Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
BravestOfTheLamps
Oct 12, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Lipstick Apathy
What we're seeing is pepole accurately identifying that the Spartans as portrayed by 300 are bad when you get down to it, but then arguing that the movie can't meant that because of some nebulous "sincerity" that leads fascists to enjoy the movie or something.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
The only thing those audience reactions show is that movie audiences are quite stupid and easily swayed by even satirical propaganda.

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

What we're seeing is pepole accurately identifying that the Spartans as portrayed by 300 are bad when you get down to it, but then arguing that the movie can't meant that because of some nebulous "sincerity" that leads fascists to enjoy the movie or something.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

300 is very literally a movie about a guy telling propaganda to soldiers before battle. He's simply good at what he does, which is why the Spartans appear appealing despite their monstrousness.


Zach Snyder is good at what he does if what he wanted to do was appeal to that mindset, and he is bad at what he does if he was going for satire, because the people who are totally down for eating babies took his modest proposal seriously.

Just because a storyteller puts a flawed storyteller into his story doesn't mean he isn't a flawed storyteller himself.

remusclaw fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Aug 22, 2018

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.
I want to get back to the Robocop thing because I saw the movie when I was young and I was 100% enamored with it and thought it owned.

Only later in life did I realize that Robocop was not actually a treatise on why having a privatized cyborg cop who shot the balls off rapists was a good thing.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "not getting" the message of a movie the first time around, as I truly believe that all good satire should be able to be read "straight". And in fact you will find genuine serious defenders of almost every satirical movie, and yes this includes 300, Robocop, Starship Troopers.

The problem comes when you're so committed to hating a film-maker that you discard the mountain of evidence (including his own words) that the movie is not playing 100% on the level.

You can hate Snyder for actual things that he does in his movies. You don't have to make poo poo up.

https://stephenapplebaum.blogspot.com/2014/04/from-vault-zack-snyder-on-300.html

quote:

After a day of interviews, the fast-talking 41 year old is well aware of what people have been saying. “It’s kind of fun for me,” he says unexpectedly. “I’m a genre filmmaker so for someone to call me a 'fascist filmmaker' is like the best compliment in some ways.” He checks himself. Compliment is the wrong word. What he actually meant was, "it’s pretty awesome” people are taking the film so seriously.

“If I was Paul Verhoeven, and I had made this movie, I probably would have won the fricking festival with it,” he laughs. “Because everyone would be like, ‘Oh my God, it’s genius.'”

Harime Nui
Apr 15, 2008

The New Insincerity

remusclaw posted:

Zach Snyder is good at what he does if what he wanted to do was appeal to that mindset, and he is bad at what he does if he was going for satire, because the people who are totally down for eating babies took his modest proposal seriously.

The movie "succeeds" at getting you all pumped and ready to curl iron and thinking that part where they push the guys off the cliff was awesome, and that was Snyder's very deliberate intention. It also works as a sendup because the narrative of the movie itself is lit. propaganda. The movie isn't trying to make you think that killing babies is good or that Persia is Mordor, that's just what its protagonists think. You can accept their POV or reject it. I mean basically, porque no los dos? It's a rad action movie and a critical look at their underlying assumptions. It doesn't "fail" because some people only get the one out of it and not the other.

Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Aug 22, 2018

BravestOfTheLamps
Oct 12, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Lipstick Apathy

remusclaw posted:

Zach Snyder is good at what he does if what he wanted to do was appeal to that mindset, and he is bad at what he does if he was going for satire, because the people who are totally down for eating babies took his modest proposal seriously.

Your argument is that Zack Snyder is bad because viewers misinterpret his movies.

In other words, you're saying that Zack Snyder is too smart for audiences.

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009

I liked it as a violent spectacle. As satire, no.

Where is the critique, outside of what the director has said in interviews. Again, I ask, what does a non satirical version of this movie look like?

We have, in the movie, an example of why baby pits are good in the traitor who avoided said pit and doomed the Spartans. We have, in the movie, an example of why peace pushing civilian politicians are just traitors looking to sell you out for money. The pedophilia ridden Spartans get to be all smug about the boy loving Athenians and it never comes up that they are hypocrites in that regard. The slave holding Spartans get to crow about freedom, and it never comes up that they even own slaves. What we don't have? Any positive examples of non Spartans.

You can write that off as a flawed narrator, and I would agree if you would name that narrator as Zach Snyder.

remusclaw fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Aug 22, 2018

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.

remusclaw posted:

Again, I ask, what does a non satirical version of this movie look like?

The comic book 300.

punishedkissinger
Sep 20, 2017
Probation
Can't post for 3 hours!
Here's Syder responding to a question about the film being racist:


z snydes posted:


You know, when I see that, when I see someone use words like “neocon,” “homophobic,” “homoerotic” or “racist” in their review, I kind of just think they don’t get the movie and don’t understand. It’s a graphic novel movie about a bunch of guys that are stomping the snot out of each other. As soon as you start to frame it like that, it becomes clear that you’ve missed the point entirely.

Harime Nui
Apr 15, 2008

The New Insincerity

remusclaw posted:

I liked it as a violent spectacle. As satire, no.

Where is the critique, outside of what the director has said in interviews. Again, I ask, what does a non satirical version of this movie look like?

We have, in the movie, an example of why baby pits are good in the traitor who avoided said pit and doomed the Spartans. We have, in the movie, an example of why peace pushing civilian politicians are just traitors looking to sell you out for money. The pedophilia ridden Spartans get to be all smug about the boy loving Athenians and it never comes up that they are hypocrites in that regard. The slave holding Spartans get to crow about freedom, and it never comes up that they even own slaves. What we don't have? Any positive examples of non Spartans.

You can write that off as a flawed narrator, and I would agree if you would name that narrator as Zach Snyder.

I mean it seems like you yourself 'got it,' your argument just hinges on: 'but other people might not/didn't. They should have made it more obvious for those other guys, not me.'

punishedkissinger
Sep 20, 2017
Probation
Can't post for 3 hours!

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

The comic book 300.

Snyder said that he thought Frank Miller got everything exactly right and completely nailed it in the graphic novel, but sure, I'm sure he really wanted to make something subversive

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.

kidkissinger posted:

Snyder said that he thought Frank Miller got everything exactly right and completely nailed it in the graphic novel, but sure, I'm sure he really wanted to make something subversive

Then it's really, really weird that he made major changes to it, and that Miller described 300 as Zack Snyder's movie.

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009

I never read the comic, but from what I understand, the peace-nick rapist non soldier politician was added in the movie, so Snyder added some choice rhetoric there.

BravestOfTheLamps
Oct 12, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Lipstick Apathy

remusclaw posted:

We have, in the movie, an example of why baby pits are good in the traitor who avoided said pit and doomed the Spartans. We have, in the movie, an example of why peace pushing civilian politicians are just traitors looking to sell you out for money. The pedophilia ridden Spartans get to be all smug about the boy loving Athenians and it never comes up that they are hypocrites in that regard. The slave holding Spartans get to crow about freedom, and it never comes up that they even own slaves. What we don't have? Any positive examples of non Spartans.

So the movie is non-satirical because

1. The Spartans are destroyed by someone they mistreat.

2. The Spartans portray a peacemaker as a traitor.

3. The Spartans are hypocrites about pederasty.

4. The Spartans are hypocrites about slavery.

All adding up to "the Spartans are bad, therefore the movie is not satire".


Also, Xerxes is an exemplary non-Spartan figure.


kidkissinger posted:

Here's Syder responding to a question about the film being racist:

Yeah, he's right. Trying to frame the ludicrous fantasy in those terms is misguided.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.

remusclaw posted:

I never read the comic, but from what I understand, the peace-nick rapist non soldier politician was added in the movie, so Snyder added some choice rhetoric there.

Yes, regular old senatorial Democracy is portrayed as weak and ineffective; the Senate is a uniform hive-mind of fools.

Again, you have a scene where somebody finally gets fed up and stops talking and just stabs a person, and the evidence of their lagresse and treachery spills out of them like blood onto the Senate floor, and every single Senator starts honking "traitor! traitor!" like the seagulls from Finding Nemo, and your response is "yes, this is all very fascist. This is obviously meant to be a compelling case for fascism."

quote:

"It’s very particular. It’s on the edge of being camp. It rides the line.”

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

So the movie is non-satirical because

1. The Spartans are destroyed by someone they mistreat.

2. The Spartans portray someone as a traitor.

3. The Spartans are hypocrites about pederasty.

4. The Spartans are hypocrites about slavery.

Also, Xerxes is a highly open-minded leader of a pansexual court. He's a strong queer figure, and an exemplary non-Spartan.


Yeah, he's right. Trying to frame the ludicrous fantasy in those terms is misguided.

The movie is non-satirical because all of that requires extra reading beyond the movie to get, because none of it is even slightly touched on in the movie.

As to mistreatment leading to treason, we are shown in the film that Spartan standards lead to strong Spartans who can fight anything, and we are shown that failing to live up to those standards can lead to defeat.

They aren't shown as hypocrites because their actual actions are never even alluded to in the film as regards slavery and pederasty.

porfiria
Dec 10, 2008

by Modern Video Games

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

I want to get back to the Robocop thing because I saw the movie when I was young and I was 100% enamored with it and thought it owned.

Only later in life did I realize that Robocop was not actually a treatise on why having a privatized cyborg cop who shot the balls off rapists was a good thing.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "not getting" the message of a movie the first time around, as I truly believe that all good satire should be able to be read "straight". And in fact you will find genuine serious defenders of almost every satirical movie, and yes this includes 300, Robocop, Starship Troopers.

The problem comes when you're so committed to hating a film-maker that you discard the mountain of evidence (including his own words) that the movie is not playing 100% on the level.

You can hate Snyder for actual things that he does in his movies. You don't have to make poo poo up.

https://stephenapplebaum.blogspot.com/2014/04/from-vault-zack-snyder-on-300.html

Of course this is all fair enough but to be fair:

quote:

The Canadian actor and sometime activist Sarah Polley, who worked with Snyder on his remake of Dawn of the Dead, suggested I ask him about his politics. “Just for the freak show that it is," she chuckled. “You’ll be like, ‘People like him actually exist?’” She claimed he once brought a blown-up photograph of an American soldier with his boot on Saddam Hussein’s neck to the Dawn set, with his own face plastered over the Marine's. “It wasn't a joke. He’s like, ‘Is that cool?’ That's f****** psychotic.”

“She’s a piece of work,” Snyder says later, grimacing. “I could kill her. I love her, though. You know I do.”

Lol!

BravestOfTheLamps
Oct 12, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Lipstick Apathy
The next Star Wars will be 300, but Xerxes will dress in a Han Shot First t-shirt and slip on a banana peel. My source on this has been correct about everything else so far.


e:

remusclaw posted:

The movie is non-satirical because all of that requires extra reading beyond the movie to get, because none of it is even slightly touched on in the movie.

As to mistreatment leading to treason, we are shown in the film that Spartan standards lead to strong Spartans who can fight anything, and we are shown that failing to live up to those standards can lead to defeat.

They aren't shown as hypocrites because their actual actions are never even alluded to in the film as regards slavery and pederasty.

The movie is bad because... you need education to fully get it?

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009

BravestOfTheLamps posted:



The movie is bad because... you need education to fully get it?

Oh, you just playing. Sorry bud, you had me.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

remusclaw posted:

If you were to make 300 earnestly, as a propaganda piece, aggrandizing everything the Spartans do and going out of your way to make Persians and disabled people into inhuman caricatures, what would you do differently?

I would hand you a DVD copy of the 1962 film, which is so effective as sincere anticommunist propaganda that you certainly won’t see anything objectionable in its naturalistic presentation.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.
You don't need to touch on the slavery and pederasty. Here's what you do: you show a pile of dead babies, and you show a cute baby about to be thrown off a cliff, and you have the king drone on about how great the Spartans are. This is the first thing you put in the movie. The second thing you put in a movie is a child punching another child, while the king drones on about how great the Spartans are.

This should be sufficient to inform the audience that the Spartans are Very Bad.

BravestOfTheLamps
Oct 12, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Lipstick Apathy

remusclaw posted:

Oh, you just playing. Sorry bud, you had me.

You're arguing that the movie doesn't work as a satire because audiences won't be aware that Spartans were actually pederasts and slavers, and thus miss their hypocrisy.

You're quite straight-forwardly saying that the movie is too smart for audiences. "Extra reading" is just a synonym for education.

Schwarzwald
Jul 27, 2004

Don't Blink

remusclaw posted:

The movie is non-satirical because all of that requires extra reading beyond the movie to get, because none of it is even slightly touched on in the movie.

There's a pit of baby skulls in the first five minutes.

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

You're arguing that the movie doesn't work as a satire because audiences won't be aware that Spartans were actually pederasts and slavers, and thus miss their hypocrisy.

You're quite straight-forwardly saying that the movie is too smart for audiences. "Extra reading" is just a synonym for education.

By this logic the less context given in any work the smarter it is. I feel like movies should generally stand on their own. Opinions may differ.

remusclaw fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Aug 22, 2018

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.
Who the gently caress is the person who's like "Baby killing? No problem. Forcing children to fight each other? I'm down. But SLAVERY? And PEDERASTY? These Spartans have gone too far!!!!"

BravestOfTheLamps
Oct 12, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Lipstick Apathy

remusclaw posted:

By this logic the less context given in any work the smarter it is. I feel movies should generally stand on their own. Opinions may differ.

Well that is merely what you "feel". In reality films do not stand their own, because no text can stand on its own. For example, to watch 300 you have to know history and documentation of war to understand that you're watching a fantasy rather than the reality.

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Who the gently caress is the person who's like "Baby killing? No problem. Forcing children to fight each other? I'm down. But SLAVERY? And PEDERASTY? These Spartans have gone too far!!!!"

Uh, Nazi's. Like, un-ironically. They had euthanasia programs for children with disabilities. As for kids fighting each other, I mean I had brothers. We did that regardless of whether it was approved of or not, and yeah, in a warrior society, that doesn't even come across odd at all. People gonna train from a young age in a martial society, that doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Well that is merely what you "feel". In reality films do not stand their own, because no text can stand on its own. For example, to watch 300 you have to know history and documentation of war to understand that you're watching a fantasy rather than the reality.


Then look at the context for the movie. America in the midst of GWB and generally right wing reactionary and Islamophobic as gently caress at the time. It is convenient perhaps to frame the movie as satire now that the political landscape has shifted.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.

remusclaw posted:

Uh, Nazi's. Like, un-ironically.

Nazis do not have a problem with slavery or lording it over people with no power (like, say, young boys)

BravestOfTheLamps
Oct 12, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Lipstick Apathy

remusclaw posted:

Uh, Nazi's. Like, un-ironically. They had euthanasia programs for children with disabilities. As for kids fighting each other, I mean I had brothers. We did that regardless of whether it was approved of or not, and yeah, in a warrior society, that doesn't even come across odd at all. People gonna train from a young age in a martial society, that doesn't even raise an eyebrow.



Then look at the context for the movie. America in the midst of GWB and generally right wing reactionary and Islamophobic as gently caress at the time. It is convenient perhaps to frame the movie as satire now that the political landscape has shifted.


Now you've simply drifted into conspiracy theory. For whom is it convenient to read a movie as a satirical? Is legitimizing Snyder's movie a crypto-Fascist plot?


The introduction of the Bush years to this whole discussion is certainly insightful. There's an unappreciated bit in The Death of the Author where Barthes notes that in interpretation, "history" and "society" are just synonyms for the Author who people try to find "beneath" the text. Thus you're arguing that any satirical qualities in the movie are just superficial, and beneath the surface is the Author, who varies between Jock Snyder, Eternal Fascism, and the Bush Administration.

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Now you've simply drifted into conspiracy theory. For whom is it convenient to read a movie as a satirical? Is legitimizing Snyder's movie a crypto-Fascist plot?


Nah, just Snyder, who would like to work without being outwardly seen as politically wrongheaded and whoever likes his work, for the sake of well, evangelizing why they like his work.

Saying a popular film maker wants to stay popular is conspiracy theory now? You fella's really like reading into text, as can be seen by those interesting takes on my own, so OK, yeah, I think he made an effective action movie with a lovely message. I don't think it reads as satire. I don't much like any of his other movies enough to even discuss at any length except maybe to say he hasn't ever made a movie as good as 300 since.

remusclaw fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Aug 23, 2018

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.

remusclaw posted:

Nah, just Snyder, who would like to work without being outwardly seen as politically wrongheaded

He's making The Fountainhead into a movie...does that sounds like somebody who doesn't want to be seen as politically wrongheaded to you?

Do you think somebody who made Sucker Punch which is "hot girls kicking rear end...HA! Gotcha! You are a dickhead for wanting to see hot girls kicking rear end! Look at what these gals have to put up with" wants to be popular?

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

He's making The Fountainhead into a movie...does that sounds like somebody who doesn't want to be seen as politically wrongheaded to you?

Do you think somebody who made Sucker Punch which is "hot girls kicking rear end...HA! Gotcha! You are a dickhead for wanting to see hot girls kicking rear end! Look at what these gals have to put up with" wants to be popular?

He is popular and he wants to keep making big budget movie money, so yes.

Harime Nui
Apr 15, 2008

The New Insincerity
At a guess, I think Snyder wants people to come see his movies. I also think he tries to make his movies work at both levels. Like, I haven't seen Sucker Punch, but I'm assuming the action scenes are supposed to be entertaining on the level of action as well as building up to the twist that the "rear end-kicking action girl" is a fantasy that can excuse exploitation (of womens' bodies, of nerdy guys' fantasies, whatever). Like, porque no los dos?, again.

Preston Waters
May 21, 2010

by VideoGames
I love how I return to see a lot of posts in this thread and thus assume something major was announced


but no, it's just goons slap-fighting over a "300" derail from an offhand comment I made about how lovely the prequels were

I don't know if I love or hate this place.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.
Nah, what really kicked it off was the "toxic masculinity" boilerplate that could have been lifted from a bad IO9 article.

Anyway it's done, back to discussing the Star Wars films.

golden bubble
Jun 3, 2011

yospos

Historically, the battle of Thermopylae was a demonstration of how little of the Spartans cared about the parts of Greece north of the Isthmus of Corinth, and King Leonidas probably refused to retreat to show that the Spartans were actually serious about their anti-Persian alliance. But after the battle, we know that Spartans unleashed a wave of propaganda, and the other Greeks bought it. It was so widespread and effective that Herodotus had to pull back several details because they were so blatantly propaganda. For example, an alternative version of the battle says that King Leonidas died in the Persian camp, because the Spartans made a final charge that got all the way to the enemy base before they died. Herodotus discounted that story for being totally unbelievable.


99% of the movie consists of a story told by Dilios, who was chosen by Leonidas in the movie for his exceptional oratory skills. The movie ends with a scene where all the Greeks have bought Dilios' version of events. 300 isn't a fictional tale about the battle of Thermopylae. 300 is a historically accurate depiction of how the Spartan propaganda triumphed after the battle, to the point where many of the more ridiculous things became a part of accepted history by the Roman period.

galagazombie
Oct 31, 2011

A silly little mouse!
If the "It was just Dillios' making poo poo up" reading was true everyone wouldn't still be supermodels in speedo's who do things in slow-mo during the last scene. Plus theres the fact that you ignore the hypocrisy of the audience/creators. The world is full of people who vehemently hate "fascism" but support many of it's tenets. Or how people often say things like "While I personally am against throwing babies off cliffs you can't deny society would be better if we did it!" and other instances of Doublethink. Just because Snyder is not a fascist (I assume) and did not make 300 as such doesn't mean elements of it don't exist in the work. Snyder by his own admission was just making a movie about awesome dudes fighting orc ninjas with a vague historical tie-in, but that does't mean unspoken ideas/biases etc. don't influence a creators work. I doubt I would call it fascist, but the movie is definitely right-leaning.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

galagazombie posted:

Snyder by his own admission was just making a movie about awesome dudes fighting orc ninjas with a vague historical tie-in, but that does't mean unspoken ideas/biases etc. don't influence a creators work. I doubt I would call it fascist, but the movie is definitely right-leaning.

The issue here is that all of us - including Snyder - are well aware that action movies are not apolitical. We are all already aware that ‘orcs’ have racial connotations, and so on.

You are making the assumption that Snyder is inhumanly ignorant and just loves mindless killing when other interviews posted here have already confirmed that this is not the case, that Snyder is interested in how his action movie can manipulate the audience and get them to cheer for infanticide and against... satyrs?

The other issue is that you are using decontextualized quotes from promotional junkets.

Like in BVS, Batman uses a Spartan spear to torture Christ. What could it mean? Better check the ads.

SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Aug 23, 2018

Preston Waters
May 21, 2010

by VideoGames
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVixARuhTGs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1-lbB07ltQ

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

galagazombie
Oct 31, 2011

A silly little mouse!

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The issue here is that all of us - including Snyder - are well aware that action movies are not apolitical. We are all already aware that ‘orcs’ have racial connotations, and so on.

You vastly overestimate many creators and audiences ability to not get, pretend to themselves to not get, or doublethink themselves into both getting and not getting, racial connotations with things like Orcs or space aliens.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply