Meet the Spartans is one of the most underrated and underappreciated movies of the decade. When it was first unveiled to audiences in January 2008, its box office performance was consistent with that of it's predecessors Date Movie and Epic Movie, but critical acclaim, even among internet critics, still eluded the masterminds behind it. This is a great shame. Friedberg and Seltzer are two of the most astute commentators on popular culture since Adorno and Horkheimer. But while they, along with fellow devotees of the Frankfurt school like Jurgen Habermas, took a critical view of popular culture, Friedberg and Seltzer aim to make audiences appraise it in a brand new light. While their films on the surface seem to be ostensibly "mocking" various vestiges of our popular culture, those with an ability to look beyond the surface and examine what Friedberg and Seltzer are really trying to do with these movies will appreciate their films on a whole different level. While the Date and Epic movies were also underappreciated masterworks, Meet the Spartans is an even richer and more rewarding film, a truly inspired and even didactic effort. Even the title gives away the level of inspiration behind this picture. Friedberg and Seltzer turn the theories of those in the field of semiology, particularly Roland Barthes' efforts, on its side. Saussure, the founder of semiology, would argue that a movie can’t enjoy success unless the title accurately communicates what the movie will be to potential customers. Friedberg and Seltzer bravely set about to create a film which put pay to this notion. Here is a movie which is clearly part of the [Adjective] Movie series which they created. Yet the word "movie" appears nowhere in the title. This did not prevent the movie from enjoying the same level of success enjoyed by the previous "Movie" movies, and in the process Friedberg and Seltzer have rather cheekily suggested that the whole concept of semiology might just constitute a logical fallacy!
But such diversions into highbrow philosophy, fun though they are, do not serve the main course of the Spartans meal. Obviously, as I have stated, Friedbeg and Seltzer are concerned mainly with popular culture. What they are essentially stating with this "movie" (ha-ha) is how all encompassing popular culture has become in our lives, to the point where it has arguably become even more important, and certainly more relevant, to our lives than human history. Consider Sean Maguire's performance as Leonidas in this film. His performance does not imitate any of the documented mannerisms of the 17th Agid King of Sparta, Leonidas I, it is an imitation of Gerard Butler's imitation of Frank Miller's graphic novel conception of the king in the book 300. The mind could boggle at this concept, yet it doesn't, proving how central popular culture is to our lives, and highlighting the sense of joy it brings to our lives in a post Baudrillard, post-modern, hyperreal world. Some have read Maguire's performance as suggesting that Friedberg and Seltzer are arguing that popular culture is distracting kids from their history books, and while that may seem like a valid point to make at face value, the character does not operate in a vacuum, and when viewed in the context of the rest of the film this interpretation does become, I think, quite implausible.
Another noticeable element of the Spartans in this film is that their physiques are not as impressive as those of the Spartans in the film [i[Meet[/i] is supposedly parodying, 300. Indeed they look like the physiques of people in a version of 300 with a much lesser budget and comparatively little preparation time. The full significance of this will become clear later, but partly the film is making us take note of the importance of the body in popular culture. But the film is not suggesting such a fixation is an example of our shallowness, but instead a wonderful primer to improve our own health. Because of films like 300 we all want to have bodies in the prime fighting conditions of the real ancient warriors. This theme is also reflected in the presence of sex symbol Carman Electra (known primarily for her “hot body”), and a Rambo character. The “real” Rambo (another example of the film’s dalliances with the blurring line between popular culture and real life) had one of the great on screen bodies of all time. Here is saggy and looks “wrong”. Because of this maybe we start thinking that out own bodies are a bit too “Meet the Spartans Rambo” (unhealthy) and not enough “First Blood Part II Rambo”. And maybe, just maybe, we start thinking we should do something about that.
Perhaps the finest scene in the film is the one where Xerxes finds the “all spark” cube from the hit movie Transformers, and “transforms” into the famous Hasbro villain Megatron. Instead of using violence to intimidate his enemies he plays the famous YouTube “Leave Brittney alone” video by Chris Crocker on a TV in his stomach. While many critics did not seem to appreciate the film, I’d be surprised if many of them missed out on the subtext here. Xerxes is played by Ken Davitian, best known for his large role in Borat, an independent film which was a surprise blockbuster. By turning into a character from Transformers the film is satirising how Independent films and companies get “swallowed up” and homogenised by large corporations. But the comparison doesn’t end there. Some characters from a major, high-budget film (300) are then sent running scared from Xerxes when he plays them a short clip which cost next to nothing This shows how small-budget productions have the power to leave big budget ones running scared. But Friedberg and Seltzer are not proposing an end to big budget productions, but rather a synergy yielding the best of high budget and low budget worlds. The creature who sends the Spartans running is part Borat actor (low budget) part Transformer (high budget). The video he uses to win cost next to nothing, but the eponymous Brittney that inspired the video is a high-profile pop star that makes glossy records with expensive producers and lavish videos. Unlike much of Hollywood, or even the world at large, Friedberg and Seltzer realises audiences can accept both high-budget and low-budget productions. They even mock the notion that audiences aren’t accepting of independent films by pretending to patronise us by identifying Davitian on screen as “that fat guy from Borat”. As if we don’t recognise the star of a blockbuster!
I could go on, but I’d rather leave viewers to discover many of the treasures found in the film themselves. In some ways, I thought Friedberg and Seltzer would be unable to top this. In a way, they were. They were forced to go for a more subversive, but less incisive route with Disaster Movie. Disaster Movie did not perform up to par with previous Friedberg and Seltzer movies, something they knew full well would happen when they gave the movie its deliberately prophetic title. With the reinstating of the “Movie” suffix they were also able to complete their critique of Saussure’s sophistries. When Disaster Movie underperformed, many analysts cheered the end of Friedberg and Seltzer’s run. Really, they were just upset they never got the joke.
Your move, illestmc510
reply
share