I haven't seen it yet, but I have opinions anyhow...
I'm talking about 300 of course.
I hope this means that studios will start to make good movies again. Art for the sake of art rather than art for the sake of a message. There's no message folks. Not a pro-war one. Not an anti-war one. Bush is not involved in any fashion whatsoever. No message. Get it through your heads.
But art. Likely very much so from what I've seen. If when I see it I repent of that opinion, I'll let you know.
So... why do I call a bloodfest art?
I didn't realize at first that this movie is made by the same person who made Sin City. Sin City was art. Very strange. Very visceral. And when people were talking about 300 being a graphic novel, even without knowing, I thought of Sin City.
Graphic novels are incredibly sophisticated visual art. I'm sure the CGI contributes to the unreality of 300, but in the trailers, clips and stills, there is a sense of detatchment and interpretation. The sepia tones and representative figures. If I had an art degree I'd know the words for this stuff. Something more realistic, more bare, would leave less for our brains to do. Our increased participation is part of what defines art.
The movie _Hero_ comes to mind. The feeling of fable comes through strong while the visuals themselves are breathtaking. The plot and characters are secondary to the experience itself.
Art, or a truely skillful novel, does not have a message, but a million of them. Something might not be to an individual's taste, but anyone can find insight in it because it speaks to the reality of human experience rather than the filtered and interpreted version of human experience.
If I'm right, there is not message in 300 but people will find messages there because they participated, and those messages will be as diverse as humanity itself.
That's not, however, counting those who are going to react with a anti-militaristic knee-jerk condemnation.