'300' Flick Is Ready-Made for the Right-Wing Crowd

If new acquaintance tells you that their favorite movie is 300, back away slowly -- they probably kills cats for fun.

By Steve Burgess, The Tyee. Posted March 10, 2007.

<snip>

The plot -- don't blink now -- is this: 300 brave Spartans, led by the heroic Leonidas (Gerard Butler), guard a pass against the Persian hordes commanded by King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). There's a small bit of politics thrown in, and the aforementioned boinking (featuring Lena Headey as Queen Gorgo). But it's mostly just the glorious, sexual thrill of slow-motion violence and orgasmic geysers of spurting blood. Really. Such unabashed tributes to slaughter are usually delivered with a wink in slasher films, but 300 does not know how to wink. It is deadly serious in the way that so often provokes giggles.

<snip>

There's virtually no development of the Persian side, almost no real sense of who they are and why they are so scary -- except that there's a whole lot of them, and their leader Xerxes is seven feet tall, like Darth Vader and with pretty much the same voice. When it finally arrives, the big sacrificial climax doesn't even make a lot of sense. It's just heroic.

Regardless, 300 will likely be a masturbatory experience for the Ann Coulter crowd. Cruel, militaristic Sparta is the ideal; weak, artsy Athens is mocked, particularly in a scene where Athenian soldiers are revealed to be potters, sculptors, poets. Brave men who leave what they love to defend their country? Bah! Weaklings, according to this flick. As a tribute to a particular world view, 300 could play on a double bill with Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will.

<snip>

There's even evidence that the film consciously grasps at this clash-of-civilizations message. "Today we will rid the world of mysticism and tyranny," shouts a Greek soldier, leading a charge against the Persians moments after we have seen an image of dead Spartans in Christ-like poses.

Most of the bloodthirsty teens in the audience won't care about that stuff, of course. But Dick Cheney will cream himself. I guess Dick can use a little diversion. He's had a rough year.

More:
http://www.alternet.org/movies/49029/

when this fascisti crap comes along, it must fly in the face of those who are being dehumanised by the story(?)...in those days, when life was sacred, if 100 men were killed in a battle, that was considered hugh! they shoulda called this movie 'apocalypto too'...

Who is being dehumanized?

You lost me.

i never saw this show, but from what's been said about it, it does glorify killing of 10's of thousands of 'enemy' (and especially with bush promoting possible war with persia, we don't need anything that assists the idea)...anyone who's killed knows that the very act dehumanises the persons who die- and yeah sure it's just a movie, but ferchrissakes rambo/dirty hairy etc was almost 30 years ago, and what's the lesson from 'might is right' entertainment?

essentially saved democracy. DEMOCRACY - quite possibly the most important thing ever created by humankind.

It is impossible to tell this story without violence - but it is important to tell this story.

Athenian "Democracy" was subject to both enemies within and enemies external, both equally dangerous to the furtherance of the concept of collective governance.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon is much more exciting.

don't agree

The conclussion has been that the battle was one of those few battles in history... the invasion of England is another one, that basically changes the course of history...

In modern times there have been few battles if any that have been as important as this one on the world stage, though Normandy and chiefly Operation Cobra, may be seen this way by future generations

"Popular history" should be distinguished from the academic approach. Now, I'm partial to the notion that there are pivotal events, but basic notions of causation discourage against assigning preeminance to particular events in light of other's, given the complexity of the ancient world, the lack of any real source beyond Herodotus (not the most critical writer), and the fact that the evacuation of Athen's is only significant insofar as it motivates the Athenian fleet at Salamis. Thermopolyae is no more important than the expansion of the Persian Empire, the Ionian Revolt and the Persian invasion of Europe, and their subsuquent defeat. The classical historians are extremely Hellenistic and there is in fact a long history of European Hellenism. Currently, the field of history is very reluctant to make value judgments such as the above for the previous reasons stated.

Moreover, if you believe Herodotus the Persians know of democracy in their own light and reject it in favor of monarchy on reasonable grounds.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persdemo.html

what they found NEW primary sources?

Persia:

http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Empire-World-Ancient-Persia/dp/0520247310/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1102915-3260901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173684836&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Wars-Failure-Persia/dp/0199299838/ref=sr_1_1/102-1102915-3260901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173685115&sr=1-1

Democracy:

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Democracy-Ancient-Greece-Raaflaub/dp/0520245628/ref=sr_1_20/102-1102915-3260901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173685266&sr=1-20
http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Freedom-Ancient-Greece-Revised/dp/0226701018/ref=sr_1_2/102-1102915-3260901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173685425&sr=1-2

has gone out of fashion, thank Derrrida and others

That said, some battles have been that critical

This of course turns it into an Athens vs. Sparta debate...suffice to say, that Marathon bought time for Thermopolyae and that Thermpololyae was insignificant without Salamis and Plataea.

The delay caused at Thermopolyae saved the lives of some of the Athenian population, but it did not save Athens or Greece, Themistocles did that and he would be ostracized within 10 years.

as a tactical exercise it was a defeat of major proportions and a slaughter, for the Allied Polities

As a strategic exercise it bled Xerxes, and started the erosion of morale that made it very difficult to continue the war... after the rest of the battles

We are not talking of 1300 greeks here (I am including the Thespians), but the about 40K Casuaolties Xerxes troops took.

Now think about it, you are a trooper in Xerxes's army and 1300 troops kill 40,000 of your best friends, including some who were considered elite by you.

Put it in modern terms...

Imagine if you will 300 Rangers and 1000 line infantry dying but killing 40,000 otehr troops... or 300 SAS, or 300 other elite troops

It has predcious little to do with Greek exceptionalism, or how much of bad asses they were. There is a reason this battle is still studied in every war college around the world, and for good reason... and why it was that critical. The effect on the Persian's ground forces morale was hard to measure, but not good, just as the two Naval Battles are studies for the same reason... you had smaller forces facing larger forces and winning, which had a morale effect

And no, this has nothihg to do with the larger debate of Sparta vs Athens... from a MILITARY point of view it has precious little to do with it.

Fact is... from a military point of view it turned out to be a strategic victory and all it has to do with the effect on morale.

Now if you start to look at it from the POV of politics, that is a whole different ball of wax

Moreover, Xerxes had at least 250,000 infantry and calvary in the field. The wiki page estimates 20,000 Persian deaths, not 40,000, so yes they bloodly their nose, but hardly a decimation of an enormous, expierenced army, that had taken casualties in high numbers before. Furthermore, Leonidas allowed himself to be encircled, rather than withdrawing to fight further delaying actions:

Final stand of the Spartans and Thespians
None of the Persians' actions surprised Leonidas. From a variety of sources, he was kept apprised of their movements and received intelligence of the Persian outflanking movement before first light.
When Leonidas learned that the Phocians had not held, he called a council at dawn. During the council some Greeks argued for withdrawal in the face of the overwhelming Persian advance, while others pledged to stay. After the council, many of the Greek forces did choose to withdraw. Herodotus believed that Leonidas blessed their departure with an order, but he also offered the alternate point of view that those retreating forces departed without orders. The Spartans had pledged themselves to fight to the death, while the Thebans were held as hostage against their will. However, a contingent of about 700 Thespians, led by general Demophilus, the son of Diadromes, refused to leave with the other Greeks, but cast their lot with the Spartans.
Ostensibly, the Spartans were obeying their oath and following the oracle of Delphi (see below). However, it might also have been a calculated strategy to delay the advance of the Persians and cover the retreat of the Greek army. In fact, with the Persians so close at hand, the decision to stand and fight was probably a tactical requirement only made more palatable by the oracle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae#Size_of_the_Persian_army

Whearas at Salamis Xerxes lost 200 of 1000 ships and at Plataea the Persian army under Mardonius of 100,000+ was massacred...

it was a strategic victory ultimately

I can make the distinction, and this is why it is STILL STUDIED at every war college around the wold.

I know the difference between tactics and strategy.. do you?


And this battle is one critical chain in the chain of events that led to Xerxes ultimately leaving Greece...

Other major campaigns studied are also The War against the Guals by Caesar and of course Napoleon, and lest not forget Alexander the Great.

It was a tactical victory and a strategic draw...kinda like the Alamo, without San Jacinto and Sam Houston's patientence, William Travis would have died in vain.

Just because it's studied doesn't mean its neccesserily praised as tactically brilliant...they fought like it was the last ditch, but it really wasn't...they could have tried a scorched Earth policy.

Even more interesting in terms of last stands is the diehard Athenian attempt to hold onto the Acropolis. Furthermore, Thermopolyae is really the least of Xerxes problems, he lost a third of his fleet in a storm at Artemesium, and this after tremendous delay in building a canal to get the fleet safely around Mt. Athos. Xerxes also must have had tremendous supply problems. So yes he was angry at the Spartan insolence, but Thermopolyae is hardly the critical link in the Greco-Persian wars, it's just one of the more glorified events in popular culture.

"The Persians encamped upon the hill over against the citadel, which is called Mars' hill by the Athenians, and began the siege of the place, attacking the Greeks with arrows whereto pieces of lighted tow were attached, which they shot at the barricade. And now those who were within the citadel found themselves in a most woeful case; for their wooden rampart betrayed them; still, however, they continued to resist. It was in vain that the Pisistratidae came to them and offered terms of surrender- they stoutly refused all parley, and among their other modes of defence, rolled down huge masses of stone upon the barbarians as they were mounting up to the gates: so that Xerxes was for a long time very greatly perplexed, and could not contrive any way to take them.

At last, however, in the midst of these many difficulties, the barbarians made discovery of an access. For verily the oracle had spoken truth; and it was fated that the whole mainland of Attica should fall beneath the sway of the Persians. Right in front of the citadel, but behind the gates and the common ascent- where no watch was kept, and no one would have thought it possible that any foot of man could climb- a few soldiers mounted from the sanctuary of Aglaurus, Cecrops' daughter, notwithstanding the steepness of the precipice. As soon as the Athenians saw them upon the summit, some threw themselves headlong from the wall, and so perished; while others fled for refuge to the inner part of the temple. The Persians rushed to the gates and opened them, after which they massacred the suppliants, When all were slain, they plundered the temple, and fired every part of the citadel."

http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.8.viii.html

Make a graphic novel out of that Frank Miller...

but never mind

I give up

No use any more...

I should probably just join the ignorant in that willful ignorance that is frankly aparently much easier

So what time do they show American Idol?

I have idea what time American Idol is on and have never watched it, I hate popularity as a concept with a passion. :-)

DU can be frustrating, but the day's move on and the topics change, even Hesiod knew that. Chin up. :+

it is the we have folks who theoretically taech in a college

Who have a very seriious problem seeing the willful ingorance of the American people....

As to you, we can agree to disagree

Mostly you are looking at it mostly as a poltical event (if misrepreseting, my apologies)

I am looking at it purely as a military exercise, which is the way I tend to look at battles when looking at them in isolation or part of a military campaign

It is a far narrower focus

To look at a more modern example

Gettysburg... great, we might even say pyrric victory for the North (due to the high casualty numbers)

But when you look at it in a POLITICAL setting it changes in both significance and effect (McClellan was fired for not pursuing Lee)

But the battle all on its own was a strategic victory for the north.

;-)

Oh and the battle hinged on teh actions at Little Round Top according to some... as usual a few doing more than they should be asked to do, their damn luck!

;-)

1. I'm with you on the willful ignorance point.

2. Yes, I'm looking at it as a historical event as opposed to a military exercise (I get enough of that from the obituaries coming out of you know where).

3. McClellan was not in command at Gettysburg, George Meade was in command. McClellan was fired after the failed Peninsula campaign, and the blood bath at Antietam, where he failed to pursue Lee probably correctly, given the horror of that battle. I'm not even going to wade into Gettysburg very deep, suffice to say that it was not Meade who beat Lee, or the bravery of the union soldiers especially, it was Lee's hubris that defeated Lee. Even if Lee chose to fight at Gettysburg, the third day should have been called off as a charge at the center of the Union line on high ground with artillery was suicidal, and if I remember Longstreet (the men who charged up Little Round Top, the far tip off the long end of the hook, were under his command) and he told Lee such, and was overruled. Without the 3rd day and Lee's arrogance it would have been a draw, albeit a costly one for the CSA, which was at the end of its supply line and potential advance.

gosh it is late at night

;-)

Spring Break wooohoooo!

I'm home writing a paper and doing field and library research.

Give my regards to the dream sheep...

:boring:

the battle of Thermopylae, is it?

The movie is a gloss on one of the founding legends of the modern West, in this case very particular for its emphasis on sacrifice, courage and glory, processed 1st), through a comic book artist known for his lone-hero-against-the-world mindset and 2nd), through a Hollywood understanding of the importance of man-candy and gore.

Somewhere in the back is the actual historical event, about which I am of two minds:

1) obviously titanically important for preventing the Persian conquest of Greece and possibly the Mediterranean world, which would have had repercussions for centuries.

2) And still 2500 years in the past, on a scale of time that grants 100,000 so far to our species. I suspect mass industrial civilization and modern ideas of democracy and the rest of the enlightenment canon would have developed anyway, though the countries and the centuries would have been called by different names.

And don't you engage in Derrida exceptionalism - all worldviews have their cycles, reach their points of crisis, loss of faith and 'post-ism'.

I'll pay to see '300' (even though I already know what's in it), but I'd be even happier to pay for a movie where the Spartans are openly man-lovers, dressed up in heavy iron armor, advancing in a tank-like phalanx and poking their spears in unison, facing a vastly larger army that happens to be 100,000 men with a 'real' Xerxes in command...

secondary source, which is based on the primary documents

It is not a gloss over

Frank Miller and the rest of the production staff do not make any claims to historical accuracy, or at least not the same claims a rigorouos hixtorian would when treating the same subject... it would be like readyig any alternate history by SM Stirling or Harry Turtledove and making claims that it was the actual event, if you get my drift

As a miltiary exercise it demoralized the Persian Army

And as a miliary exercise it still studied at military colleges all over the world

Founding myth, perhaps

But the battle was a CRITCIAL CHAIN in the ultimate defeat of the Persiaan army... I'd suspect those who have a problem seeing why really cannot put themselves in the shoes of the Persian troops.

Once again, yuo had 1300 troops hold them back for a couple of days and kill abuot 40,000 of your best friennds. If anybody beleives this had no effect on the Persina Army Morale, I have front sea property to sell them, in Nevada no less (whith global warming though that joke may become less off but hey)

(...)

gloss 2 noun a translation or explanation of a word or phrase. - an explanation, interpretation, or paraphrase : the chapter acts as a helpful gloss on Pynchon's general method. verb (usu. be glossed) provide an explanation, interpretation, or paraphrase for (a text, word, etc.). - < intrans. > ( gloss on/upon) archaic write or make comments, esp. unfavorable ones, about (something) : those laws, which they assumed the liberty of interpreting and glossing upon.

(...)

gloss 2 noun glosses in the margin explanation, interpretation, exegesis, explication, elucidation; annotation, note, footnote, commentary, comment, rubric; translation, definition; historical scholium. verb difficult words are glossed in a footnote explain, interpret, explicate, define, elucidate; annotate; translate, paraphrase.

---

No, Miller makes no claims to historical accuracy. One of many things that makes this discussion at least as entertaining to me as the movie.

Meanwhile...

:hangover:

100 men were killed in a battle

You can't be serious. Some battles lost 20,000 + men. These battle were up close and personal and gory.

This one had over 200,000 combatants and 70,000 deaths.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/yarmuk.html

or this

Ancient Greece

* Alexander the Great (r. 336-325 BCE)
o VD Hanson, Wars of the Ancient Greeks (1999)
+ Killed by Alexander the Great, considered the first war of anihilation in Greek/Western history.
# "Very conservative figures suggest that in the space of just eight years Alexander the Great had slain well over 200,000 men in pitched battle alone, over 40,000 of them Greeks .... More Greeks in two engagements than had fallen in the entire history of pitched battle among city-states."
* Granicus: 20,000 Persians and 15-18,000 Greek mercenaries in Persian service.
* Issus: 50-100,000 Persians and 20,000 Greek mercenaries in Persian service.
* Gaugamela: 50,000 Persians + a few thousand Greek mercs
* 20,000 Indians at Hydaspes
# Conservative estimate of a quarter million urban residents massacred, 334-324 BCE, incl:
* Thebes: 6,000
* Around Sindimana: 80,000
* Sangala: 17,000
* Tyre: 7-8,000 in streets + 2,000 crucified
* Gaza: 10,000
o Durant, Our Oriental Heritage (1935)
+ Killed fighting Alexander the Great
# 20,000 Persians at Granicus
# 110,000 Persians at Issus
# 12,000 Indians in 326 BCE
o Britannica, "Tyre": 10,000 inhabitants massacred in Tyre
o Pitirim Sorokin: 14,750 Greeks k+w
* Graeco-Persian Wars, 499-448 BCE
o VD Hanson: Carnage and Culture (2001): A quarter million Persian soldiers died total
+ Marathon: 6,400 Persian k.
+ Thermopylae: 10,000 Persians
+ Artemisium: A storm wrecked 200 Persian ships. "early as many drowned as at Salamis."
+ Plataea: 50,000 Persians
+ Salamis: 40,000 Persians.
+ Retreat out of Greece: 100,000 Persians d.
o Pitirim Sorokin: 57,000 Greeks k+w
* Misc.
o Pitirim Sorokin's estimates of Greek battle casualties, K+W (Only Greek armies. No Persians, Thracians, etc.(selected individual wars)):
+ Peloponesian War (431-404 BCE): 18,800
+ Corinthian War (394-387 BCE): 34,000
+ Spartan-Theban War (379-362 BCE): 34,000
+ Holy War against the Phocians (355-341 BCE): 23,000
+ Diadochi Wars (323-251 BCE): 49,700
+ Spartan-Achaian War (227-221 BCE): 21,000
+ TOTAL: 303,460 Greeks lost on the battlefield from 500 to 146 BCE

someone gave me a book on ancient Greece, and the pictures(!) i can still remember the awe i felt so long ago. It's strange to think as a grade school kid i did a project on a battle few people have ever heard of...and the fact is, if 40 thousand men died at Salamis, which was a naval battle, or 10 thousand at Thermopylae, then it isn't awesome, it's just kinda sad....

it's hard to imagine a sacrifice so large in modern terms - very few single events have such a large human cost these days.

The sacrifice of the Spartans at Thermopylae was not just a "stand and die for honor" situation - it was the last thing these men could do before they died to protect the people they loved and their way of life.

Sparta sure as fuck wasn't a Democracy -- that was Athens. You have it exactly backwards.

it was a REAR GUARD ACTION.

Fuck it... people truly do not understand history or for that matter that this battle, yes THIS BATTLE, was the begining of the end for Xerxes

Damn it why bother any longer?

and Athenian "democracy" meant democracy for slave-holders.

Pericles actually prevented the democratic institutions of Athens from convening in the face of the Spartan invasion of Attica to obstensibly prevent disorder and panic in Athen's. Thucydidies has been traditionally been read as elevating Pericles, when he's really making him look like a fool in the "Policy of Pericles" and the "Funeral Oration."

Pericles = Bush. Anti-democratic, insularity, designed to prevent debate...and then you have the Sicilian Expedition (not Pericles fault, dead of plague), which is eerily simliar to Iraq...

Athenian women were generally not allowed out of the house into public.

The Athenians have mostly themselves to blame for their defeat. They basically stole from other city-states and then launched disasterous campaigns during the war (like the one to Crete, right?).

And yes, Athens' "democracy" was democracy for the slave owning rich men. I'm not sure why the city is admired so much today, I wish people would actually research what the hell Athens was like and how it operated.

At least in the last 30 years the facts have begun to recieve academic attention...rather than simple glorification, oh the Spartan's how brave.

Ever read any Aristophanes? Comiclly beautiful. And he pretty much single handedly is the source for self-consciousness in classical Athens in the historiography.

We keep finding tribute steles...

and i didn't feel dehumanised at all..
What does being hispanic even have to do with anything about this movie? AFAIK, the persian empire didn't encompass spain. (Am I wrong, here?)

i had neighbors once who were British immingrants- the dad was a naval veteran and commanded local sea cadets etc. There was a Disney show every Sunday then (many might recall) and the "Swamp Fox' was one of the serials featured. We all cheered for the 'swamp fox' who was, in effect an 'insurgent' type American guerrilla terrorist fighting the British during the Revolution, and one of the neighbors noticed how incongruous it was- we (canadians) were cheering for the wrong side!
Same thing with law'n'order shows which, if you've ever been in jail, still see the heroes, the cops, cheered while the bad guys blah blahblah; most people never even notice the discrepancy! So the point is that 'good guys' and bad guys are defined according to the movie makers biases, and with history looming in actual fact today, should the biases of the guys who made '300' (which are similar to those of the makers of rambo, or dirty hairy or a thousand other shows) and which underpin the junyer bush crowd, and demonise Hugo Chavez/socialism etc; do not those who would be badly served by bush and by nature be friends to Chavez not look at '300' and feel confused, at least?
geezus i don't know why i'm talkin about this(!)
:hide:

and unsurprisingly, Chavez is never mentioned anywhere in 300.

Sin City buries this one in violence....

spouting lines from it as they round up the Iranians in our midst.

There is no such thing as "just a movie" when one talks of hordes going to see it--

It could be Amazon Space Women on the Moon and those that rent it repeatedly--are living out their fantasies--

It could be Apocalypse Now and folks that see it will feel that war is some mythical mind F*(&

It could be any movie-- all movies have an effect on those who watch them in some small way or some large way.

This movie numbs folks to violence, much like some of the more graphic video games do-- it presents an enemy that is the antithesis of the hero in every single way. It dehumanizes and enemy and then pats itself on the back for defending freedom in some orgiastic circle jerk of self-righteousness.

Am I gonna picket? Nope. But I will attempt to keep my kittens away from those that love it.

LOL--- There are 1000's of movies that are equally as violent.

movie. It feeds into the dehumanization of enemies and the lack of any true understanding of the absolute horror of killing another. But hey, no problem. Humans are apparently like Doritos. Kill away, we can always make more.

so do my friends and my friends friends... I've met these people and it's amazing---they've never killed anybody nor do they have a desire to.

And BTW: How should we treat our uh enemies... Like long lost buddies?

Treating one's enemies as less than human allows one to rationalize doing all manner of vile actions. Viewing one human life as worth more than another "dehumanized" life.

The attempt at exaggeration is noted--

Enjoy the oblivion.

If he is about to attack me and er kill me....you're damn right I'll treat him uh less than human.

And thank God for Video games because they teach me the correct kung fu techniques to kill the enemy effectively.

Or where you parked your 'Mech, or perhaps your M1

that was funny

You should see my melee attack compliments me playing Halo 24x7.

That is the Golden Rule, remember?

What do you see in those crappy first-person-shooter games you so love?

It's a pretty fucking time-wasting and ignorant pursuit, good only for
getting an adrenalin high imagining yourself to be a killer when you are
not in real life (but like to pretend you would "treat your enemies"
with harsh justice if you met them on the street -- yeah right)

people said the same thing about Role Playing Games

You do know that some folks who are stuck in their modthers basement do play DND, (Bill Gates name comes to mind)

Yeah, there was no violence or in blood in V for Vendetta at all. :eyes:

nm

Took the words right outta my mouth.

I don't remember the dehumanization of one's enemy in V. Rather that was what V was fighting against.

But, hey, you got me with rolling eyes smilies. I've done been beaten down by the profundity of the argument.

Most of them wore SWAT masks, usually something in a dehumanized enemy. You never saw them as anything but armed thugs for V to kill.

Basically the same in this movie. But who cares. They're both ACTION movies, and damn good ones.

This movie may accurately represent history, but it's release is very suspicious during this time of tensions with Iran.

Who actually believes that badly made torture voyeur pic punctuated with blowing up authority was gonna change something.

Imagine that.

1-The word "Iran" doesn't appear anywhere in the movie
2-The vast majority of Americans don't know that Iran = Persia
3-The Persian Empire of the movie covered A LOT more territory than just modern-day Iran.

This type of attack on the movie is total bullshit.

When they were in fact of the SAME ethnicity (and still are).

Both Greeks and Persians/Medes are Indo-Europeans. Indo-European skin colors range from very dark in Southern India to very light in Scandinavia

Then there's the Immortal unit. Anyone who's seen it knows what I'm talking about.

The Persian Empire contained a large amount of territory. The messenger who meets Leonidas earlier is black. Obviously there are no blacks in Iran, but there were in conquered territories of it. There are many ethnicities involved.

Bottom line, it's a stupid point. No one is going to watch this movie and come out of the theatre thinking "wow, now we have to attack Iran!"

Are THOSE the distinctions? The message is obvious, but you have to use your brain and think beyond the absolute mundane. Movie makers and movie peddlers know what the fuck they are doing.

So clearly movie writers aren't doing any propaganda here. Plus we're assuming that they are right wing, which we have absolutely no evidence of. The direct has flat out said neither side represents anything in the modern-day world.

The question here though is, do you honestly believe most Americans know Iran is a modern-day Persia? And do honestly think anyone would watch this movie and come out thinking that the US must now attack modern Iran because of something that happened 2400 years ago?

And that movie was twisted and re-edited after 9-11 in order to
"connect the story to what Americans are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan." :puke:
Sections of the story that might be seen as "ambivalent towards the moral obligation
to do battle with evil" were cut out. The resulting blockbuster movie was hyped as
justification for the war with Iraq by ignorant moviegoers. It helped
the war with Iraq occur.

Also, Xerxes was not a brown-skinned, oriental Ming the Merciless
stereotype as he is apparently portrayed in this movie.

(although he was merciless proponent of ethnocentrism
on behalf of the white-skinned, Aryan Persians,

who chained together their conscripts from non-Persian lands...
don't expect "300" to discuss that difference).

:eyes:

This is news to me. I've never seen anyone make this claim, and when I watched the movies, the war in Iraq was the furthest thing from my mind...

and as an artist I'm going to watch it. Something so carefully constructed and beautifully created deserves a chance to be seen. I don't know about the story yet, but it sure is aesthetically different and interesting.

...your opening line is soooooo ironic: I post on another board besides the DU, and the biggest azzhat on that other board, a TOTAL RW male chauvinist swine, is in love with this movie. I would not put it past him to kill cats ~~ and other small creatures ~~ as his primary hobby in life. Your description nailed him perfectly!

OT, this line kind of struck me: "...Athenian soldiers are revealed to be potters, sculptors, poets." That sounds kind of like Japanese samurai, who were likely to be lauded for their poetry and calligraphy (I'm serious!) as often as they were for their swordsmanship or ferocity on the battlefield.

And like trumad said, it's just a movie.


Edit: clarity.

Please! They pretty much matched the Spartans for ferocity, were just as vital in defeating the Persians, and only lost the later war with the Spartans because they were too busy trying to conquer the rest of the Mediterranean. (What is it about imperialists that they always turn into idiots and engage in overstretch? Well, I suppose I should be glad about that. Sort of.)

This is comic-book land. Some of the pictures do look pretty though. I doubt I'll be able to withstand two hours of that crap, should I actually succumb to my urge to see it. (Note that Spartans are my direct ancestors! If Leonidas's issue survives to this day, then statistically there is no doubt he's my great-great-great-add-80-more-greats-grandfather... I think though as a warrior I'd probably disappoint him.)

But I was going to say: Spartans didn't fight naked. They would have understood that as a recipe for salami. They got their advantage from being first in the Iron Age (thanks to the Fe mines near Sparta). Not to mention being such hard-ass psycho aggro motherfuckers who exposed "weak" children on the mountainside, trained as warriors from the age of 3, subjected children to "sponsorship" (rape by their elders), murdered slaves for practice, etc.

A Spartan goes into battle at a very hairy 5-foot-3 with 70 lbs of armor, always closely holding on to the nearest other Spartan. They advance in tight, tank-like phalanxes, holding up their shields and poking their sharp implements at the enemy in unison. (This is what sensible Athenian hoplites also learned to do.)

All this is not exactly how '300' depicts it, is it?

And it wasn't 300, that's only the Spartan hoplites. They had about 500 slaves along who also got butchered, and a contingent of Thebans also stuck around to become heroes. But maybe "1200" sounds less sexy as a film title?

It's unclear who is supposed to be "the Bush" in this movie. Many people are saying the decadent, wacko Xerxes (who is after all out to conquer a foreign country) is the actual metaphor for W.

Either view is ridiculous - this aestheticized, glorified splatter ballet is lifted from bad comics and even worse video games - although the racist angle is clear. Thunder-music, portentous speechifying, no relation to any earthly reality. Nevertheless I doubt I'll resist the lure of it. (One's born every minute!)

Ah! I'm ranting at random! Thank you!

I had thought I remember reading about the Spartans main advantage was that their strong armor was very resistant to the inferior weapons of the Persians - the previews of the movie I saw made the Spartans look like buff WWF wrestlers in red Superman capes. And, another big advantage was that they stuck together and fought as a team, side-by-side. The previews also made it look like it was the Spartans being super individual fighters, leaping all over the battlefield...

He says that the plot is thin. One of the greatest battles in humankind's history is not much of a plot - right.

I have not seen the movie but I will. I think the Spartans are a weird folk to embrace for the right wing (slave owning and pederasty aside). This is just a good story with an arresting visual style.

Amazing, no?

That the movie (at least from what I can tell) is more of a fantasy movie with the Battle of Thermopylae vaguely used as its basis. My friend who saw it last night said it was a bad mix of "Gladiator" (hardly a historically accurate movie) and "Lord of the Rings". If someone were to just make a movie about Thermopylae that would be great, but this seems to be something else.

It's loosely based on the battle. It's not meant to be accurate.

Miller's graphic novel is based on the movie "The 300 Spartans" that he watched as a child. That movie was based on the battle.

Here's a review of the movie after it was released on DVD:

“The 300 Spartans” is a beautifully shot film with lavish costuming and well-choreographed battle scenes. Looking back at the film produced approximately 40 years ago, I found it to be quite interesting and entertaining, but what struck me the most about it is that essentially “The 300 Spartans” is a propaganda film hidden behind a historical backdrop and costumes. I mean no disrespect to the filmmakers and to those who sacrificed their lives for a greater good, but ideologically speaking, this is a great film to impress young people and maybe get them to enlist in the armed forces and depending where one stands on that issue, a film like this can be a scary thing. I suppose I’m a bit jaded, but I can’t help but imagine some naïve young men going to see this film back in 1961 and then going out into the world and wanting to enlist in the Army or Marines with visions of glory on their mind. Again I might be wrong because my generation has grown up with a lot of antiwar films in the last thirty years at least. I guess the big difference between modern warfare and the war depicted in “The 300 Spartans” is that the Spartans were fighting to defend their land and way of life while in the last few wars, it seems as though the soldiers are fighting with an ideology in mind, but they are not always given a clear-cut tangible reason beyond that. I could go on and on about this, but I feel that I have already typed enough and do not want to turn this DVD review into something else.


I picked up the DVD about a year ago, because it has always been one of my favorite movies.

there was one made in the fifties

Want a commment on the Vietnam War, go watch "go tell the Spartans" or rather rent it

In order to appeal to "post-9-11 sentiment".

Another movie everyone said they loved because it looked like a painting.

Apparently the only art we are willing to create is that which glorifies
bloodshed, and doesn't show the sacrifice or soul-crushing terror of
turning men into killers.

I know that Jackson was involved in a hand-on style during the editing process. Are you implying that Jackson did that? If not, who did edit it into a pro-war film? Do we know what their politics are?

Yet my overarching question is this: Do you base this interpretation on your own observation and interpretation or is it someone else's?

The only real deviation Jackson took from the text in the pro-war business was in initially making Theodan reluctant to battle. He explained that this was done for dramatic purposes, to give the Theoden character more dimension.

Furthermore, Jackson left out "The Scouring of the Shire," that part of the book where the Hobbits returned home to find Saruman had taken over their village and turned it into a bastion of corruption. This lead to a final battle, where the four fellows convinced their entire town into joining them to fight.

My very liberal son saw it last night and loved it. Oh, and, he loves kittens.

that this movie should shame Right Wing Chickenhawks---because at least the Spartans fought to their death in something they believed in....unlike today's chicken little chickenhawks.

Hypocrisy is something they're proud of. You are defending the movie they are, yes, hypocritically, going to succesfully use as propaganda and war bait -- just like they did with several movies in the run-up to Iraq. You thought they would nobly take offense at being labled inferior to their "noble antecedents", the Spartans?

On Edit: I'm not saying the movie isn't defensible on other grounds, although "comic book splatterfests" such as SIN CITY are, frankly, devoid of any moral character and are like watching the Gen-X version of Weimar art-house fascism.

But I would never defend an otherwise excellent movie for its manipulated pro-war propaganda especially if it materially contributes to the deaths of thousands, like several blockbuster movies have in the past, including TWO TOWERS and INDEPENDENCE DAY.

I don't recall any recent wars in the Middle Earth, or against invading alien races.

I saw it last night. I thought that Xerxes was Bush, the Persians being the US, etc.

You could easily see this both ways, if you really wanted to spend time thinking about drawing those sorts of parallels.

As another poster said... it's a MOVIE. A very well done, artistically shot movie.

I thought something like that at first, too. However, there are some glaring differences between the scenario in the movie and the situation today in the Middle East. In the movie, the Persians are the aggressors. In reality, we invaded Iraq. The Spartans are fighting to preserve their own country, to repel the invading Persians. But, more importantly, the Spartans are free, the Persians under Xerxes seek to enslave them. They fight to actually defend their freedom, which has been the propaganda of the right wing in our country, but not the reality. The despicable politician in the movie who rapes the Queen and betrays her in front of the other politicians to prevent the army from going to war more closely resembles the republicants in reality, though they are lying to do the opposite. The bad guys are corrupted by money, both in the movie and in reality. Even the phrase "freedom is not free" is in the script. However, unlike reality, in the movie it is applied correctly.

This movie is not anti-left-wing at all, rather it proves that it is the left who really supports our troops and the right who use our troops for their own gain. And, because of the amount of role-reversal employed in the story, it is easy to confuse the politics of it. It's timing couldn't be better.

If you are familiar with the graphic novel, this movie is what it would look like if the pages animated before you. The embellishments added to fill it out to movie length are fairly seamless and don't detract from the theme or the atmosphere. It's actually a great movie. And Spartans kick ass.

Gen-X version of Weimar art-house fascism.

Let me guess: in the Movie, the Persians are brown-skinned invaders from the Orient.

They are not portrayed as technologically advanced superpower run by white supremacists from the Caucasus (Persians).

The Spartan system of government is portrayed as worth saving, and we are supposed to root against it being smashed.

Am I right?

go see Zodiac, that is by far the best movie I have seen in 2007.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Ridding the world of "mysticism" sounds like a RW agenda item.

so it's a moot point.

how some RWers may make the analogy. Never mind...

and brought he material for me, very interesting stuff--she's 12 so it is being taught in some schools.

If Spartans are supposed to be Republican heroes they need to read up a little more on them. The world exterminated them. And in reality the Republicans in power today are nothing at all like Spartans. Spartans were brave, Republicans are draft dodging cowards that pretend they are brave and try and live a brave life through the actions of others. They send real brave men to their deaths with quite a bit of ease, but when their time came they had "other priorities".

But within the context of this battle, the point was the sacrifice and that Xerxes eventually got his butt kicked.

Everyone seems to forget this pesky fact when babbling on about freedom.

and a lot of it still does.

That doesn't make passion and sacrifice any less noble. Whether he who sacrifices is a slave or a king doesn't change the meaning and depth of that sacrifice.

Sparta, of course, was notorious even in the slave societies of antiquity for its rigorous striations and the treatment of the Helots. Needless to say, the Athenians were also a slave society, as were most. Hell, if we throw in wage slavery, so is ours, still, substantially, today.

All your neo-medieval ideology about the nobility of sacrifice (martial, of course) is beside the point, or at least beside my point. I'll leave you to that. Be aware that the welling up of tears in glorious admiration tends to distort vision, however.

of the mid-20th century.

The difference between the way Sparta was taught during the Cold War and the way Sparta is portrayed in this asinine film (the graphic novel is also asinine, I should add) is a case study for critical historiography. During the Cold War, Sparta was indeed portrayed as the "totalitarian" regime, a clear analogy to the "war-like" communists. This is how I was taught classical history in elementary school, junior high school, and high school (1980's-early 1990's). Needless to say, we were the Athenians (also a slave society, needless to say). It was all very pat. Now, WE are the Spartans holding off the hordes of Xerxes. Get it? Get it? We're the martial culture saving the "Western world" (which very obviously had no meaning until very recently, historically speaking), even when nobody else will stand and fight. Get it?

"enslaving democracy".

Omigod! Xerxes sent slaves into combat! And he was
an Oriental Savage! A proponent of Zoroastrianism!

It's a good thing the Spartans and the Athenians
didn't send slaves into battle, they were uncorrupted
free men living lives as yeoman tribesmen.

The battle of Thermopylae is noble for one reason:
you have to understand the complex (but seriously
fucked up) psychology of Bronze-Age European warrior
society (which outlasted the Fall of Rome) in order
to understand the tribal origins of democracy, and a
counterpoint to our current decadent interpretation
of historical warfare and the rise of so-called
"Western civilization".

:eyes:

Find that for me. I'm interested to learn what you imagine yourself to be responding to.

My point is simple: the laughable rhetoric of freedom that has been blanketing the previews of 300 is infantile, stupid, and ahistorical. How you derive from that some notion of censorship (they shouldn't make movies about Sparta, or some other such nonsense you seem to be attributing to me), I cannot discern.

From ignorant f*ckers who don't realize that the Persians were the original white supremacists.

They did the same thing with LORD OF THE RINGS, refusing to cast
dark-skinned people as "good guys" because "it would confuse the
audience" to quote the director.

I cannot think of ONE off the top of my head...

It most certainly WOULD confuse the audience if Chris Rock was cast as Frodo...Or Samuel L. Jackson as Gandalf...I think THAT is what Peter Jackson was talking about...

If I remember my history correctly, Slavery was common in all Greek City states at the time

Keep up please.

I see the trailer for this, there is a whole theater of people laughing at it. I know they're laughing at it, like I am, because of the comments filtering throughout the room (we go to smaller, local theaters, not the huge megaplexes.) 300 looks ridiculous, but I also thought Sin City was ridiculous. Yes, it is aesthetically interesting, but I am not a fan of violence for the sake of seeing gore. I also don't watch the current batch of horror films that enjoy torture over the scare-factor.

First, the battle depicted in this movie is considered one of the defining moments in Western history, and I'm surprised he seems unaware of that.

It's not unthinkable that fact alone would make it a go-to for RWers, anti-Muslims (although that's really silly, as this was way before Muhammed), or even well-intentioned people who think Western Civ isn't / wasn't entirely horrible (I'm thinking of Jonathan Rhys-Davies, who got into so much trouble for saying it ought to be preserved).

Difference between Persian and Greek ethnicity. Both were part of the Hellenistic-Persian common civilization.

Americans who think that Greeks are somehow distinguishable from Persians and so-called Turks (residents of Anatolia, descended from the SAME GREEKS/PERSIANS) ethnically or in terms of "lifestyle", don't understand the true importance of the battle of Thermopylae.

The battle of Thermopylae was the end of the state-based Spartan model and the temporary triumph of the tribal, democratic model which is associated with Athens and Old Europe.

The only democratic societies in the ancient world were tribes. They were up against "civilized" states like Persia.

There was no ethnic or cultural distinction. It was a common culture over vast distances with very little innovation until you get to the (brief) Athenian renaissance

(which Alexander destroyed and corrupted by marketing it to Persia, India and Egypt as a watered-down "global contemporary lifestyle".)

Like we are doing with the carcass of American civic culture, exporting movies like "Independence Day" into caves in Afghanistan while eliminating freedom of movement on the sidewalks of our own cities.

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/movies/orl-db-moviereviews-searchresults,0,3279701,results.formprofile?Lib=turbine_cdb_lib%3Aresult_doc_id+result_doc_rank+document_id+cdb_num+cdb_01_txt+cdb_02_txt+cdb_03_txt+cdb_04_txt+cdb_05_txt+cdb_06_txt+cdb_07_txt+cdb_08_txt+cdb_09_txt+cdb_10_txt+cdb_11_txt+cdb_12_txt+cdb_13_txt+cdb_15_txt+cdb_14_txt+cdb_16_txt+cdb_17_txt+cdb_18_txt+cdb_19_txt+cdb_20_txt+cdb_21_txt+cdb_22_txt+cdb_23_txt+cdb_24_txt+cdb_25_txt+cdb_26_txt&PageSize=1&Page=1&MinCoarseRank=500&QueryType=CONCEPT&Query=&turbine_cdb_lib__cdb_01_txt=300&Find+it%21=Submit+Query

Roger Moore, Sentinel Movie Critic

.... a full-blooded, testosterone-spiked shot glass that you down in one ferocious sitting. .... childish-macho .... manlier-than-manly .... The pansies.

.... fascism, homoerotic and homophobic at the same time ....

As Frank Miller intended, he has the Greeks shirtless, and buff beyond belief. Just think of the gym time! Snyders Xerxes is a bejeweled, pierced, hairless hulk with stereotypical homosexual tendencies.

Snyder practically invites us to laugh at the macho, the bravado, the cliches, the movie references. But he pulls us back in, reminding us of sacrifice, of the ideals that were at stake.

.... Go, manly movie-lovers, and tell the Spartans that here is a movie worth the popcorn.

********UNQUOTE*******

The far right are a bunch of child molesters, what do you expect?

again this evening (maybe 5 or 6 pm EST).

My husband and I are both looking forward to seeing this movie.

I don't see what the big deal is.

And read "Gates of Fire," it's a fictionalized first-person retelling of Thermopylae and very good.

The whole story is incredible - just the fact that Xerxes held a grudge for that long... though I guess burning a city is pretty bad on the scale of egregious crimes you can commit against another person lol.

And the naval battles - how the Greeks managed to win twice against the Persians outnumbered 5-6 to 1... amazing.

Gates of Fire is quite good!!

But not for the stereotypical reasons most Americans, who don't understand
the essentially alien nature of Hellenic culture to modern sensibilities, seem to believe.

The history of ancient Greece should shame us into believing that there was some sort of "ideal of educated, fundamentally WHITE Western civilization" that we have somehow gotten away from.

Like people in Africa, the democracies of the ancient world were tribes.

Then, Like the Zulus in Africa, and the Mongols under Genghis Khan, and the Chechens today, the Spartans came up with a deadly, virus-like innovation -- total devotion to a militarized ethnocentric clan-based tribal state. Like a virus, this innovation always kills itself out after much death and destruction has taken place.

But not before the Spartans interceded to accidentally prevent the destruction of Athens.

The Bronze Age and Iron Age Near Eastern peoples (essentially, the folks between France and India -- the Indo-Europeans) had some very strong ideas about warfare, death in battle, civic participation, fate, and honor that bear no relation to anything Americans deal with in their modern lives.

People have to understand Hellenic culture before they can understand how the Trojans, or the Spartans, or for that matter the Persians, felt.

Instead they take the modern battle between "Islam and the West" and other unconscious ideas about what western civilization was like.

We cannot apply Thermopylae to modern experience or even interpret it correctly if we don't understand what life was like back then. There WAS no such thing as "Western Civilization".

Before Socrates there was nothing unusual to distinguish Greece as some beacon of light in the ancient world. And Socrates was killed by his own people for preaching a message of tolerance, open-mindedness, and civil-libertarian beliefs.

Then Alexander, Caesar, and Constantine came along, like Lenin, and corrupted the whole concept of Western civilization as somehow a beacon of hope to humanity (beyond merely being a bulwark from the bloodthirsty German tribes, who were themselves, democratic just like the early Greek tribes).

It was civilization that created dictatorship, and replaced democracy.

Athens tried to combine the equitable, honor-obsessed, bloodthirsty tribal democracy of the ancient Hellenes and Germanics, with cultured civiliation, and succeeded for a brief time (one or two generations).

Athens is the "Paris commune" of the ancient world.

It did not become some sort of model for all that came after. It was approprieated and pimped by warmongering right-wingers like Alexander, Caesar, and Constantine who wanted some of that culture to rub off on them, however, like the people who want to go to war against Persia now.

Sound familiar?

It's a movie adaptation of a Frank Miller graphic novel.

Get over it.

:crazy:

Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

Or, is he so focused trying to paint 300 as a RW flick that facts and context need not apply.

The making fun of artists comes from a part where the Greeks question Leonidas as to why he brought so few soldiers. Leonidas asks the Greeks (with a much larger force) standing there what their professions are, one says potter, another says sculptor, etc. Then Leonidas asks the Spartans what their profession is and they chant that they are soldiers. Then Leonidas says to the Greek leader "See, I brought more soldiers than you."

How the hell is that mocking?

I've said this in other threads about 300 but I will say it again: Don't send people who don't like action/adventure movies or people with an obvious political agenda to review an action/adventure movie with no political agenda. Send someone that actually has a clue and actually wants to see it. This review is clownish bullshit made by a guy that seems to have no idea that 300 is a comic book dramatization that takes great artistic license. People going to this movie looking for a history lesson need to pull their head out of their ass.

Why not let people actually make up their own mind about the movie instead of trying to poison the well?

If so, why argue the point on THIS SITE?

I love the whole postmodern BS "it's just a movie, can't we enjoy our splatterfests, it doesn't mean we're pro-war, besides, life really WAS like that back then, and if not, who cares... "

"and war isn't supposed to be BORING like those politically correct morons who made JARHEAD and THIN RED LINE want us to believe..."

"WAR CAN BE BEAUTIFUL, AND "300" WAS LIKE A PAINTING!"

"My favorite scene in 'Lord of the Rings' is where the guy kills..."

"My favorite scene in 'Crouching Tiger' is when they kill..."

"My favorite scene in 'Unforgiven' is when the Kiowa brother gets it..."

Right-Wing Hollywood has shown once again how out of step it is with mainstream america.

The burning question then becomes on what chances civilized societies has when we are faced with tyrants next door and terrorists overseas? What chance does Athens have in the world where there is Sparta and Persia? I say that we must secure our right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

It's merely adapted from the graphic novel.

No link. I read about it in the paper yesterday.

Basically, all I really saw it as is two hours or so of "Spartans Kicking Ass." Like the review even points out (in certain respects), I really don't think it is any deeper then that.

:hi:

.

Some movies do indeed get preachy, but this writer is doing pretty much the same thing. I go to the movies to get entertained and away from real life.

From what I have seen of it the artwork is amazing, the sepia tones rule, etc. As a whole maybe I won't like it, but I am not going in there thinking about bush or any other political candidate.

Would to god politicians thought about me as much as some people think about them in everything the see/hear/buy in life.

Ironic, no?

having studied the battle in the past, the foundation of the plot and storyline was fairly accurate. Of course hollywood had its fun and dramatized most of it. The biggest parallel i drew from the movie was the idea that an army fighting on its home soil has a huge advantage over one so far away from home. Greece was the beginnings of modern western civilization and without this battle that might not have happened. Regardless of how you feel about the spartans, the actions were heroic and worthy of being relevant some 2400 years later. Steve Burgess should pick up a history book from time to time and stop knee jerking to anything with violence in it.

:shrug:

At least TROY made a point of being a melodrama and a tragedy,
not a historical war movie.

Besides, all war is tragedy -- anyone who doesn't understand that
is unworthy heir of the Western Civilization that existed, to be
quite honest, only in tribal societies at the time.

Where do y'all think common law comes from? The tribal council of Athens?

Or Blu-ray. Whichever format wins the HD war.

HBO has a 15 minute documentary about the movie 300. It is based on the Frank Miller graphic novel. That's it. It's not sending a political message. Anyone who has seen Sin City would've recognized that this movie was based on a graphic novel because they look similar.

I think it looks great from an artistic point of view. If you don't want to see violence in a movie, don't go see it.

And, I don't kill kittens.

...

It's the same guy that did the Dawn of the Dead remake for crying out loud. Not exactly a right-winger...

And go see a movie that I think I'll enjoy.

/gee...what a concept!

Source of famous pro-gun slogan - damn right the right will love it!

Already being cheered as "awesome".

Dark Knight Returns was criticized for its fascist tones
(though, in fairness, Batman stands up to Reagan, so it could be interpreted the other way...)

An old friend of mine, Jeff Smith (creator of the graphic novel series "Bone") is a close friend of Frank's. Jeff is extremely liberal, and he's never mentioned Frank as a right winger to me. Jeff usually notes the politics of his friends during our discussions. To my knowledge, he only has one conservative friend and it ain't Frank....but I'll ask next time I speak with him.

i love that series (haven't finished it yet, been checking it out bit by bit at the library)! it's smart, funny, and with a heart. exciting and yet nowhere near saturated in violence and gore (well, at least not the first few chapters). it's one of the few graphic novels that i'd gladly hand young children because it's such a great story and yet reserved enough to retain their innocence and wonder. i think it's a fantastic way to encourage reading and storytelling -- skills i find crucial in developing one's humanity -- and filled with enough virtues, like loyalty, mirth, hope, courage, etc., that it could be said to be inspirational. a remarkable work.

it reminds me of another graphic novel i loved. what was its name... oh yes! "The Courageous Princess" by Rob Espinosa. that one was even moreso appropriate for children, yet filled with good virtues, quite low on violence, creative problem solving, and lots of heart. these are graphic novels i shall keep in my collection -- i can't wait to buy them all.

tell Jeff Smith that i think his work is wonderful and to keep up the excellent work!

Basically called it a film about today's situation, from the GOP side. The reviewer said it was one of the very worst films he's ever seen, it was so obvious in it's glorification of the war.

.

Writing about "today's situation" in 1998 is quite a gift.

Sorry. He didn't say it was about today's situation, anymore than anyone thought the final Star Wars movie was actually about the Bush administration.

.

That's still impossible. You can't write allegory about things that haven't happened at the time. You can read something allegorically after-the-fact, but that's the interpretation of the reader, not the author.

Thus, it makes no sense to claim that Frank Miller was writing allegorically in 1998 about our relations with Iran now; he wouldn't have been aware of the situation to represent it allegorically.

Did Frank Miller MAKE this movie, or was it simply based on his graphic novel? Come on...use yer head. You're thinking like a twelve year old. Did you read Jurassic Park, or just see the movie? The two had little in common. That happens when bad directors take on good projects. They fuck 'em up.

.

That's the only way Frank Miller has let his work be adapted since the travesty that was RoboCop.

You're reviewing the movie and the book. I've seen neither, but I'm not actually talking about either. I'm merely relaying the review I heard, and I guess I'm not being clear. No one, not the reviewer nor I, is trying to make the case that Frank Miller wrote this about the Bush administration or the situation in Iraq. Maybe it would be best if you simply listened to the NPR review for yourself for a better understanding. The reviewer, as I heard it, was making the case that this movie serves as little more than blood lust fantasy for video-heads and fans of the graphic novel, who probably don't have any clue of the history they are supposed to be watching, and that it may well foment the hatred towards Persia/Iraq without offering any reasons. His chief critique was aimed at the stylistic shortcomings as he saw them; hyper-fast super-gore fight scenes which suddenly switch to super-slow-motion just to watch heads cut off, skulls split, blood spilled -- then switch back to more hyper violence (between indistinguishable, identically rendered Chippendales males models) until the next goring, back in super slow mo. He compared it to the brilliant work in Sin City, which, while drenched in gore, demonstrated good direction and used it's visual effects to enhance the story, not just for the sake of more and more bloodshed.

Again, I've no argument against Miller or 300, because I haven't read the graphic novel or seen the movie. I'm just telling you of the reviewer's complaints with the film version. I'm not for a split-second trying to suggest Frank Miller wrote this just to make a statement about Bush or the war in Iraq.

Peace. I'm glad you liked 300. Apparently some others did not.

.

After 9-11, it was post-shot and re-edited
In anticipation of the pending war in the Middle East.

Deliberately so, according to the director of TWO TOWERS.

The book did not share the attitudes expressed in the
"as accurate as possible" movie version.

The change in focus to Hollywood Blood Lust is all in
the "possible" part.

As for the graphic novel by Frank Miller, if this is the
guy who did Sin City I don't have much respect for his
belief that over-the-top gore is somehow meaningful or
artistic. it's been done before. It's not "postmodern",
it isn't "deconstructing our inherent bloodlust", it's
just pandering to assholes who find gore exciting.

In the modern era, pulp fiction was distinguished from
art for a reason -- it appealed to base ideas and base
sensibilities. Postmodern civilization claims there
ARE NO base sensibilities -- but claims that we can still
take pride in the sort of jingoism of our ancestors while
pretending we're above that, and pretending we don't
take it seriously.

It is a fundamentally chickenhawk, "thank god we're not like that anymore" philosophy,

which is why movies like these are tailor-made for culture-deprived,
rootless, educated, postmodern chickenhawks.

I'm not a modernist, but there is something to be said for value judgements.

I read the book several times. I've seen the film several times.

and, it never was before that. They would have had to have re-shot almost the whole damn movie -

The death of Boromir & the breaking of the Fellowship happened at the start of The Two Towers.

There were no elves at Helm's Deep in the book that I can recall. And, I think the orcs shot first in the book, while the movie has the nervous old man.

There was no warg attack on the refugees leaving Edoras where Aragorn fell and almost died.

The book had Legolas & Gimli as pretty bland characters - no shades of grey to them at all. Yet, in the movie, Legolas was ambivalent about the upcoming battle.

Heck, the Gandalf fight against the Balrog didn't take place at the beginning of the book in a Frodo dream sequence.

Also - I don't recall Theoden being so frail & out of it in the book.

In the theatrical version, the battle of Helm's Deep ended with the charge of the Rohirrim. In the book, the orcs fled into the forest and were massacred by the Ents & their allies. (that was shown in the extended version)

In the book, Sarumen managed to escape his being imprisoned by the Ents in his tower & fled to the Shire. In the movies, Sarumen ended up falling out of his tower to his death.

In the book, Faramir never took the hobbits back almost all the way to Gondor only to release them. He passed the temptation test that his brother had failed.

In the book, I believe the Entmoot had the Ents deciding to march to war against Sarumen. In the movie, the Ents decided against war, only to be convinced when Merry & Pippin tricked Treebeard into the part of the forest that Sarumen razed.

if anything, we would be the persians in such an allegory. we, like the persians in their time, have the most powerful military force in the history of the world to date. and like the spartans before them, the iraqi insurgents have brought us to a complete standstill.

or maybe it's just a movie based on a graphic novel about a defining event in the history of human civilization.

They will laugh at you saying that we are like the Persians in "300" and call you an America-hater.

Naturally, we are the SPARTANS, that is why the movie roots for the SPARTANS to complete their mission and "save Western Civilization" (which did not exist at the time, and oh, by the way, Xerxes and the battle of Thermopylae are only known to us because they are mentioned in a few uncorroborated -- but well written -- sources. So much for the scientific historical method.)

As Huey Long said, "When fascism comes to America they will call it 100% Americanism."

That neither the Persians or Spartans are supposed to represent the US.

It's just a movie loosely based on actual historical event with no political message whatsoever.

is an elitist asshole who thinks that any movie that isn't depressing and boring must by definition be crap.

Come on, get real. You obviously like the movie...so he disagrees with you. That makes him an elitist asshole? He isn't the only one who has given the movie horrible reviews.

By the way, the "elitist asshole" pointed out that he loved Sin City; but unlike Sin City, he thought 300 was horribly directed and was wrought with cheap splatter thrills and bad "camera" techniques without substance. He also stated that the cgi looked like you were watching a video game. He has some very specific points. Maybe you should hear what he had to say about it for yourself, and if you still disagree, well, you still disagree. That doesn't make him an elitist asshole, just someone with a different opinion.

.

Nor have had a real desire to. And I did listen to the review, as well as many others. Spare me your fake outrage.

NT!

is the amount of time Batman will spend fighting "traitorous liberals" rather than the time he will spend fighting Al-Qaeda. Because, given what Frank Miller has said about this project, I imagine there will be more than a bit of that in there. In regards to the fighting Al-Qaeda bit, I don't mind so much (I still think it's a silly project).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

Freeper heads would explode, especially then their 'special bond' was revealed!

:evilgrin:

It would be interesting to see who would play, say, Philip II, for instance.

They don't realize that everything is political.

As long as you understand that "political" has nothing to do
with politics inside our government, which is part of the problem
and will never be more than an after effect of real politics.

Real politics are the movies you DON'T get to see.

Or the movies you see where the seams of our culture's taboos
are obviously showing (think "Unforgiven", "M", or poorly
received war movies like "Thin Red Line" that were panned for
being insufficiently bloodthirsty by the same "it's just a
movie, and in fantasy, war is entertaining, good and evil
are absolute, and black is white" assholes.)

Real politics are crafted by culture -- in the case of
modern civilization, a culture of chickenhawk blood-lust
similar to the Coliseum.

The Romans selectively culled Greek civilization for the
bits they liked, too, just like the Pauline fundamentalists
and Constantinian theocrats did with Judeo-Christian theology.

That's where our current watered-down understanding of past
civilizations like the Greeks come from.

Hell, most Americans don't even consider the Greeks a
"past civilization". They think they were "just like us"
and the people living on the other side of the Bosporus
were alien practicioners of "mysticism".

It's just a movie, a very homoerotic one at that :P

This liberal loved it.

It's a fucking movie about an actual event. It's right wing to glorify 300 men who fought to the death to protect their country and democratic system from invaders?

Not to mention the word "Iran" doesn't appear once in the movie, and the vast majority of Americans have no clue that Iran is a modern day Persia. This is like saying that the upcoming Pathfinder (about Native Americans defending themselves from viking invaders) demonizes Sweden and Norway.

This is as dumb as the anti-24 nonsense. Prudes on the left need to shup up just as much as prudes on the right.

I'm kidding.

What is there to take offense at?

Start with the alien culture bit... did you realize that
Greece included most of modern day Turkey until the late
Middle Ages?

Did you know that the Persian system of civilization won out?

The GREEKS were the alien culture, especially the Spartans
with their Zulu-like slave economy and bizarre bloodlust...

not the recognizably modern (and totalitarian) Persians.

This is something I heard a few years ago. During the time of Sparta and Athens, many in each country wanted to be like the people in the other country. Many people in Sparta felt the Spartans should be more like the Athenians and many people in Athens felt they should be more like the Spartans. In addition, the Athenians may not have been that weak. I have recently heard that when Athens needed more land it invaded one of its neighbors to take their land. Supposedly, when people from that country asked some of the Athenians why they would take land from other people when they had talked so much about Democracy and freedom the Athenians replied something like Democracy was meant for them and not for others. I am not trying to bash the Athenians, I am just saying they were not just poets and weak people. I think the Athenians just tried to find a balance between civility and militarism.

:rofl:

But I was disappointed to see that they replaced the word "reason" (as in 'age of reason') with the word "freedom". Seems like a really braindead edit.

The Greeks were fighting for their liberty as free, tribal, honor-society peoples against the forces of civilization.

Athens did not become a major power until at least a century later.

That's where notions like democracy and the rule of law come from:

Tribes, not surplus-agriculture economies with their high artistic
achievements, oppressive ruling classes, and belief that others were
born to die on their behalf.

Athens and other systems like it were/are unique in trying to preserve
a tribal system of government while supporting an artistic civilization.

Sparta and systems like it (the Zulu state, the Mongol state) were also pretty unique.

Liberty is an irrational, fundamentally UNREASONABLE ideal to which we deliberately aspire because folks like Jefferson refused to be REASONABLE when it came to giving away the "natural rights" of man in return for the benefits of modernity. Absent a belief in the natural ideal of human society, modernity and civilization have always gravitated towards totalitarianism.

w/out getting too philisophical, it really is a battle between ying yang (good/evil, devil/god/ yes/no rich/ poor etc) and the rightwing idea is 'everything is wrong unless I do it, then it's not only right, but the only right'....it's strange to argue over a comic book movie like 300 and try to promote truth, which is ENCUMBERED with detail, versus the lie, which is sleek as a spartan after a bloodbath....
the colonialization of africa, guys like rhodes and henry stanley, leopold etc and the fuckyou racism they enjoyed (after hundred of years of almost mind boggling culture destroying slavery) leaving an entire continent in as grotesque a psychic mess as even satan would find too sickening-after all this history, one would think the men who make/promote and live off such things as '300' would be hiding underground, like vampires, and afraid to show their faces, but instead....we elect the punks presidente!

More than that. I work in a theater so I see it for free. =D

And after that, I'll play some of those much maligned violent video games. Just hearing video games bashed in a piece that has nothing at all to do with them makes me roll my eyes.

I haven't seen it yet though. Maybe I should wait. Still based on my knowledge of history and video games it seems like the author has no idea what he's talking about, and is far too wrapped up in politics. A great piece for other left-wing partisans to read, and not much else.

Now excuse me, I'm going to play Tenchu and decapitate some innocent guards. And then I'm going to hug my mom and pet my cat. As opposed to torturing them.

not another movie about ancient Greece :boring:

Draw from that what you will.

I saw the first showing of the film and it is not a right-wing movie at all nor is it a left-wing movie. It just is what it is, it stands alone without any political bent or message. It's just a really good movie about a group of badasses defending their home and piling up the corpses against incredible odds. It's a great show.

Good movies attempt to explain why, in the eyes of the characters, we are
supposed to root for the other guys to die, or best of all, why it DIDN'T
HAVE TO HAPPEN.

But most Americans don't believe violence doesn't have to happen.

Unexplained violence is essential to a good story, apparently.

There is a reason these guys went out and piled up the corpses. Political corruption and absurd law decreed by "oracles" of the gods did not allow the King of Sparta to muster his entire army to defend his country against the massive Persian invasion so he and 300 of his "bodyguards" decided to take a leisurely stroll to the northern portion of the country and see what would happen. What happened was an asskicking for the ages until betrayal and the aforementioned political corruption undermined the King and his valiant force.

..when I went to see it, in a primitive type of way.

I thought it was hilarious that Spartans boasted the supremacy of their "freedom" when the only reason their military was so successful was because they were supported by slavery.. hah.

Think about it this way. The Spartans are defending themselves from a huge forgein power. Couldn't this be seen as liberal propoganda as well?

In the end, its just a movie based on a graphic novel that ALOT of people, regardless of their political affiliation, are going to enjoy. Alot of people won't. The actual story behind it is pretty fascinating, imo.

"Athens is mocked, particularly in a scene where Athenian soldiers are revealed to be potters, sculptors, poets."

Those were Thespian volunteers, not Athenian soldiers. And the context was that the Thespian leader was sniffing at the number of Spartans who came to fight. Leonidas retorted that 300 Spartans were worth more than 700 Thespians. Not that the Thespians were not brave, just that they were not nearly as well trained for the fight.

I say that as an Air Force computer technician with some basic weapons training who knows that he couldn't hold a candle to an Army Ranger in a combat situation. Same distinction.

the RW is saying that this movie is an allegory to the war in Iraq, the Persian are us and the Greeks are the Sons of Babylon (snicker, you dumb-shits it was about a historical event called the battle of Thrmopylae)

And now we have this funny screed from Alternet...

When the end comes it does not make any sense... truly it should not, except as a rear guard action to hold the Persians that gave Greece a tad of a breathing space to prepare its defenses father down the rear... and try to defend or evacuate Athens, they did the latter, since their leadership realized they could not hold that LAND force and the future depended on getting the Navy out where it coudl finish off the Persian Fleet and CUT them lines of communication.

Oh and it is bloody... yep, hand to hand combat with swords and spears WAS bloody... but in our world of clean warfare on the movie screen who cares? I mean hit the reset button right? Snicker...

Frank Miller most be doing something right... and the scary part is....

Oh my fucking lord BOTH the right an the left NEED A FUCKING HISTORY LESSON regarding one of the most critical battles of the ancient world!

Go tell them'
That here lie the spartans
As law demands

One of the many translations of the stone honoring the 300 at Thermpilae, which you can read (assuming you could read ancient Greek) to this day.

Oh and a piece of trivia to the historically inept, with the 300 there were another 1000 Thespians that made the ultimate sacrifice.

Oh and was it worth it?

Yes, the battle was the begining of the end to the invasion by Xerxes. the final straw, the Battle of Salamis

Oh and yes, they did consult the oracle and King Leonidas, (0ne of the two kings on the Spartan Throne at all times) expected to die there, since the Oracle said such....

My lord when people tell me that the left reads and is historically aware, I will laugh... I knew the right was not, but oh man oh man, it is not right or left, it is the United States, which I already knew but this proves it even more...

By the way the gorinees was the main complaint about Saving Private Ryan and oh man there are people still alive who hit that damn beach! So I gues this should not surprise me.

Fuck it...

Memo to all of you. WAR AIN'T NO PICNIC AND GOSH DARN IT, IT IS BLOODY!

Having worn at one time HALF the blood volume of a patient of mine who got shot, MULTIPLE TIMES wiht an AK-47, I guess the bloody part does not surrpise me, nor does it surprise me to see guts and blood and gore. What shocks me is this but, but, this WAR MOVIE, depicting a HISTORIC EVENT is bloody!



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

1. The Battle of Salamis was not the end of the land war in European "Greece," see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mycale is the naval end of the conflict.

2. Thermoplyae is only a small part of Herodotus's history, which takes on a much grander dimension of seeking to tell Greek's their own past for present political purpose. Classics departments around the world are likely in revulsion right now at the popularity of ahistorical self-serving cinema such as 300. Herodotus goes quicker than you think, and its got alot of passages that are more likely to come out of J.R. Tolkien than a university press.

3. I haven't seen the movie, but I would bet it "dehumanizes" both sides of the battle. Did you know that Spartan's ritually combed their long hair and rubbed themslves in olive oil before battle. Bet that wasn't in the movie. Not to mention the pederasty...

but based on the review about the oiled bodies, yes it was...and given Miller's penchant for respecting idle things like that, I would not be too surprised to see it.

As to pedastry... somehow I doubt ANY modern film maker will touch on it. IN fact the 1950s movie didn't either...and that has all to do with the audience.

And as to Herodotus, yes I know the histories, read them

And Salamis is seen as the critical stage of the war, where Mr Xerxes did not attempt to invade Greece again

Granted, this continued, and ended, you may argue this too, with Alexander the Great and the beginning of the Hellenistic Period

As to the side Tolkien Bash... well his whole Lord of the Rings saga was a response in some ways to his experience in the trenches of WW I, but I am sure you already knew that.

For the record I intend to watch it, and HAVING READ HERODOTUS, might even get the Graphic Hovel this is based upon (you see I understand this is not based on the primary source but a secondary source) and read it.. Then I will be able to see how close or far Miller was from Herodotus and Thucydides.

...but America likes its history with the tanned, muscled, pale people coming out on top always and in a justifiably glorious manner so long as they are Protestant or can be imagined as holding Protestant values. As a history student this is disturbing to me for understandable reasons, hence my hostility to reductionist interpretations of history and popularization of them. Most of America doesn't even know/remember who Herodotus is much less what he wrote about (hint: History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides is 60 years after the events in "300").

Just another action movie...no history here...enjoy your after movie McDonalds.

greece is what is left after you cook bacon

That said, thanks for your patronizing, but I DO HOLD an MA in History...

I believe I can tell a novelized version of history based on a graphic novel loosely based on the primary sources.

And yes we both share the distress of this, but the RW critique is just as bad as the LW critique on this, reflecting the we do not know that Greece was a civlization in antiquidty let alone a country TODAY

Or that this war started the rise of self identity as Greeks, not just Spartans or Thespians, or Athenians

Now, now, I love historiographic metafiction as much as the next guy, but I don't think it's a substitute for balanced, rigorous history, it's a companion literature, not the replacement.

Well what we do know is that compared to Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Persia, and the Phoenecians, the study of Greek civilization becomes much less exceptional in terms of the complexity of the civilization. A nation of Hesiod's...

I would say that yes, the war rerarranged the balance of the relationship among the Greek polities, but really there never was such a thing as "Greek" culture or identity until Herodotus. The precariousness of "Greekness" is exposed by colonization and encounters with the Northern periphery. Social history has not supplanted political history so much as it has made it a bit more complete.

If I were teaching college I'd tell my kidsw, go watch it, oh and by the way... here is Herodotus, specific sections... and compare and contrast the primary source wiht this very much secondary source


But then again my teachers used to do that... and kids learn better that way

Hell the Matrix made it easier for some philosophy instructors to teach philosophy

Greek soldiers practiced sex with little boys. No wonder the movie is a hit with the Repukeblicans.

Because I loved it.

And there are no man-boy sex scenes in the film, so how the hell is that relevant?

Jesus Christ, people. Artworks are about values. They communicate values overt and implied. What truth is in the movie and what is left out? I think the reading of the movie - which I haven't seen, but I must say looks to me like militaristic porn, brings up important questions. And, of course, interpretation - the audience's perception depends on a bunch of factors, context, experience, etc. - what values one bring sto it in the interpretive process, but I found this out-of-hand dismissal of the points this reviewer brings up more disturbing than the review.

Since when do we just say "IT'S JUST A FUCKING MOVIE" and mock analysis and interpretation? Since when do we think movies have no subtext?

I just watched an episode of "The Andy Griffith Show" from the late 1960s. Goober wants to take a vacation from the filling station and his girfriend, Flora, suggests she take his place. She is enormously successful and starts making plans on how to expand the station with the boss. Goober realizes what is happening and decides to leave Mayberry and let her keep the job.

Good ol' Andy talks her into quitting so Goober can have his job back and they can go back to being the typical acceptable couple.

Just a fucking TV show. The "moral" in the resolution that the "girl" should give up her career self-actualization so that she won't lose her man is just my imagination.

For cryin out loud, the outrage in this thread is ridiculous.

that's exactly what I was thinking!!!

And it's based on a graphic novel, almost frame for frame. There's not supposed to be any intended political message in it, nor is it a historical lesson.

Geez...

And yet every time Japanese soldiers are depicted, to "honor their unique culture" we are supposed to witness some of the more bizarre behaviors like hara-kiri that distinguish THEM from US.

How the hell is it relevant that Japanese engaged in kamikaze bombing?

By that logic, Why should we care that they lost?

:shrug:

The Spartans were NOT like us. They weren't even forerunners of Western civ.

Their actions paved the way for Western civ. in the same sense as the deaths of the great Native chiefs of the Southast against Andrew Jackson, or the massacre of countless millions of other Natives, paved the way for Western civ.

Why haven't the Indian Wars of the Southeast been made into a (quite dramatic, BTW) movie?

Because we have Appropriated the Spartans as HONORARY WHITE PEOPLE.

Because one of the previews I saw was for a movie called Pathfinder, which appears to be another action flick about an early conflict between Native Americans and Vikings (whites). And it sure as hell doesn't seem to portray the Vikings as the good guys.

But I'm also sure that it's going to be nothing more than another action flick and not an intended historical lesson or political message. And no one should take it as either.

And not meant for serious political discourse. The special effects and costumes were very well done as was the sound.

I think that the last one, in particular, makes a pretty strong anti-bush statement.

for political context and just learn how to enjoy a friggin movie as a movie LOL

As far as the author's quote of: "If new acquaintance tells you that their favorite movie is 300, back away slowly -- they probably kills cats for fun.", how ignorant a premise can you get? That was all sortsssss of ridiculous.

It's just a movie. Some people reallllllly need to get a grip. :rofl:

We saw it last night, and if we had gone to an earlier showing I would have walked right back in and saw it again. Totally worth the 9.50 per ticket without any doubt, absolutley entertained !!!!!

I'm not at all surprised that our current political divisiveness has now finally touched on film and art by our hands, too. While I understand the Republics have been doing this for a while, I didn't think the progressive movement would get caught up in it this easily.

While the few FReeper pals I have are known far and wide for lambasting a film (V, LOtR, JFK and even Band of Brothers come readily to mind) as "simply more evidence that Hollywood remains in bed with the left", I certainly hope my more progressive pals maintain that Art needs neither left nor right, but it is simply good or bad.

I'd love to read an actual analysis of the film by someone who thinks it's a conservative or a liberal movie, but up to this point the closest I've seen to that are merely reviews with analogies wide enough to fit any interpretation into.




Maybe someone will do the dirty work for us and make a list of movies that are Good (Read: liberal) and bad (read: Conservative). That way, I can more easily dismiss a movie-- not because I wouldn't like it, but because it contains evidence that has someone's political opinion I disagree with. :sarcasm:

It's Spartan hotties versus Persian trannies in Zack Snyder's far-too-faithful Frank Miller adaptation
by Nathan Lee
March 6th, 2007 2:47 PM

Long ago there reigned a clan of Speedo-wearing militaristic psychopaths called the Spartans. They lived beneath a copper-colored sky, on a copper-colored land, amidst copper-colored fields, in copper-colored homes made from copper-colored stone. Legend has it they would outline their copper-colored pecs and abs with ash to enhance their manly buffness, and yet these were men of action and honor, not "philosophers and boy lovers" like their namby-pamby rivals the Athenians....

Delicacies of dismemberment aside, 300 is notable for its outrageous sexual confusion. Here stands the Spartan king Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and his 299 buddies in nothing but leather man-panties and oiled torsos, clutching a variety of phalluses they seek to thrust in the bodies of their foes by trapping them in a small, rectum-like mountain passage called the "gates of hell(o!)" Yonder rises the Persian menace, led by the slinky, mascara'd Xerxes. When he's not flaring his nostrils at Leonidas and demanding he kneel down before his, uh, majesty, this flamboyantly pierced crypto-transsexual lounges on chinchilla throw pillows amidst a rump-shaking orgy of disfigured lesbians.

On first glance, the terms couldn't be clearer: macho white guys vs. effeminate Orientals. Yet aside from the fact that Spartans come across as pinched, pinheaded gym bunnies, it's their flesh the movie worships. Not since Beau Travail has a phalanx of meatheads received such insistent ogling. As for the threat to peace, freedom, and democracy, that filthy Persian orgy looks way more fun than sitting around watching Spartans mope while their angry children slap each other around. At once homophobic and homoerotic, 300 is finally, and hilariously, just hysterical.

www.villagevoice.com/film/0710,lee,75993,20.html

The movie is a faithful adaptation of a Comic Book* based on an historic event. Those who look for deeper meanings will find what they want to find.

* Yes, I know that Graphic Novel is the preferred term. But I'm trying to lower the High Intellectual & Political Tone of many reviewers. Nothing against Graphic Novels: I'm eagerly awaiting Buffy: Season 8.

:rofl:

:puke:

It's based on an ACTUAL historical event. Absolutely ridiculous review.

pederasty was de rigeur in the bad old days, in fact gay warriors were noted for their ferocity - especially when you'ld just killed their boyfriend.

I suspect that it's more 'Hollywood History' - a recent notable example of the ahistorical non-gay Greeks was 'Troy', in the hollywood version Achilles (Brad Pitt) was not only a straight guy but made one of the seminal scenes of The Iliad impossible to put into context.

Namely, the death of Achilles' partner Patroclus. Achilles hunted down his boyfriend's killer and then dragged the killer's corpse behind his chariot around the walls of Troy seven times.

This should have been one of the set pieces of any film adaptation of The Iliad but was notable by its absence. Not only that, Brad Pitt has a love interest storyline with a woman, not a pretty young boy. This suggests that the screenplay adapter hadn't read the book.

I can't get upset about historical innaccuracies in Hollywood films. It can be done well, for instance Gladiator was surprisingly faithful to the times and the movie didn't suffer. If anything the sex and violence was toned down.

and read the graphic novel which it faithfully interprets.
Let's see. A megalomaniacal leader with dreams of divinity and a penchant to dress us commands the greatest military force in the world. He decides it is his destiny to invade and conquer another nation. But he finds a small force of the population fights against him. Even sacrificing their own lives to drive out the occupying army.
I think if anything I see Xerxes as GWB and the Spartans as the Iranian insurgency.
Or it's just a movie and can be evaluated in a post modern, multi-level way depending on your umwalt.

BTW; Zack Snyder, the director has gone on record that there was no political message intended.