On If You Love 300, You Might be an Idiot at 10/03/2007 3:26pm

carbon --
You've got a very, very good point, but I think the practical problem resulting from it is that the vast majority of the film's fans I've spoken with don't seem to realize the film is wholly subjective. I'm not suggesting the film should have rubbed our face in the fact that the film is mostly told through an unreliable narrator, but I find it a little disturbing that an entire room of legal adults literally began to groan and, in some cases, stand up and shout, at the suggestion that following the tenets of the Spartan civilization -- "honor," "freedom," kicking people down wells, etcetera -- isn't necessarily a good idea.

This of course brings up the question of whether it's the filmmaker's responsibility to make his teachings and intentions clear, or if it's the viewer's responsibility to pay sufficient attention and understand (which, perhaps unsurprisingly, was the exact discussion which led into the 300 argument in my film class), but the immense support this film seems to have garnered from certain groups of people leads me to believe that the fault, at least partially, lies with the film.

I'm also not entirely sure that the film is TRULY subjective -- that is to say, the characters seem to oddly digress in explaining the brutality of their actions, not so much for the benefit of other characters, but to keep the audience's sympathies at any cost. Leonidas spends quite a bit of time explaining why he's about to kick the messenger down the well right before does so, despite the fact that Leonidas, the Messenger, and the one-eyed storyteller who delivers the legend to his soldiers probably wouldn't have required so much hand-wringing over the rationale for the murder.

On Three Common Cinematic Misunderstandings That Bug the Hell Out of Me at 08/17/2007 2:20pm

Agreed -- I know it's supposedly cool to rag on some of the fake blood squirts and shit, but The Evil Dead is goddamn SCARY. I always get the impression that people who make fun of it either saw the latter two films first and completely missed the point of the first, or were actually scared and figured making fun of it was the only way to not seem like total wusses.

On Why the Bourne Series is the Best American Film Trilogy Ever Made at 08/10/2007 4:47pm

Hasekbowstome:
I'll try to meet you point by point.

Not only do I not spend "half" the article talking about how the films have flaws (at last reading, I only do so three times: once when I talk about the Nicky problem, once about the Tangiers chase, and a few light jabs at Supremacy), but what's wrong in pointing out the flaws of films you love? I can talk for hours about the Hyman Roth/Who Killed the Assassins plot holes in The Godfather Part II, or how the Return of the Jedi is a waste of two hours, but I can still enjoy their respective trilogies. Would you have preferred I ignored any and all potential flaws in the Bourne films and just assumed them perfect? Wouldn't that have been MORE irritating? Simply put, the good overwhelms the bad when it comes to Bourne.

Secondly, not being familiar with the source material should have absolutely no effect on how I perceive the films. The films stand on their own merit, and rightly should -- and based on what I've heard about the novels, the films don't even remotely follow them anyway. Why bother?

Thirdly, the Bourne movies -- or at least, Ultimatum -- are indeed direct (though subtle) jabs at the Bush administration and the sacrifice of freedom for the illusion of safety. Do you honestly think that Treadstone's resurfacing under the guise of a a SURVEILLANCE program was mere coincidence? Is it any surprise that Matt "Raging Liberal" Damon called Bourne a man of his time, who has to learn to let go of patriotism and government militarism? Regardless of how anti-government the novels were, the talks of "cutting through red tape" and Bourne's volunteering for Treadstone are direct political statements, even if they don't shove it into the viewer's faces. Typing "THE BOURNE MOVIES WERE NOT A CRITICISM OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION" and leaving it at that is a pretty lousy method of supporting your lack of an argument.