Skip to main content

300: Rise of an Empire

Behold! Your ship ropes will fret me mightily!
300: Rise of an Empire

The Greeks knew enough to protect themselves with shields, with helmets, so why -- you can't help but ask yourself -- did they leave the rest of their body bare when they went into battle? The movie kind of suggests an answer -- mobility. These Greeks -- especially Themistocles, their hero admiral leader -- go through their opponents like parkour street obstacles met, sliced through, hopped over, hurdled, dodged and further then into the fray. Given how we see them battle, it would have been more appropriate not to see them testing their swords' sharpness but the oil applied to their skins' sleekness. "Yes, the olive-oil slather was very well-prepared -- good thing you were a merchant before joining our citizen army, young master Hestophles!" 

I'll athletically and elegantly glide through you all!

Actually, this isn't quite fair. When muscles are so prominent and so well developed -- all extrusion -- they defy reason and actually come across as protection, armour: something that would instantly deflect a spear -- especially for their being slightly rounded; catch and also stop a sword, before it could take itself into the innards. But if I were to tell you the historical reason why Greek soldiers warred like this, went into battle with the one thing we've all learned many times that we should always aim for for it being the biggest target -- the chest -- unprotected, we'd recognize the truth of it better for having seen the absurdity of so many bare-torsoed soldiers imagining themselves the most invincible fighters ever. 

Historically, they went into battle more to sacrifice themselves than to kill -- though they were of course still highly interested in that. They dressed not just in the most militarily advisable manner possible -- until some other culture superseded their advances, as iron weapons did bronze ones -- but as much to suit the psychology of the battlefield situation: what they were there for in the first place. And battlefields are about becoming infants once again -- infantry -- and dying in a great field of corpses, thereby being permanently fused with Killer Goddesses, of which this film, we note, actually has three. 

That image the film lingers over -- of the 300 in a jigsaw-puzzle assembly of strewn bodies -- is as much a sought goal as finding the enemies' women and defiling their brains out -- an "image" we are also explicitly shown several times in the film, as if it were the penis or vagina of one whole film body the film had girded itself to brave showing entire -- like the human body in a Lars Von Trier film -- even as much it invites us to take possession of it to keep it part of film-making possibility, and therefore also experience it, participate in it, pour ourselves into it, adding leverage. You need a great sacrifice, the film argues -- even if just ostensibly to rally a whole people together, however much the lingering-over of the various fields of corpses in the film suggests it carries rather heavily its own powerful meaning and already-fulfilled purpose. You exist to serve one great female "goddess," lose your life for her, and thereby become all pure -- we certainly see this in the film, especially when Spartan Queen Gorgo finally enters the battle and Themistocles is delighted to defer to her, step aside for her, be smaller than her; and to completely humiliate and destroy enemy women. A split -- good mommy kept to yourself; bad mommy projected into enemy, and dispatched before she can do any harm to "you." 

The archetype image the sequel is hoping to prove equal to

I mentioned that there were three goddesses in the film. Two are consistent throughout as being either the all-powerful good mommy or the all-vile bad mommy -- and neither of these includes the great assassin/plotter/slaughterer Artemisia we see throughout. Queen Gorgo is pretty much literally a war goddess, a terse visage of boundless revenge-instinct and pent-up fury, who could take down an army herself. You step to her side not just to count yourself amongst her train but to avert her countenance -- let her gorgon stare be, rather, unleashed onto the enemy! 
The strained, angry, terrifying "good" mother

The other one possesses a train more literal -- Xerxes. Unique in the film, we see "her" dramatic backside even more than we do her decorated front, and it's to emphasize her as possessing female dress as much as to show the epic size of the army at her behest. 

Dressed for the occasion, with her glorious spawn

She isn't a fighter. She stands in place, almost in relaxed-muscled repose, watching galleons of men conquest or die for her. She strikes us as near delicate as her jewelry; certainly as sensitive. And also as a fair bequeather of the gross human fetus "hunchback" won to her side, whom she'll surely encase and smother over in her Persian abode -- one laired great monster curled around her monstrous hapless spawn. 

Artemisia, however, isn't always female. Sometimes she sits in her maternal throne and descends upon her "serf" commanders terse "disapprovals" with their service; but just as often she's sword in hand, and as a warrior, absolutely daunting. It's difficult to assert for sure that when she and Themistocles frontal-mate that they didn't in fact both victorily hump/hoist penises into each other. When he humps her from behind, the situation is admittedly more clear -- but then again, since here all we're seeing is -- finally! -- her (incredibly) impressive bared chest, which we know in this film is one's actually being appropriated into mannish territory, some new basis for gender confusion actually ends up bequeathed. 

Her lover, Themistocles, has the face of a rat; buck-teeth. When he charges his way through the ships he carries an aspect of blight, and actually anticipated the other animal -- the horse -- charging his formidable carcuss across water and ships -- even if he's the only one that might snip his way through all the obtruding cords. His being noticeably less pretty than Artemisia, flawed in comparison to her -- bulked up and yet still not that impressive, with her remaining plainly evident as amongst human physical heights -- somehow seems as if it's part of the tragedy she has to suffer. More her impressive physical equal died at the head of the sacrificed 300 Spartans she never met in battle -- Gerard Butler's Leonidas. At the finish with her mostly alone to herself -- with Themistocles immediately having embarrassingly retreated to just one eagerly deferent component of Queen Gorgo's army -- the primary corpse amongst all other strewn, I imagined her twinned instead to him. 

She tried mightily but failed, just like him -- cause for sensitivity and romance in a film of revenge-rapes and mass clumps of inconsequent bulked bodies for various demanding Mothers. "Go to him, Artemisia! You both stretched out a path of independence; in death, relief from a trap of thick-clotted life."


Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   

2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…