|
300 (2007)
At church on Sunday, I had six different people ask me, "What did you
think of 300?"
And on top of that, some parents asked me if the movie would be safe for
their kids. "I have some teenage boys who are very excited about it,"
one woman said. "And they tell me that it's worth seeing because it's
about history."
Well, first of all, parents, note the obvious: 300 is rated R
because it contains elaborate displays of graphic bloodshed and sex. So
that would give me pause before taking a bunch of teenagers right there.
If I was a parent, I'd probably test the movie myself first before
allowing my kids to go.
Now, we all know that trailers can be misleading. It may be
that 300 is a subtle, nuanced work of art, rich with
complex characters, revealing and thoughtful depictions of evil, and
inspiring portrayals of virtue. It may be that 300
brings history to life with compelling insight.
All I can do here is pass along what I'm reading in the reviews and
hearing from trusted friends who have seen the film and shared their
impressions with me. And if they are correct, 300
has as much to do with studying history as Looney Toons has to do with
studying wildlife.
But they could be wrong. I'm not going to judge a film I haven't
seen.
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.
Again, that's what most trustworthy critics are saying. Those aren't my
words... they're theirs.
I don't plan to see the movie. To say it's "not my cup of tea" would be
an understatement. The previews for 300 insulted my
intelligence enough ... I don't want to pay ten bucks to be insulted for
two full hours. I didn't like Braveheart -- I thought that its
many drawn-out scenes dazzling us with violence overpowered any
thoughtful consideration of virtue. I staggered out of the theater
disspirited and exhausted. Gladiator served up more of the same
(although there were moments when the film teased me with some
interesting ideas). So I just don't think that 300 is going to
be my cup of... my bucket of blood.
Claiming to give us a movie about "freedom," filmmakers are oh so glad
to serve up hours and hours of gory imagery. Thus, audiences are
immersed in entertainment that celebrates the tragic cost of freedom,
while they come away with little or no appreciation for what
freedom is, or the good that is purchased with such sacrifice.
Is 300 one of those films? I can't say. I can only refer you to some of
the responses that have seemed fairly persuasive.
Peter Suderman (ALARM!)
says, "The movie is basically Gladiator’s brain-damaged,
steroidal, coked-up younger sibling -- and not in a good way either.
Yes, the digitally painted sets and heavily processed photography look
fantastic, but that doesn’t save the movie from ending up as little more
than a blunt, witless exercise in dumb-as-rocks juvenile
wish-fulfillment. This might have been fun, at least, except for the
fact that its biggest sin is that it’s boring. Honestly, how could such
glorious depravity be so utterly yawn inducing?"
Harry Forbes (Catholic
News Service) says, "Most of the film is shot in sepia tones,
striking at first, but soon becoming tiresome. Leonidas and his
impossibly buffed soldiers facing off against digitalized weapons,
strange creatures, and seemingly thousands of enemy troops, though the
pervasive battlefield violence is somewhat tempered by the often
genuinely artful cinematography."
Via
GreenCine Daily, I found these two perspectives: Matt Singer (IFC
News): "[E]ven though 300's visual style moves beyond
simply looking good into a stylishness and pictorial beauty rarely
equaled in genre pictures, its dumbness overwhelms its prettiness. If
battle footage can be beautiful, some of it in 300 certainly is, but, oh
how stupid everything surrounding it is." And Nathan Lee (The
Village Voice): "Long ago there reigned a clan of
Speedo-wearing militaristic psychopaths called the Spartans. ... At once
homophobic and homoerotic, 300 is finally, and hilariously,
just hysterical."
Kenneth Turan (LA
Times) says, "At least in the short run, 300 is
something to see, but unless you love violence as much as a Spartan,
Quentin Tarantino or a video-game-playing teenage boy, you will not be
endlessly fascinated."
Jeff Walls (Past
the Popcorn) finds all of this big screen dismemberment and sex
"exhilarating." "Filmed using the same technique as Sky Captain and
the World of Tomorrow, and the previously released adaptation of
Miller’s Sin City, the film’s visuals are hyper-real. It’s a
technique that works wonderfully for the film. Had the battle scenes
been filmed more realistically, like those in Gladiator or
Braveheart, the action itself would have had to be based more in
reality, and it would not have been nearly as exhilarating."
Lawrence Toppman (Charlotte
Observer) is similarly impressed. "300 is a huge step
forward in visually sophisticated storytelling." Okay, so it's visually
sophisticated. But shouldn't we care about what purpose all of
this sophistication serves?
Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk)
does not share Toppman's enthusiasm. "300 spends most of its
running time showing is not the origins of freedom, nor the bravery of
fighting men, but a 'grotesque spectacle' demonstrating how we pursue
our basic instincts: survival, sex and a thirst for brutal, bloody
entertainment. ... Visually compelling but saddled with a flat script,
[the movie] is a loud, furious view of early warfare – a shell of a
great tale that, for a brief time, covers its weaknesses with striking
images. But the bottom falls out early, leading to a punishing sit for
those who aren’t interested primarily in seeing the myriad methods of
death for ancient warriors."
Adam R. Holz (Plugged
In) testifies: "I watched as scores of moviegoers (mostly men)
walked to their cars laughing and pounding each other on the back. You'd
have thought we'd all just seen Top Gun for the first time.
Such is the influence of the latest big-screen Frank Miller adaptation,
a hyper-violent, hyper-masculine ode to honor and duty by way of blood,
blood and more blood. Did I mention the blood?"
Some are finding political commentary in the film, such as "David Kahane"
of
The New Republic.
Meanwhile, there's
already some buzz about what Zack Snyder might do to "sucker punch"
audiences next time.
40
Days and 40 Nights (2002)
Hollywood is often accused —
and found guilty —
of presenting teen sex as a normal and
acceptable part of adolescence. Hollywood's figureheads often
respond saying, "We're just telling it like it is." It's a classic
chicken-or-the-egg dilemma: Are movies causing
teenagers to believe this is acceptable behavior, or are these
moviemakers merely reflecting the culture?
Surely the answer falls somewhere between the two
extremes. But the arrival of Michael Lehmann's
40 Days and 40 Nights will
certainly add fuel to the fire of those who blame Hollywood. The film
tells the story of a popular college student whose girlfriend breaks up with him,
and he responds with a series of one-night stands. Shockingly, he finds
these exchanges to be unsatisfying. So he takes a vow of abstinence …
for a little more than a month. Unthinkable? The movie treats his
attempt as a ludicrous idea. But do most people agree that it's
well-nigh impossible for a high schooler to go a month without sex? Has
sex become so cheapened that abstinence has become a joke? If this movie
is reflecting the experience of today's high schooler, we're in deep
trouble.
I'd like to hear from you. Are the movies reflecting the
realities of the contemporary high school experience? If so, which
movies are most true? Have you seen any films that show admirable
high schoolers? What are they? Write me
here.
The folks who made 40 Days
are responding to criticism with scorn, as if to say, "Hey, relax, it's
only a comedy. We're not trying to be serious." But then again the star
of the movie, teen idol Josh Hartnett, was recently asked by
Yahoo if he had tried going a month without sex. He laughed and said
he didn't think he could do it. Yahoo, indeed. What a role model.
Hartnett deflected the criticism of religious filmgoers, claiming his
Catholic grandmother thought the film was funny. Is Hartnett himself
Catholic? "I'm kind of an ex-Catholic. I went to Catholic school. I
really kind of have minimal religion right now. I'm kind of a spiritual
person, but not all that religious."
Religious press critics are, as anticipated, very
displeased with the film.
The U,S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says, "Snickering at the
Catholic Church's teaching on pre-marital sex … Lehmann's one-joke film
exploits the holy season of Lent as a cynical pretext for abstinence."
Phil Boatwright writes, "40 Days
is one long sex joke aimed to arouse the viewer as much as the film's
protagonist."
Steven Isaac (Focus
on the Family) remarks, "40 Days and 40
Nights does nothing more than celebrate illicit sex by, among
other things, demonstrating how intolerable life is without it. That's a
boldface lie, but it's a lie that a lot of folks have given in to."
Mainstream critics dismissed the film as empty-headed.
Roger Ebert gives the director Michael Lehmann some credit, saying
he "has a sympathy for his characters that elevates the story above the
level of a sexual sitcom. He uses humor as an instrument to examine
human nature, just as he did in the wonderful, underrated
The Truth About Cats and Dogs.
Amazing, what a gulf there is between movies about characters governed
by their genitals, and this movie about a character trying to govern his
genitals." But he argues that the ending of the film is unfortunate,
disappointing, and even offensive.
Regardless of these widespread critical condemnations,
the movie took second place at the box office this week. Parents, did
you let your kids go see it? If so, you might want to talk to them and
find out if they found it true to their own experience.
* * * * *
Peter T. Chattaway, occasional media writer for
Books & Culture,
Christianity Today, and Canadian
Christianity, has an article in The
Vancouver Sun this week on 40 Days
and 40 Nights. Chattaway is troubled by the way this
film, like so many, portrays sexual abstinence as ludicrous and
well-nigh impossible. His complaint "is not that it exaggerates the
significance of sex, but that it does so to the point where sex seems to
eclipse just about every other way of relating to people. Abstinence
becomes just another way to kink sex up, as Matt and his new girlfriend
look for loopholes in his vow of chastity, which is due to expire in a
few weeks anyway. The film plays on the notion that life without sex is
untenable. But honestly, for some of us at least, it isn't all that
bad."
I planted my foot—or rather, my keyboard—in my mouth
last week when I described 40 Days and 40
Nights as being about a high school senior. I apologize—I was
going on second-hand information this time around and failed to
double-check my facts. Apparently, the main character is older,
college-age, and thus my questions about the film's accuracy in
portraying high school life were rather off the mark.
However, I did receive several differing
responses from high schoolers, affirming that yes, sexual activity among
their peers is troublingly frequent. In their experience, classmates not
only engage in regular sexual escapades, but also ridicule those who
abstain.
It was nice, though, to see one student write, "I am a
17-year old high school junior, and … most movies that I have seen do
not reflect high school for me. My friends and I do not have constant
sex, we are not made fun of because of that, and we are not
embarrassed." She argues that the truly embarrassing thing is the way
that movies portray high schoolers.
Mike Clawson writes in, "I don't find that most teen
movies portray positive values. One teen movie that I found to be highly
entertaining and which had a positive message worked into it was
10 Things I Hate About You, a clever and
funny adaptation of Shakespeare's' Taming of the
Shrew. Furthermore, as the story develops we get to hear a main
character (Kat) openly discuss the negative consequences of deciding to
give up her virginity. Other parts of the movie show the negative side
effects of excessive drinking, and positively portray characters who
make their own decisions based on their personal values rather than just
following the crowd. 10 Things certainly
isn't a morality tale, but it is a funny movie with an overall virtuous
message."
"What irritates me most," writes Rick de Geier, "is the
quasi-moralistic message these movies always end with—'Sex is fun, and
it's okay to experiment with it, but good buddies are more important'—as
if that makes everything all right. … I don't turn to movies for answers
to my problems, but to be moved by honest, happy or sad stories. What I
look for is realism. I enjoy a realistic character far better than a
hero who hardly shows any weakness."
He recommends the Swedish film
Show Me Love, "about a 15-year old nerdy girl who falls in love
with the coolest girl from her class, somewhere in a boring Swedish
suburb. They're shown kissing once or twice, but the movie isn't about
homosexuality, it's about the hopes and insecurities of young teenagers.
The way they can be both sincerely sweet and exceptionally cruel toward
each other. I haven't seen 15-year olds portrayed more realistic in any
other movie I've seen. It's quite tragic, but it's so much more honest
than all this American Pie trash.
"Another recent film about teens I really enjoyed was
Ghost World. It was very dark, but
again—honest. I felt like I knew the two cynical girls who seem to be
living in a dumb, insane place, because that's how I felt when I was a
teen in my own little alternative subculture. The way they hated
everything around them was maybe not 'Christian' or 'admirable', but it
was so recognizable to me that I thought it was terribly funny and sad
at the same time. The movie definitely has a message: negativity will
make you bitter and lonely. I like the fact that the movie doesn't have
a happy end, but does show a bit of hope for the characters at the end
(just like in real life)."
49 Up
(2006)
If you haven't yet discovered Michael Apted's "Up"
series, you've missed out on one of the most extraordinary moviegoing
experiences we've ever been offered.
In 1964, Apted began his series of landmark
documentaries by interviewing a group of several seven-year-olds from
different areas in London, and promising us that this glimpse would give
us strong indications of what these individuals would become later in
life. In a sense, he set out to envision the future of Britain.
And so, he began making follow-up films every seven
years, checking in on what was happening in each individual's life. What
began as a project for television moved to the big screen. Now, all of
them are now available on DVD
in a convenient boxed set: 7 Up, Seven Plus Seven, 21 Up, 28 Up,
35 Up, and 42 Up.
Thus, for those who have followed this "reality
big-screen" drama, which has been full of delightful surprises and
devastating turns, the arrival of 49 Up is a reason to
rejoice.
Ron Reed (Christianity
Today Movies) raves about the series, saying, "Apted's ongoing
documentary project is one of the most singular and transcendent
expressions to emerge during the first century of this newest art form,
and it is our privilege to be able to watch it as it unfolds—every seven
years, to be given so intimate and respectful a window on the journeys
of these dozen souls. And to be led in turn, inevitably, to examine our
own lives, and to look at the lives of those around us with a longer
view, a perspective that's something close to Divine."
He says the film is "utterly essential viewing,
particularly for those of us scanning these crowds for some sign of
God's face (to paraphrase Bruce Cockburn). The 'Up' films rarely delve
into matters that are specifically religious, yet they are suffused with
something deeply spiritual. … [I]n this most recent installment in the
cycle, God's grace is all the more explicitly and abundantly evident in
one particular life—and, remarkably, director Apted gives this divine
'plot twist' pride of place in his documentary."
Almost unanimous in their rapturous praise,
mainstream critics are celebrating this as another brilliant chapter
in a monumental achievement.
|
