Groover ! Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 Saw it again tonight and picked up some things I didn't the first time round.................. mate I love this move !
Skid_MacMarx Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 just to put the record "straight" .. I'm not knocking the film ..even if it had blatant homosexuality through it (which is the case of one my favourite Verhoven films Fourth Man .. I feel its an excellent psychological thriller and a good laugh at certain icons) I mainly just wanted to know if anyone shares Stratton's view that The film uses a muted colour palette which impresses at first but soon becomes tedious, as does the endless scenes of battlefield blood-letting. http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s1874951.htm It appears from many comments posted so far this is not the case..
Mr_Gimlet Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 I mainly just wanted to know if anyone shares Stratton's view that[/b] http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s1874951.htm It appears from many comments posted so far this is not the case.. I think I can understand where he is coming from. Stratton has expressed views on a number of occasions that he has a clear picture of film as a medium - so, for example, Andrew Denton's 'God' documentary is, to Stratton, not a film. I think the point of Stratton's comment is that, at its core, 300 is a graphic novel made into a film - and this film maintains all the stylistic conventions of the book it was based on. Although some films like V for Vendetta have imported some of the style of their graphic novel origins, 300 has extended this to an almost cell by cell remake of the book. So Stratton is saying this isn't really a film in his eyes. I thought it was very close to an animation with some real people. However, part of the storyline is that the action is through the narrator's story which is clearly embellished - and so in the same way the narrator dresses up the story, so the filming style reflects that. It's Nuremberg-style film-making.
Waylander Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 A visual feast however no character development left me not really caring if the Spartans won or lost.
KeithL Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 A visual feast however no character development left me not really caring if the Spartans won or lost. Exactly my thoughts too. OT: Your screen name doesn't refer to a certain David Gemmel character does it?
hired goon Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 G'day, I think the point of Stratton's comment is that, at its core, 300 is a graphic novel made into a film - and this film maintains all the stylistic conventions of the book it was based on. Although some films like V for Vendetta have imported some of the style of their graphic novel origins, 300 has extended this to an almost cell by cell remake of the book. So Stratton is saying this isn't really a film in his eyes. I dunno about that -- I think the Stratton quote above refers to the director's choice of a limited and sepia-toned colour palette. David Stratton seems to dislike any conceit (apart from B&W, I assume) that restricts the film's full-range of colours or lighting available (for example, his loathing of the Dogme style of film-making from a few years ago in which the directors refused to use artificial lighting, make-up, etc). I thought it was very close to an animation with some real people. However, part of the storyline is that the action is through the narrator's story which is clearly embellished - and so in the same way the narrator dresses up the story, so the filming style reflects that. It's Nuremberg-style film-making. Dare I say that "300" was Riefenstahl-esque? --Geoff
Waylander Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 Exactly my thoughts too.OT: Your screen name doesn't refer to a certain David Gemmel character does it? OT - Yes it does - a pity he died last year mid way through his Troy trilogy. Good author though. If you like him you will also like Conn Igguldens 'Emperor' series. Fantastic books on Julius Ceasar. I guess this is a bit on topic as the stories are of epic battles in very similar settings to 300.
Gutty Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 If it was a movie about the American slave trade and someone referred to the Africans as the N word would that be ok? I hardly see my reference as being even remotely like that. The way i see it "homo" is simply an abbreviation of homosexual. It's not slang, it's not derogatory, it's what same sex couples are. Just like i'm "hetro" and deffinately don't take offense at being called just that. Also, it was said as "tongue in cheek" at all those who insist on implying the whole film had homosexual references. It was a joke ! In any case, if i have infact offended ANYONE on the forum, i do sincerely appologize. I can no longer edit the post, but i'm more than happy to report myself and have the mods do so. Matt Edit: Done.... Dobbed myself in , reported the post and asked to have it removed.
Recommended Posts