice in the Middle East against a straw enemy. Anybody who thinks the US attacking Iraq compares favorably with a brave stand of 300 soldiers defending their homeland against a massive invading superpower army might want to think again. There is no analogy. Unless it's to the Persians.
I guess if we want to still enjoy 300, we shouldn't peer too closely at the plot subtexts, or require too much complexity of it, and instead pay attention to the innovative visual effects. And the abs. For now, I'm reserving judgment because I respect David immensely and want him to do well.
Posted by dessicatedcoconut
at 11:08 AM EST
Updated: February 1, 2007 3:05 PM EST
lazy
smelly