Anyone see "300"?

[angrynight]

Okay, I have to ask someone, anyone, since I'm the only one to have seen this movie apparently. Am I the only one who thought it was one really long neo-con army recruiting film, or was I construing a message where there wasn't one? Seriously, it seemed that way, but I'm going to give Zack Snyder the benefit of the doubt for no specific reason.

[Tog_]

I saw it this afternoon. I see the point that you're going for, but I'm not sure I agree with it. It would be hard to get into exactly why I think that given the political restrictions here on the board. Some of it was over the top, but I thought the queens speech before the council summed it up very well.

[HenrikOlsen]

You're probably seeing a message that isn't there, at least in my opinion it wasn't there in the comic which is the only source I have to go by as I haven't seen the movie yet.

Did you read the comic, so you're able to comment on any differences?

Also, the comic has several bad errors in it's history which made it a lot less enjoyable for me than it might have been, I doubt they where changed for thr movie.

[angrynight]

A few historical inaccuracies? I saw tons and tons. Without going into lots of politics and so on, a few kinds of statements really jump out. On at least one occasion someone says, "Freedom isn't free" and on numerous occasions they comment on how they are defending reason and freedom from blithering tyrranical hordes. Then there was a mocking of other Greeks as "boy lovers". Maybe I've been exposed to a lot of right wing media but that kind of language is so prevalent in it that you can see how I could come to the conclusion. (I say this without making any value judgments on right wing sentiments, I really don't want to start a flame war, and I realize the potential for it now.)

I haven't read the comic, but I know Frank Miller isn't that political. At least not in his comics. I'm just talking about the movie. Ironically, this kind of language is perfect for Zack Snyder's next movie adaptation of "Watchmen" my absolute favorite graphic novel of all time.

So instead I'll just move on to the tons of historical inaccuracies for the hell of it. I know it was highly fictionalized. This is all just FYI:

Spartan commanders wore the crests on their helmets from side to side, not from back to front like all the other soldiers.

Leonidas DID listen and believe in the Oracle, only the Oracle's prophecy was very different from the movie (though conveniently vague):

O ye men who dwell in the streets of broad Lacedaemon!
Either your glorious town shall be sacked by the children of Perseus,
Or, in exchange, must all through the whole Laconian country
Mourn for the loss of a king, descendant of great Heracles.
He cannot be withstood by the courage of bulls nor of lions,
Strive as they may; he is mighty as Jove; there is naught that shall stay him,
Till he have got for his prey your king, or your glorious city.

King Leonidas and the Greeks weren't stupid, the Spartans used more than 300 men, they mustered their full force which was still drastically outnumbered. The strategy of restricting combat through the pass was going to work though.

The Spartan phalanx never broke unless it was forced to too. In the movie, they did it so things kept moving.

The Spartans used a double edged sword.

The arrows would simply bounce off of the shields. The Persians used cheap bows in large numbers. They never even had a chance of penetrating for the most part.

Spartans individualized their shield designs.

The warriors placed to protect the trail around to the back of the formation weren't slain, they withdrew for fear of Persian retribution. After Spartan scouts reported on the trail's discovery, Leonidas slowly began a phased retreat of his men, until only his personal bodyguard of around about 300 soldiers remained. They stayed behind to keep the Persians occupied while Sparta evacuated. The Persians then razed the empty town. This sacrifice began the idea of a unified Greece, before the Spartans did this, Greece was still something of an abstract concept, so all of the talk about Greece as a high commitment may not be accurate, though I'll have to check.

There are probably a lot more that I've missed.

[Serenitude]

Valid points, for the most part, if you're that upset about historical accuracy in entertainment. I nit, though:

There isn't much evidence that any Greeks except for Spartans fought in that battle. On the first day, the phalanx held, and Spartans were refreshed after each wave. No other greeks are noted to have been cycled into the Phalanx.

The Phocians withdrew from cowardice and never fought.

The 300 then fought a tactical retread while the rest of the forces made withdrawal in small, stealthy groups so as to not alert the scouts of Xerxes.

By the 3rd day, there were only 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians. Once the 300 were dead and the Persians took the ground, the Thespians surrendered without a fight.

Of course, it was but half of the bigger picture with the Athenian navy under Themistocles, the brains behind the operation, but the movie never pretended to be anything than a fantasized retelling of the battle at Thermopylae.

Reading reviews, however, it seems people are reading themselves into the movie. Some find it homoerotic. Others find it homophobic. Some find it neo-con. Some find it bleeding-heart liberal. Some find it fascist. Others counter by pointing out the dialogue is utterly anti-fascist. Some people claim to find parallels is Xerxes/Bush. Others claim to find synchronicity between Leonidas/Bush. It seems people are bringing their own interpretations into the movie and reading them into the story ;)

But all of the info you've presented so far was in the documentary on Discovery the other night. Is this where you're getting your info? Much of what they presented is, well, rather contested and not exactly agreed upon by the historical community ;)

[angrynight]

I didn't catch that documentary, but you bet I would have tried to catch it had I known it was on. It'll repeat anyway.

No, a lot of my info is Wikipedian (Which may have come from the Discovery channel ;)). A lot of the historical points you made I made too, so I don't quite get what you mean.

I too did some googling and it does seem that people are reading a lot into it. At least I'm not alone there. How bizarre. Still, I thought it was so blatant it ruined the movie for me. I don't mind a message I disagree with in a movie, but it seemed so ham-fisted that I couldn't enjoy. Yet, it seems there was no message. Isn't it amazing how the human brain automatically seeks to perceive patterns? So I guess 300 was like the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich.

[Gillianren]

I saw it twice, actually.

I really don't think it would be possible to show the Spartans at all accurately without showing some of the "neocon" elements. They were very into the glory of war; their whole culture was built on it. (And, not to put to fine a point on it, the Athenians were boy-lovers. It was a major aspect of Athenian culture.) The description of how the boys were taken away to be trained is pretty accurate. Sparta was a warrior society; to portray it as anything else would be to show a different culture.

Now, it's not my era; most of what I know about Greece has to do with its mythology and architecture. However, I know that, for example, it was considered one of those regular things for an Athenian to, er, introduce a teenage boy (or younger) into sexual activity. I know that the Spartan culture was built on training for war, and that the greatest love in all Greek societies of the era was the love between two men. (There, that's homophobia and homoeroticism out of the way; both of the attitudes are accurate descriptions of the time and have nothing to do with the judgements our society would impose.)

I know that the rhinoceros was just plain silly. I know that "freedom isn't free" is a much older sentiment than we realize, but that "freedom" would be a relative term in an era with so much slavery. I know that the movie only dabbled in the relative equality (that's relative to other women of the era, of course) of Spartan women.

However, I have noticed that quite a lot of movies serve as Rorschach tests; what you see in it is quite often what's in your head rather than what's on the screen.

[Tog_]

A further comment about the remark about "boy-loving". There is a song that was on a radio program called the Dr. Demento show (no this ties in, honest), called "Standing on the Shoulders of Freaks". One of the lines in that song is:
"Ancient philosophy was framed by prodigies,
Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates.
And even though their thoughts were deemed the 'Aristocratic Voice'...
They also had a thing for little boys."
The point is, it's not an idea exclusive to this movie.
As Gillian pointed out, it's actually a pretty much accepted fact.

Also, that (what amounts to) an elite military force, which I don't think anyone would deny the Spartans were, would refer to any group that did not meet their standards of "manliness" really isn't that surprising. Ask a US marine what he thinks of the navy guys. Then ask the navy guys what they think of marines. You will get many comments from all branches about how useless/stupid/arrogant/whatever, the average person in the other branch is, but I would be surprised to find there is a single person from any branch that would refuse to assist, or to be assisted by, a member of different branch of the service. That's sort of what an inter service rivalry is. What I gathered from the movie was not that the Spartans were doing it to spite the Greek army, but to buy time for the rest of the are to actually see, and accept that there was a threat.

The political aspect of the film I thought were slanted a bit, but they may have just seemed that way due to the times in which we live, and current events. What I got from it all though is basically what I feel to be true anyway, and is actually summed up very well in another song: Gordon Lightfoot's "Don Quixote":
"See the soldier with his gun, who must be dead to be admired."

I did have a pretty big nit to pick about a step they took for dramatic reasons though, but it's a bit of a spoiler, so I'll hold off.

[Serenitude]

Indeed, Toq. In fact, the supreme commander of the combined forces of Greece was an Athenian naval commander named Themistocles. Even Sparta acknowledged his authority in the overall campaign. He was smart enough to know that if you have a land battle to be fought, you want your Delta Force, your Spartans, to head it ;)

Also, what you said about the threat was correct. Most of Greece thought that after the whooping at Marathon, and the Ionian revolt, Persia was done with Greece. Although most of the city-states attended the gathering in Athens and paid lip-service to Athens, only Athens and Sparta initially took the threat seriously. That changed, dramatically, after the 300. That stand gave birth to the world's first democracy. And had it failed, democracy may never have evolved anywhere else.

History, much like movies, is also open to interpretation, perhaps to the prejudices and agenda of the reader. For instance, on Spartan boy-love, unlike Greece, where others have noted, it was common if not mandated, in Sparta it is known there was a law utterly forbidding coitus with boys. Some have suggested this to mean that everything but coitus was permitted as bonding ritual. Others have interpreted this, along with the very permissive courtship and marriage practices of Sparta, to suggest mass homophobia. The jury is out either way.

As for angrynight percieving me contradicting him, I did not. I actually said you pretty much nailed it. I expanded on only one point - where you stated that Leonidas used more than 300 men. I simply went into more detail on that ;) I could nit a little more, though. For instance, there are more than one account of the words of the oracle. Citing one as canon is very difficult to do. The best source is probably Herodotus, but he was known to embellish, despite being the 'Father of Historians'. Even translating 1 single Greek passage to English can result in multiple, sometimes wildly different phrases.

Angrynight, for more interesting reading, I recommend research on the Athenian navy, and the battle at the pass they fought while the 300 fought on land. Also, read about the destruction of the fleeing Persian navy at the pincer battle at Salamis, and the subsequent Greek invasion of Persia. Utterly fascinating stuff - just as good a read as the 300 ;)

I DO highly recommend the documentary - I've TiVo'd it and watched it several times already, but take it with a grain of salt - many of the points are rather in dispute, and they went with certain points of view without offering any counter-opinion. For instance, there is known to have been a ritual of survival among the agoge. The boys were to survive on their own in the wild. Some historians will tell you they went out in organized groups with knives and lived off the land. Some will tell you the purpose was to sneak out and kill a Helot. We do know that if captured during this ritual, they were severely punished, but like most things Spartan, we know little factual information and have to interpret many vague things. The documentary ran with the "kill a Helot" angle. Very possibly true, but far from proven ;)

Anyway, enjoy your research, and I'd be happy (as will others) to answer any questions or help you find out more ;)

[HenrikOlsen]

Actually, from what I remember reading about the two cultures, the Athenians where about man-man love and the Spartans where the man-boy lovers,

And when people count the Spartans, they tend to focus on the 300 soldiers and completely forget the 900 support personnel they brought along; catering, hairdressers, etc. who died with them.

[Doodler]

Conan the Barbarian and his Sweaty Men versus the AD&D Horde?

Not yet, but its on the to do list.

[tofu]

On at least one occasion someone says, "Freedom isn't free"

I love it when people use code words like "neo con" while in the same breath complaining about the code phrase "freedom isn't free"

It's like saying, "I'm offended because one of those japs used a racial slur against me. whaaa!!!!"

I also love how you add that this occured on "at least one occasion" as if you are adding up criminal charges. "You stand charged with one count of using the word 'freedom' in the first degree. How do you plea?"

I also wonder, do you consider Heinlein to be neocon propaganda? He says all the same things that are said in this movie - except that he said them a long time ago. Maybe we could label him a protocon. I like the sound of that. Let the protocon book burnings begin!

[Blob]

Hum,
it's only a dramatised version of the battle, there is no attempt at portraying a realistic or factual account of what really happened; It would be similar to using a batman movie to depict a typical American city.
It should be enjoyed for what it is.

[Delvo]

The homosexual and pedophiliac talk about ancient Greece is almost always pretty widely exaggerated and misstated. It's not that ancient Greece had no homosexuals or pedophiles, it's just that that was never the standard. (Biologically, it couldn't be. You can't talk someone into having a sexuality he doesn't have.) Modern people just tend to "Rorshack" sexuality into relationships that were more like "mentor & student" or "work partners" than sexual. The ancient Greeks sometimes did the same "Rorshack" thing themselves when dealing with the works of earlier phases of Greek development. For example, the man who fought Hector at Troy and lost while wearing Achilles's armor (whose name I don't recall at the moment) was originally described as Achilles's cousin, but relabelled as his lover by later Greeks. Sparta apparently saw Athens at one time through similarly distorted glasses. They probably did it for the same reason we do it now: sensationalism.

Spartan commanders wore the crests on their helmets from side to side, not from back to front like all the other soldiers.The Greeks' superior armor is also among the advantages that somehistorians say they had that let them "prevail" (in a sense) in this case, whereas the "armor" in the comic book and movie was somewhat unimpressive. :D

King Leonidas and the Greeks weren't stupid, the Spartans used more than 300 men, they mustered their full force which was still drastically outnumbered.Only 300 Spartans went there. A few other cities also contributed hundreds so the total force was about one and a half thousand to start. But the rest either were sent away or retreated or surrendered, leaving the 300 Spartans alone in the end. The movie did show what the others did, including their positive contribution before surrendering or leaving, and showed the Spartans meeting them on the way and the others commenting on how few Spartans there were.

The warriors placed to protect the trail around to the back of the formation weren't slain, they withdrew for fear of Persian retribution.That's what the movie said, too.

This sacrifice began the idea of a unified Greece, before the Spartans did this, Greece was still something of an abstract concept, so all of the talk about Greece as a high commitment may not be accurate, though I'll have to check.That is what the movie showed, also.

* * *

I was interested in the sympathetic treatment of Ephialtes. Conventionally, he's not described as deformed, no motivation for him is given, or perhaps a bad one like bribery is. His name has since then been another word for "traitor" in Greek. But in this comic book and movie, the reader/viewer can feel sorry for him and understand how his desperation for acceptance would drive him to do what he did.

[Musashi]

At the time of the battle of Thermopylae, the helmets may have had crests running front to back. It is also possible that some helmets had raised crests (still running front to back). Historically, the kings and commanders wore their crests side to side, and at the battle that followed Thermopylae (Plataea), commanders were wearing side to side crests. I think some artistic license was taken to make Leonidas stand out (more than he would have with a side to side crest in a force all wearing front to back crests). At that time, it is probably likely that shields were individualized, but the matching lambdas were impressive. In fact, the matching shields probably happened pretty soon after Thermopylae. At around the same time, the Spartans discarded their bronze curiasses, but yes, at Thermopylae they were probably wearing those along with bronze greaves. We are just lucky (unluck?) that they were wearing pants or underwear or whatever those things were. Some Greek soldiers fare depicted fighting naked at the waist.

The Spartans were leading a larger force until the path behind them was discovered by the Persians. At that time they dismissed the bulk of the force. All that remained were the 300, 400 Thebans and about 700 Thespians under Demophilus.

Killed in the first phase of fighting was Leonidas himself, but that wouldn't have made a compelling movie (Xerxes lost two brothers in the same timeframe).

Surprisingly (or not), the line about fighting in the shade is historical (fact or fiction).

[Musashi]

But in any case, I will echo the comments of others and say, it was an entertaining movie, not an historical recreation. They seemed to gloss over the fact that Sparta ran so well because of their Helot labor (it was, in fact, why they could train a standing army). They ignored the probable pederasty of the agoge. They turned the Ephors into some kind off mutants. And that doesn't even begin to address the way the Persians were portrayed. I thought I was watching Stargate for a moment when Xerxes showed up and spoke.

[Tog_]

I thought I was watching Stargate for a moment when Xerxes showed up and spoke.
Speaking of which, Michael Dorn was not listed in the credits, but both the GF and I would swear that Xerxes used his voice. It's kind of distictive.

[Disinfo Agent]

Then there was a mocking of other Greeks as "boy lovers".I haven't seen this film, but it seems that the Athenians (was it the Athenians who said that?) did have similar derogatory expressions about the Spartans.* Not that they didn't enjoy the odd boy, themselves. Nationalist rhetoric... :rolleyes:

The homosexual and pedophiliac talk about ancient Greece is almost always pretty widely exaggerated and misstated. It's not that ancient Greece had no homosexuals or pedophiles, it's just that that was never the standard. (Biologically, it couldn't be. You can't talk someone into having a sexuality he doesn't have.)You are assuming that sexuality is 100% determined by biology. Comparative anthropology seems to show that it is partly social.

* Found a reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Pederasty#Structure):

The alleged sexual indulgence of Spartan pederasty was a running gag in the repertoire of Athenian comedians, and the verb lakōnízō ("to do it the Lacedaemonian way"; literally, "to laconize") took on the meaning of "to sodomize." It is not clear to what extent this is a reflection of the enmity between Athens and Sparta.

[Lianachan]

Historical accuracy quibbles not applicable in this case - it's based on the graphic novel, not the battle of Thermopylae.

[Musashi]

It is still fun to quibble. :)

[HenrikOlsen]

And the quibbles are just as much with the graphic novel, errors repeated from that one are still errors.

[angrynight]

Yeesh Tofu, relax! All I'm saying is that it echoes and is similar to the kind of language and arguments used on the right. I'm not saying the aphorism is evil, but honestly, you don't hear that a lot from people not on the right. Ergo, the movie seems to carry a right wing message. Also, no need to mention a racial slur on these boards, aside from poisoning the well, I think it may not be right to mention one even in third person on this board.

I understand what you're saying Blob, but there's nothing wrong with having a chat about it. Maybe it isn't clear, but I'm not hugely mad about anything, I just want to discuss a movie I saw. That's all, I swear!:P

As for historical inaccuracy Delvo, you are right my bad on the number of Spartans, but that still is different from the film.

[Disinfo Agent]

"Go, stranger, and tell the Lacedaemonians that we lie here in obedience to their law" -- Simonides of Ceos.

Epitaph for the Spartan defenders at Thermopylae, slain to the last man in battle (480 BCE) (http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/quotes.html)

[Gillianren]

We are just lucky (unluck?) that they were wearing pants or underwear or whatever those things were. Some Greek soldiers fare depicted fighting naked at the waist.

Yeesh. And we thought the movie was skirting around an NC-17 as it was!

[Serenitude]

Interestling, many quotes from the movie that some are finding cheesy are in fact historically documented. Indeed, the term "laconic humor" comes from the characteristic humor of the Spartans, who hail from Laconia. "Fill your bellies well this morning, boys, because tonight we dine in Hades", "Come and get them (their arms)", "If I enter Laconia, I will burn it to the ground" - to which the Spartans sent a reply of just one word, "If".

Even the "More the better - we shall fight in the shade" is reported by Herodotus to have been said at the battle. Fun stuff that I'm not sure alot of people get. I know there are other cheesy one-liners in the movie that aren't historically documented, but from what I've read, they're, well, very Laconic ;)

[HenrikOlsen]

Yeesh. And we thought the movie was skirting around an NC-17 as it was!
The comic has them sans pants.

[Lianachan]

And the quibbles are just as much with the graphic novel, errors repeated from that one are still errors.

Yes, but not errors of the film.

[Serenitude]

It's like watching "Star Trek".

If you sit back and say "That's absurd. There's no "faster than light" travel, and wormholes are inherently unstable and don't last for more than a billionth of a second, and you wouldn't be able to see laser blasts IRL, and slingshotting around the sun won't give you the speed to travel in time, etc...

You aren't going to enjoy Star Trek. Or any work of fiction...

[mike alexander]

On the other hand, the movie has generated some of the funniest reviews I've read in many years.

[Serenitude]

On the other hand, the movie has generated some of the funniest reviews I've read in many years.

Truly. There is a reviewer on rottentomatoes.com who said something to the effect that he is secure enough in his masculinity to admit that if he stood in the presence of the men for 10 minutes, he'd spontaneously sprout ovaries :lol:

[Serenitude]

After Spartan scouts reported on the trail's discovery, Leonidas slowly began a phased retreat of his men, until only his personal bodyguard of around about 300 soldiers remained. They stayed behind to keep the Persians occupied while Sparta evacuated. The Persians then razed the empty town.

This just struck me. I should have seen this and commented on this earlier.

Leonidas only had 300 Spartans to begin with. He never, at any point, sent Spartans home from Thermopylae. He sent Greeks from other city-states. He arrived with 300 Spartans, 300 Spartans stayed, and 300 Spartans died.

They didn't stay to buy time for Sparta to evacuate. Sparta never evacuated. Leondias left approx. 9,000 hoplites to defend Sparta should it come to that. They would NEVER have left Sparta. They would have relished the chance to die in her defence. There is evidence the 9,000 who stayed were entirely unsatisfied at having been left behind. The idea of Sparta evacuating is absurd. They would have welcomed a battle like you and I would welcome a steak dinner. There is even evidence that the women were trained in a warrior cult much similar to the men, and there are documented accounts of Spartans princesses leading all-female phalanxes into battle.

Leonidas bought time for Athens to evacuate, not Sparta. Themistocles, after his stunning naval victory, headed to Athens and evacuated her citizens, moving them temporarily to Salamis. Xerxes reached Athens, and found her empty save a few preists and priestesses who stayed at the Parthenon. He burned an empty Athens to the ground, not Sparta.

Sorry I missed this initially. I highly recommend you do some more intensive research ;)

[Disinfo Agent]

That's the kind of dumbing down that Hollywood always does.
(Sparta.... Athens... too many names to keep track of. Let's just scratch Athens.)

[Serenitude]

That's the kind of dumbing down that Hollywood always does.
(Sparta.... Athens... too many names to keep track of. Let's just scratch Athens.)

I haven't seen the movie yet (I can't until this weekend). Does the movie state that Sparta was evacuated, or is it (as I assumed) an error on the part of the OP?

[Disinfo Agent]

I don't know either. I assumed you did. :D :o

[Blob]

Sparta never evacuated. Leondias left approx. 9,000 hoplites to defend Sparta

Hum,
i seem to recall that the battle occurred just after A Spartan state Holyday.
The 300 were only the kings personal body guard.

[Disinfo Agent]

This sacrifice began the idea of a unified Greece, before the Spartans did this, Greece was still something of an abstract concept, so all of the talk about Greece as a high commitment may not be accurate, though I'll have to check.Perhaps in a loose, cultural sense. Politically, I'm afraid Greece never did unite.

[Serenitude]

Hum,
i seem to recall that the battle occurred just after A Spartan state Holyday.
The 300 were only the kings personal body guard.

Sort of. They were also weeded out by Leonidas' insistence that only hoplites who had sired were allowed to come. He didn't want any familie's bloodline to die at Thermopylae. But you're correct - they wouldn't leave until after thier festival ;)

[Serenitude]

I don't know either. I assumed you did. :D :o

Uh-oh :lol:

[Musashi]

I haven't seen the movie yet (I can't until this weekend). Does the movie state that Sparta was evacuated, or is it (as I assumed) an error on the part of the OP?

No, Sparta was not evacuated nor was there even talk of evacuation. I wonder if the OP meant that some portion of the Spartans at Thermopylae were "evacuated"?

The 300 were the Royal Bodyguard. The entire Greek force at Thermopylae was between 7,000 and 8,000 strong. The plan was to hold Thermopylae long enough that the Persian fleet would sail into the Euboean Channel where their numerical advantage would count for little.

The Spartans easily repulsed attacks on the Middle Gate two days in a row. Then Ephialtes led a force of Immortals (Persian Royal Bodyguard) to one of the side gates and routed the Phocians guarding it. The Spartans held the Middle Gate anyway but sent or allowed many of the Greek forces to retreat leaving the Spartan Royal Bodyguard, Some Thebans and some Thespians. They made their stand on a hill near the middle gate. The Spartans and maybe the Thespians were killed to a man, the Thebans asked for quarter (I do not know if they received it).

Once Thermopylae fell, the Greek Fleet disengaged and helped Evacuate Athens to Salamis (and Aegina and Troezen). Some few stayed in Athens where the Persian army destroyed them and pillaged Athens. Back in Pelloponnisia , the Spartans built fortifications across the Isthmus of Corinth in preparation for the further invasion of the Persian Army.

The next stage of the war took place in Salamis. The Athenian navy succeeded in breaking the Persian navy, which then retreated, first to Phaleron and then back to the Hellespont. The Persian army could only be supplied by the navy, so this signaled an end to the invasion (but not the war).

[angrynight]

Well by golly, I'm going to the library to look this stuff up now. I would love to believe wikipedia, but I know better.

Still, Barring all of the historical and political issues, I'm not sure it was a good movie. Lush, but kind of a thin plot. If you're gonna dramatize history, go all the way and make up some more interesting stuff. Also, I didn't really like the fight choreography.

[Gillianren]

If you're gonna dramatize history, go all the way and make up some more interesting stuff.

I disagree. If you're going to dramatize history, bloody well dramatize history. If you're going to make up a story, make up a story. Don't go halfway.

[Tog_]

To clear up a few things about the the film, (should be spoiler free):

A messenger of Xerxes came to Sparta to inform them that Xerxes wanted tribute. He was refused, thus, Leonidis basically escalated the conflict. TO be fair, there was really not much he could have done differently. (In the film)

The priests who spoke for the Oracle told him that they would not endorse a war due to the coming August Festival, and that it would be a violation of Spartan Law to engage Xerxes without their approval.

Leonidis went for a "stroll" with a contingent of 300 personal bodyguards, all of whom had sons to carry on the family name.

There was not talk, or even sign, of Sparta being evacuated. There was no mention of Athens being evacuated.

I was also rather impressed with the fight choreography. Not as impressed as I was with Troy, but it was still very good.

[angrynight]

I disagree. If you're going to dramatize history, bloody well dramatize history. If you're going to make up a story, make up a story. Don't go halfway.

I kind of thought that was what I was saying. Why would you disagree?:eh:

[Makgraf]

I haven't seen the movie but from what I've heard it's very much like Sin City in that it's almost literal filming of the graphic novel.

There was a fascinating review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzJmOTNmYmNlYjNmMDIyZjNmMWRjOGExOGNjYzBjMzU=) by [neocon historian] Victor Davis Hanson:

Basically he argues that the very unreality of the film serves a greater realism:

Second, in an eerie way, the film captures the spirit of Greek fictive arts themselves. Snyder and Johnstad and Miller are Hellenic in this sense: red-figure vase painting especially idealized Greek hoplites through "heroic nudity". Such iconographic stylization meant sometimes that armor was not included in order to emphasize the male physique.

So too the 300 fight in the film bare-chested. In that sense, their oversized torsos resemble not only comic heroes, but something of the way that Greeks themselves saw their own warriors in pictures
(It's actually a really good review and it's pretty short)

Actually, from what I remember reading about the two cultures, the Athenians where about man-man love and the Spartans where the man-boy lovers
This reminds me of my favourite classroom exchange (in a greek history class). I think it's appropriate for the board...
Professor: Okay, any questions.
Student #1: So were they, like, gay?
Professor: Uh... well they weren't homosexual in the contemporary definition of the word. It was a relationship similar to what we'd call pederastry: between an older man and a younger boy.
Student #2: Yeah it said in the textbook that they'd have sex between the thighs.
Professor: Yes...
Student #2: How does that work?
Professor: Uh. ... The only answer I can give is someday... when you're married... you can try it with your husband.
Student #3: Is that why they used so much olive oil?
Professor: Moving on...

[davidlpf]

I

This reminds me of my favourite classroom exchange (in a greek history class). I think it's appropriate for the board...
Professor: Okay, any questions.
Student #1: So were they, like, gay?
Professor: Uh... well they weren't homosexual in the contemporary definition of the word. It was a relationship similar to what we'd call pederastry: between an older man and a younger boy.
Student #2: Yeah it said in the textbook that they'd have sex between the thighs.
Professor: Yes...
Student #2: How does that work?
Professor: Uh. ... The only answer I can give is someday... when you're married... you can try it with your husband.
Student #3: Is that why they used so much olive oil?
Professor: Moving on...
lol,anymore and that woiuld have posted on a different site.

[angrynight]

My goodness, I make a passing reference to Athenian "boy-lovers" and everyone fixates on it.

Freud was right.:shhh:

[Makgraf]

lol,anymore and that woiuld have posted on a different site.
There was a bit involving, shall we say, pantomime that I left out.

[Gillianren]

My goodness, I make a passing reference to Athenian "boy-lovers" and everyone fixates on it.

Freud was right.:shhh:

Bleah! No, no, he isn't!

I'm sorry; earlier, it seemed to me that you were advocating changing the history of things to make a better story, which I'm not. Are we on the same page after all?

[Whirlpool]

Everything you say here makes me more curious about this movie.

It still not showing here in my country , but I would want to watch as soon as its open here.

.:neutral:

[Musashi]

Well by golly, I'm going to the library to look this stuff up now. I would love to believe wikipedia, but I know better.

Still, Barring all of the historical and political issues, I'm not sure it was a good movie. Lush, but kind of a thin plot. If you're gonna dramatize history, go all the way and make up some more interesting stuff. Also, I didn't really like the fight choreography.


My post comes from knowledge gleaned from books, not Wikipedia. Check out A History of Greece, N.G.L. Hammond and A History of The Ancient World, Chester G. Starr for a good start. I also leafed through some Osprey publications, specifically The Greek and Persian Wars 500-322 BC, The Spartan Army and The Persian Army 560-330 BC. For more direct sources, there are Herodotus and Xenophon.

[farmerjumperdon]

And when people count the Spartans, they tend to focus on the 300 soldiers and completely forget the 900 support personnel they brought along; catering, hairdressers, etc. who died with them.

Ah yes, the B ark. Everybody takes them for granted don't they?

[Blob]

Hum,
Xenophons `Hellenica` and his description of the Peloponnesian War, and Caesars `conquest of Gaul` are the two best classical books I've read. Yes, recommended reading.

BTW, i get all my knowledge from the Spartans (http://www.sparta.markoulakispublications.org.uk/), (Warning, contains loads of clips and info).

[farmerjumperdon]

Bleah! No, no, he isn't!

I'm sorry; earlier, it seemed to me that you were advocating changing the history of things to make a better story, which I'm not. Are we on the same page after all?

Well, he had to be right about something. Maybe he made great coffee, or something, . . . anything . . .

[Serenitude]

You may also wish to read Ctesius ;)

About the wiki: As others have noted, it's a great place to start (usually my first stop on any topic), but it's ultra basic, and taken as only an initial source, is a great value, but as this topic shows, there is phalanx full of info still to be read after checking there ;)

[Disinfo Agent]

A review by a historian (negative). (http://www.livescience.com/history/070312_300_movie.html)

[Serenitude]

Any review from a historical perspective would be negative, I'd imagine.

Edit: I could probably come up with a list of at least 30 or so historical inaccuracies based solely on the trailers, and I haven't even seen the movie yet.

[sarongsong]

Anyone see "300"?Apparently, someone in Iran did:March 13, 2007
An Iranian official on Sunday lashed out at the Hollywood movie "300" for insulting the Persian civilization... People's Daily (http://english.people.com.cn/200703/12/eng20070312_356565.html)The History Channel's 4-minute version:
A brief look at the Battle of Thermopylae (http://www.history.com/media.do?id=ee_greece_thermopylae_broadband&action=clip) http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
In their 'full' version, the narrator parenthetically mentioned that the Swiss have resisted invasion due to their control of their mountain passes.

[RalofTyr]

Did anyone else catch the hypocrisy in that while the Spartans fought for "Freedom", they enslaved an entire Greek peoples known as the "Helots"? It's like the Confederate states fighting for freedom.

Anyways, the Greeks weren't homosexuals. They took young boys and lovers and to mentor, but the young boys were expected to take a wife. They considered that part of their training in the art of love making.

I often wonder of crossovers. Could Lord Mordor's army from LotR: Return of the King defeat the Spartans? Ring wraiths and trolls would have made short work of them.

[Serenitude]

Did anyone else catch the hypocrisy in that while the Spartans fought for "Freedom", they enslaved an entire Greek peoples known as the "Helots"? It's like the Confederate states fighting for freedom.

Actually, the hyprocrisy goes farther than that. The Persians were one of the most benevolent Empires every. They didn't change local religiouns, customs, culture, or government when they conquered empires. They were downright benevolent compared to most governments.

Anyways, the Greeks weren't homosexuals. They took young boys and lovers and to mentor, but the young boys were expected to take a wife. They considered that part of their training in the art of love making.

You can't make that kind of general statement. Many (most?) Greeks were bisexual. Some were exclusively homosexual. Some were exclusively heterosexual. You're really quibbling in verbage, and differences in language.

I often wonder of crossovers. Could Lord Mordor's army from LotR: Return of the King defeat the Spartans? Ring wraiths and trolls would have made short work of them.

The Spartans would whoop them and still have time to cook dinner :D

[RalofTyr]

Actually, the hyprocrisy goes farther than that. The Persians were one of the most benevolent Empires every. They didn't change local religiouns, customs, culture, or government when they conquered empires. They were downright benevolent compared to most governments.

That's why they asked for tribute first. No need for war. As long as you paid your taxes, they left you alone.



You can't make that kind of general statement. Many (most?) Greeks were bisexual. Some were exclusively homosexual. Some were exclusively heterosexual. You're really quibbling in verbage, and differences in language.

No, no. I've writen many papers on the ancient greeks. They weren't divided in the sense Americans are divided today. I.E., if you have sex with a man, you're a homosexual, "Different". In the greek world, having sex with a man wasn't considered homosexuality, but one of the many loves and pleasures of their life. Some were exclusively heterosexual, mostly in part, because they couldn't find a male lover etc. etc. The ones that were homosexual, were considered weak and condemed always to be the "Women", well, at least in the eyes of the Spartans.


The Spartans would whoop them and still have time to cook dinner :D

As if...

[Disinfo Agent]

No, no. I've writen many papers on the ancient greeks. They weren't divided in the sense Americans are divided today. I.E., if you have sex with a man, you're a homosexual, "Different". In the greek world, having sex with a man wasn't considered homosexuality, but one of the many loves and pleasures of their life. Some were exclusively heterosexual, mostly in part, because they couldn't find a male lover etc. etc. The ones that were homosexual, were considered weak and condemed always to be the "Women", well, at least in the eyes of the Spartans.When people use the word "homosexual" or "bisexual", they mean it in the modern sense. The word didn't even exist at the time of the Greeks, obviously.

[Serenitude]

When people use the word "homosexual" or "bisexual", they mean it in the modern sense. The word didn't even exist at the time of the Greeks, obviously.

Exactly my point. It's just quibbling over words. The Greeks even had a word for the love between men. It was the same acts, same passions, same ole same ole', but different words. Just the word wasn't "homosexual". The only difference was in how the culture reacted (acceptance, encouragement), but having sex with a man is having sex with a man, despite whatever label you wish to apply to it. To the modern person studying Greece, even avoiding the traps of ethnocentrism, homosexual, bisexual, etc... are still pretty good descriptions. Like modern homosexuality, it's terribly shallow, but not off the mark ;)

[Gillianren]

Did anyone else catch the hypocrisy in that while the Spartans fought for "Freedom", they enslaved an entire Greek peoples known as the "Helots"? It's like the Confederate states fighting for freedom.

From their perspective, they were. (The Confederates and the Spartans both.) That's the fun thing about storytelling--a lot of things depend on whose perspective you're using.

[Delvo]

Running your own city, even if it has slaves in it, is still living in a freeer society than one that's been conquered by a foreign empire; then you'd still have the slaves but even those who once mastered the slaves aren't free either; nobody is. And Sparta was defending not just itself, though, but also the rest of Greece, and this was when democracy arose in Greek cities, although Sparta wasn't democratic yet.

And you don't have to have sex with a mentor or student; you just have to learn, pass on knowledge, and strive to do well to impress each other. Sexualizing that kind of relationship is tremendously missing the point.

[Disinfo Agent]

Running your own city, even if it has slaves in it, is still living in a freeer society than one that's been conquered by a foreign empire; [...]The thing is they called it "their" city, but they weren't the only people who lived in it. I'm not sure, but I think they were even a minority in "their" city.

And you don't have to have sex with a mentor or student; you just have to learn, pass on knowledge, and strive to do well to impress each other. Sexualizing that kind of relationship is tremendously missing the point.The ancient Greeks had a different opinion on that, apparently. :)

[jamesabrown]

Just as an aside, for another fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae, I highly recommend Stephen Pressfield's Gates of Fire (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780553580532&itm=1).

[Delvo]

Sexualizing that kind of relationship is tremendously missing the point.The ancient Greeks had a different opinion on that, apparently. :)What I meant wasn't that the way they did certain relationships wasn't the only way it could be done, but that the way they're constantly said to have done it isn't what it was really about... not that they missed the point, but that the people who miss the point are the modernites who say that if two men are close at all then sex must be the only explanation. Close personal (and professional) relationships, yes, but a close relationship between two people just does NOT mean sex. We just smear the idea of sex all over everything even when it's not really there, not just with ancient Greek examples like Achilles's cousin magically turning into a "lover" in later retellings, but also in modern contexts, like the way some audience members will swear there's "obvious sexual chemistry" between every pair of characters that ever appears on screen together, no matter what the characters' actual relationships are like.

[Disinfo Agent]

Well, it seems you already have your mind made up about this. I guess there's no point in arguing over it. It's not even very relevant to the topic.

[Serenitude]

What I meant wasn't that the way they did certain relationships wasn't the only way it could be done, but that the way they're constantly said to have done it isn't what it was really about... not that they missed the point, but that the people who miss the point are the modernites who say that if two men are close at all then sex must be the only explanation. Close personal (and professional) relationships, yes, but a close relationship between two people just does NOT mean sex. We just smear the idea of sex all over everything even when it's not really there, not just with ancient Greek examples like Achilles's cousin magically turning into a "lover" in later retellings, but also in modern contexts, like the way some audience members will swear there's "obvious sexual chemistry" between every pair of characters that ever appears on screen together, no matter what the characters' actual relationships are like.

No, you're wrong. You're painting your modernist interpretations of the mentor role upon an entirely different Greek culture ;)

Wether you find it hard to accept or not, pederasty was commonplace in Greece. The very word itself, pederasty, is Greek, which stems from "pais", which means "boy", and "erastes", which means "love". Socrates and Plato write of it, for instance. As does Xenophon, who, like Sappho, also writes of lesbian pederasty.

The older man was known as the "erastes", or "befreinder", and the younger partner was known as the "eromenos", or "beloved".

The only moral quibbles at the time are over wether or not such "love" between men/boys (and women/girls) should be penatrative, or "consummated", or "chaste", or "unconsummated". Note that in both examples other forms of stimulation outside of coitus are accepted.

Plays were written about it. "Dialogues" were devoted to the topic. Art, in paintings, murals, pottery, and sculpture, were made to depict it. This art is often quite graphic and leaves nothing to the imagination, hence I shall not link to it from here.

There are muddied waters, assuredly - Achilles in the earliest writings was said to have lost his cousin, only to likely have this changed by later Greek writers, in a culture of pederasty, as his lover. The Spartans were said to have practiced strictly chaste pederasty, and coitus was forbidden by law. Yet the Athenians had a name for sodomy which translates, roughly, as "Do it the Spartan (Laconic) way".

These examples, however, are quibbles of fact in an environment in which it was known to exist.

The modernist re-writing of history would be your attempt to minimize or disguise the practice. Much as Gillian points out with Spartans owning slaves, the story isn't perfectly what we'd like it to be in the 21st century. The story has slaves and child lovers. It must simply be accepted in the context of the culture.

[Delvo]

You're painting your modernist interpretations of the mentor role upon an entirely different Greek culture ;)No, I'm restating what I've seen before from more authoritative sources than myself. And apparently, I can now add you to the sources I've seen this from before:These examples, however, are quibbles of fact in an environment in which it was known to exist.The fact that you gave examples/quibbles is the whole point. I have not disputed homosexuality's or bisexuality's existence or acceptance in ancient Greece; I have disputed only its being expected of all in general, a universal standard. There's a difference between everybody doing something and everybody thinking it's fine for others to do something. (And there's also a difference between the most drastic example of something and the thing's normal or most common form.)

your attempt to minimize or disguise the practice...There is no such thing... there's just an opposition to exaggeration. The situation you described yourself is quite different, precisely because of those details and variations you named, from simply "They all did this". You actually made precisely my own point for me :), that there's more to it than the simplistic modern-legend version that often gets repeated.

[Gillianren]

Yet the Athenians had a name for sodomy which translates, roughly, as "Do it the Spartan (Laconic) way".

OT--this is a common tactic in slang. English examples include French kissing, letters, and postcards, Dutch courage, and Indian giving.

[Serenitude]

No, I'm restating what I've seen before from more authoritative sources than myself. And apparently, I can now add you to the sources I've seen this from before:

The fact that you gave examples/quibbles is the whole point. I have not disputed homosexuality's or bisexuality's existence or acceptance in ancient Greece; I have disputed only its being expected of all in general, a universal standard. There's a difference between everybody doing something and everybody thinking it's fine for others to do something. (And there's also a difference between the most drastic example of something and the thing's normal or most common form.)

There is no such thing... there's just an opposition to exaggeration. The situation you described yourself is quite different, precisely because of those details and variations you named, from simply "They all did this". You actually made precisely my own point for me :), that there's more to it than the simplistic modern-legend version that often gets repeated.

Apparently we're both making the same point ;) I either was not clear in reading your posts or they were not clear. Either way, yes, you are correct. Not every Greek practiced this. Although commonplace, it was not mandatory or universal. Forgive me if I misread your position - your post seemed geared to denying homosexuality and pederasty and Greece, or at least I read it as such. Hope this clears things up ;)

[Serenitude]

OT--this is a common tactic in slang. English examples include French kissing, letters, and postcards, Dutch courage, and Indian giving.

What about Freedom Fries? :whistle: :lol:

[Serenitude]

OT--this is a common tactic in slang. English examples include French kissing, letters, and postcards, Dutch courage, and Indian giving.

This actually just reminded me of something - the interservice rivalry mentioned earlier. As a former Army Ranger in a family of Marines, one of whom, my cousin, was Force Recon, family gatherings, where the Coors and Bud flow freely, can sometimes end up, err.... heated. We start running our mouths about which service is less manly, prone to pederasty/homosexuality, etc... until sometimes the wives step in. "Jarhead" and "Leatherneck" are the only example of a name for Marines I can think of that are forum-safe. Most of our expressions for Marines very much resemble the sentiment of "Do it the Laconic way" ;) And, of course, most of the Marine expressions for the Army are very similar :lol:

[V-GER]

Actually, the hyprocrisy goes farther than that. The Persians were one of the most benevolent Empires every. They didn't change local religiouns, customs, culture, or government when they conquered empires. They were downright benevolent compared to most governments.

Yet they were the ones that attacked Greece. No one asked them to conquer anybody so it's understandable that the Greeks rejected their "benevolence."

Besides, we shouldn't forget that it's a comic book movie. It's not supposed to be historically accurate in any way. For instance they changed the way the real Spartans fought in order to make the movie more entertaining. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/trivia

Sadly, isn't doesn't open here until Good Friday 6th April. I believe this movie marks the beginning of an absolutely terrific movie year.

[Disinfo Agent]

Besides, we shouldn't forget that it's a comic book movie. It's not supposed to be historically accurate in any way. For instance they changed the way the real Spartans fought in order to make the movie more entertaining. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/triviaIs the comic as historically inaccurate as the film? I've never read it.

Anyway, call me an old geezer, but I find historical fiction that is inaccurate just to make things very simple and more exciting rather dull. I don't care how many colorful explosions they add to it.

[Serenitude]

Yet they were the ones that attacked Greece. No one asked them to conquer anybody so it's understandable that the Greeks rejected their "benevolence."

Agreed. I just thought I'd throw that in.

Besides, we shouldn't forget that it's a comic book movie. It's not supposed to be historically accurate in any way.

I think that was my original point :lol:

[V-GER]

Is the comic as historically inaccurate as the film? I've never read it.

I should receive it from Amazon within a day or two but I undestand that it's not accurate at all nor tries to be. I'll know soon enough.

Anyway, call me an old geezer

Old geezer

I find historical fiction that is inaccurate just to make things very simple and more exciting rather dull. I don't care how many colorful explosions they add to it.

Well that method seems to have paid off at the box office.

The otherside of the argument is that movies like this will make people want to know what really happened and thus generate interest in history, temporarely maybe but still.

[V-GER]

I think that was my original point :lol:

Ok sorry, I missed that somehow.

[Disinfo Agent]

Well that method seems to have paid off at the box office.Not with my money. And the box office is not the only way to earn money from a story, anyway. :)

The otherside of the argument is that movies like this will make people want to know what really happened and thus generate interest in history, temporarely maybe but still.How many people are influenced that way by blockbusters such as this, I wonder? Doesn't the majority of the viewers just swallow up the inaccuracies hook, line, and sinker as though they were gospel (and then reuse that acquired 'wisdom' to buy into far-flung conspiracy theories...)?

Yet they were the ones that attacked Greece. No one asked them to conquer anybody so it's understandable that the Greeks rejected their "benevolence."It's true that an invasion is never a good thing. Nevertheless, it is also the case that, as ancient empires go, Achemenid Persia was one of the most easy-going (perhaps because it was somewhat overstretched, geographically).

One thing the Persians did change in the Greek states they conquered was outlawing pederasty. Maybe the thought of that helped the Greeks fight a little harder at Thermopylae. :D

[Lord Jubjub]

I strongly suspect that the Thermopylae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae) entry in Wikipedia has seen its hit count skyrocket.

[Serenitude]

I strongly suspect that the Thermopylae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae) entry in Wikipedia has seen its hit count skyrocket.

Huh. Not a bad article, really, if rather brief, but I guess that's the point?

Still, it would be interesting to see some sort of before/after ticker :lol:

[V-GER]

How many people are influenced that way by blockbusters such as this, I wonder? Doesn't the majority of the viewers just swallow up the inaccuracies hook, line, and sinker as though they were gospel (and then reuse that acquired 'wisdom' to buy into far-flung conspiracy theories...)?


I can only speak for myself of course but with sites such as Wikipedia, I believe more people will be interested in knowing what really happened because the information is so easily available.

But in general, it is up to the educational system to teach real history. It's not Hollywood's responsibility. It's one thing to make a WWII movie ending with an Axis victory but I would hope movies like 300 would be outside this type of scrutiny(it's not like it claims the Spartans were US marines), otherwise all we'd have would be documentaries.

[Musashi]

Yeah, I was crushed when I found out Captain America and Hellboy didn't really exist.

[Disinfo Agent]

Those two won't generate any added interest in history, that's for sure.

[Musashi]

But they are comics that are full of historical inaccuracy that have been turned into films, why not take offense at them as well?

[Disinfo Agent]

I am not offended, just uninterested. :)

And it's not because of the inaccuracy per se. It's that Hollywood is always inaccurate in the same way.

[Musashi]

$97,000,000 will do that to a person.

[Disinfo Agent]

Lately, going to the movies is like watching the same action movie over and over again (with a few notable exceptions). After a couple dozen times, I got bored. :)

[publiusr]

I strongly suspect that the Thermopylae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae) entry in Wikipedia has seen its hit count skyrocket.


I still have an old Clipper ship model of the same name. Rival to Flying Cloud I think. And Cutty Sark.

[Blob]

Hum,
faster than the Cutty Sark

[Serenitude]

Strangely enough, I never get tired of formulaic, chliche'd Hollywierd action movies, as long as the fights are cool.

I've just always been a fan of hoplite-style fighting my whole life. Reading LotR as a child, I always imagined myself with a spear and shield at the Gates of Mordor. When D2 hit, I was always a Javazon. Morrowind? Spear-guy. NWN? Spear Weaponmaster. Guild Wars? Paragon :D I'm glad that this movie is hitting, in that I hope it stimulates some to read about the real conflict, and if not learn some real history (it's rather complicated to work out exactly just what happened...), at least be stimulated enough to explore and interpret for themselves.

However, for myself, I'm just interested in watching some cool phalanx and hoplite fight scenes :cool:

[Lord Jubjub]

I was just watching the online Ebert & Roeper review. They showed the clip of Xerxes threatening doom to Sparta.

Xerxes was definitely channelling the G'ould.

[angrynight]

I've just always been a fan of hoplite-style fighting my whole life.

I first learned about the Hoplites in history class and how improved technology allowed the Romans to take them down. I've loved military strategy ever since. I even came really close trying for a career as a military officer:neutral: . I'm consequently a huge fan of RTS games like Command & Conquer.The only problem is that they're built for balance not realism. I wish there was a high-quality true-to-life mainstream simulation I could find easily.

[Serenitude]

I wish there was a high-quality true-to-life mainstream simulation I could find easily.

Or at all :( Good luck. And if you find one, let me know. I'd be interested as well ;)

[Damien Evans]

Or at all :( Good luck. And if you find one, let me know. I'd be interested as well ;)

me too, though Rome: Total War seems to do a pretty decent job

[V-GER]

Yeah, I was crushed when I found out Captain America and Hellboy didn't really exist.

Not as crushed as I was when I found out Captain America had died...

RIP Steve Rogers, 1941- 2007(until they bring him back of course).

[Blob]

I hope it stimulates some to read about the real conflict, and if not learn some real history...

Hum,
indeed,

An Iranian archaeologist and expert on the Achaemenid era has called the Hollywood film 300 racist and hostile towards historical realities.
In an opinion piece published on the Cultural Heritage News Agency website, Professor Shahrokh Razmju accused the film's producers of fabricating history and insulting Iranian culture.
He went as far as to suggest that they should be sued in court for charges of racism.

Read more (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=2975&sectionid=3510301)

[Musashi]

I am crying for them.

[V-GER]

Hum,
indeed,



Read more (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=2975&sectionid=3510301)

The Iranian historian is hardly objective himself. Also I think it's hilarious that he wants Unesco to "take measures" against the film makers. Considering the views their president has expressed about mid 20th century history, the Iranians aren't in a position to lecture anyone.

[Blob]

Hum,
while it is possible the historian is speaking for the entire country and/or agrees with president on 20th century history, i don't know.

[V-GER]

I doubt the esteemed professor would disagree with the goverments view of history, could be wrong of course(I hope I am actually). Just wanted to bring up a point in response to the article.

Anyway, I'm not too sympathetic for their/his offence. Every time someone mentions the words "insulting the culture of...." as a reason to punish someone I get upset.

[Musashi]

Yes, I am holding my breath waiting for the professor to acknowledge the holocaust or condemn his president for denying it.

[Gillianren]

Okay, we got the graphic novel from the library yesterday (yay for putting it on reserve a couple of months before the movie came out), and I have to say, while there are some differences between the two (the whole romantic subplot, say), I was astonished at how word-for-word it was in places. Quite a good adaptation, really, as adaptations go.

And, yes, the graphic novel would have been NC-17 if filmed as drawn, though there were exposed breasts in the film but not in the novel.

[V-GER]

I picked it up from the post office an hour ago, looks amazing. I glanced through it and spotted a few images from the movie trailer(or rather the other way around since the comic came first but anyway).

[debateaway]

The Iranian historian is hardly objective himself. Also I think it's hilarious that he wants Unesco to "take measures" against the film makers. Considering the views their president has expressed about mid 20th century history, the Iranians aren't in a position to lecture anyone.


What makes you think that you are in a position to say that "Iranians" are not in a position to lecture anyone? Can you please elaborate on that? As humans we can lecture whoever or when ever. It is up to the individual to listen or not. Are you implying that because of what our president says we can not express our own views??? LOL. Great logic you have there. (I do not agree with our government before you start labelling me an extremist supporter)

Perhaps it may be hilarious that he wants Unesco to take measures against the film makers (Nice sense of humour you got there). Each individual has a right to take certain actions deemed necessary, now if you think that is funny then I think you have displayed a behaviour that resembles ignorance (however Iam sure you are not ignorant...well I do not think that yet but watch this space...heheh). Personally I think that action is unnecessary as opposed to hilarious. (You have failed to look beyond the reason to why he thought his actions were necessary)

I have read some threads about 300 and I must admit I have not seen but I can not help but feel hard done by. Yes there are many ways at looking at the film as many people may just say its a film but from the threads I read and the preview I found some of things offensive and derogative. Yet If everyone had my view this potentially would open a can of worms because to say that this film is offensive then that means 50% of all the other films can be looked at as offensive too i.e. Borat, Braveheart etc So I am in a catch 22 lol. However I would like to mention the fact that there may be movies out there that may offend other countries i.e. England, America etc.... but then again there are lots of films that supports England and America. But you have to ask yourself; has there been a huge film that supports Persia? So far Alexendar and 300 have been made and they are both quite derogative towards Persians (or Iranians). I find that a very convenient coincidence. Also some people say it is just a comic made 10 years ago how could it be politically motivated????? well errr it can because why did they release the film out now??? (for those of you who dont know Iran and America are experience some er..er..technical difficulties at the moment).

Finally I can not believe someone would say this film us educational as it is clearly not because of the inaccuracies. But what many people forget is that there are many uneducated people out there and this film does not help!!!! Also remember most of the text out there that captures the war between the Persian and Spartans (or other Greek factions) is actually written by Greeks!!!! Most of the Persian texts were burned when we were conquered by the Arabs and Mongols.

[Blob]

A technically exciting videogame of a film, 300 loses touch with a critical and moving event in Greek history.
Herodotus, the “Father of History,” told many good stories, but there are few tales in his repertoire that surpass his narrative of the last-ditch stand of the Greeks against numerically superior forces at the pass of Thermopylae in August, 480 B.C. A huge military force led by Xerxes, the Persian King of Kings, crossed the Hellespont from Asia into Europe, intent on the subjugation of Greece. Whether Xerxes intended this invasion as revenge for the Athenian victory over the Persians at Marathon a decade earlier or whether his expedition had been planned all along as the natural extension of Persian rule into Europe is still a matter of debate among modern historians.

Read more (http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/300.html)

[Musashi]

Happy No Ruz, welcome to the board.

The reality is, it is just a movie. It does not advocate for the hatred of Persians. It seems like a silly thing to get so upset about. It smacks of hypocrisy to condemn 300 but let the hardliners in Iran (like the President and the Ayatollah) make ignorant and inflammatory comments.

[Disinfo Agent]

I would not classify the current Ayatollah as a hardliner, necessarily. But this is politics...

I agree with debateaway that anyone can criticise a film, even president Ahmadinejad.

[Musashi]

Oh, I too agree that anyone should be able to criticize (or voice any other opinion they have about) a film.

[Gillianren]

Most war films are, by their very nature, going to show someone in a bad light. Because this one is from the Spartan perspective, the Persians are shown as the villain. It's true that no one's written this particular story from the Persian perspective, but it wouldn't be very dramatic storytelling, if you think about it.

For example, think about this. "An untold number, but an awful lot, of Persian soldiers drawn from all corners of the Empire came, fought, and lost their lives to 300 Spartans (with the aid of roughly 7000 other Greeks who left before the last attack)." Would you see that movie if it were from the Persian perspective? It's historically accurate, to be sure, but it doesn't portray the Persians in a very favorable light even seen from their perspective, if you think about it.

It's true that there aren't a lot of great historical stories known in the West showing the Persians as the good guys, but since our primary storytellers of the era were the Greeks and the Hebrews, logically, there wouldn't be.

And welcome, debateaway.

[Serenitude]

Welcome to the BAUT forum, Debateaway!

Our forum has strict rules concerning political discussion outside of the scope of science and astronomy, so I'll be general in my statement.

Hollywood is driven by making money, not historical accuracy. Unfortunately, in the post 9/11 America, there is not a huge demand for entertainment glorifying Persian invasion and conquest. I do not mean this as a slander. I mean it in the sense that if a studio spent $110 dollars making such a film, they'd lose $110 dollars. I think you'll find, if you have read this thread, that a general sentiment expressed is a hope that the film drives viewers to research the account in more detail and learn the history behind it.

[Delvo]

Most war films are, by their very nature, going to show someone in a bad light. Because this one is from the Spartan perspective, the Persians are shown as the villain.I'm reminded of another movie based on a true historical "desperate last stand" against ridiculous odds... but just try to imagine the reaction if someone tried to redo "Zulu" today.

[Blob]

Hum,
i think the problem was that they only knew how to sing `the men of Harlech (http://www.alansim.com/welhtml/wel039.html)`

[angrynight]

It smacks of hypocrisy to condemn 300 but let the hardliners in Iran (like the President and the Ayatollah) make ignorant and inflammatory comments.

Without getting too political (tough it really is tempting, I'm very political). Muslims like me keep getting told very similar things. Let me make one thing clear, we can disagree all we want, but to accuse us of letting people say things is to assume a level of freedom that doesn't exist. Do you know what Persians allow Ahmedinijad to say? Whatever the hell he wants. To say that for people to be credible they have to risk their lives is very unfair. This message and any reply is probably too political for this board. So if you want to reply come over to my blog through this link (http://angrynight.journalspace.com/?entryid=167).

[Serenitude]

I think you misread the sentiment, angrynight. I don't think anyone has accused modern Persians in general of this. They have accused a particular leader, much as half of America does not agree with President Bush. Without being intimately familiar with other's thoughts, I don't think anyone intended to state otherwise. I think "let" is used in the most general, global sense, and not to imply that you condone his statements by sharing geological area.

It's good that you provide a link to your thoughts should the reader wish to continue the political discussion, as it is flirting dangerously with plunging headlong over the cliff of forum decorum and political rules, and I'd hate to have to shut down a thread over what is probably a simple miscommunication of ideas ;)

[angrynight]

It's good that you provide a link to your thoughts should the reader wish to continue the political discussion, as it is flirting dangerously with plunging headlong over the cliff of forum decorum and political rules, and I'd hate to have to shut down a thread over what is probably a simple miscommunication of ideas ;)

You assume my intentions are noble, when really I'm just trying to get more people to visit my blog. :shifty:

[Serenitude]

You assume my intentions are noble, when really I'm just trying to get more people to visit my blog. :shifty:

:lol: Nah. I tend to think the worst in everyone. I'm just having a Freaky Friday :p

[Jim]

I've been thinking about the statement made by Prof. Razmju and the responses to it here. At first, I tended to agree that it was at least overreaction and borderline hypocritical. But, upon further thought, maybe we shouldn't be so harsh.

We have no evidence that he was not told what to say, or that he really disagrees with Ahmedinijad's statements on the Holocaust, or anything beyond his stated belief that 300 has racist overtones. How would you feel if one of your national heroes were portrayed as a villian in a movie (based on a comic book based on a movie based on the other side's version of what happened)?

Take his statement at face value. That is his opinion and he's entitled to it.

We don't have to agree, and maybe we should just leave it at that.

[Musashi]

I certainly agree that Razmju should be allowed his opinion. I just think his calls for UN intervention are a bit ... overboard and speak to a larger issue.


Edit: BTW, angrynight, I am trying to post a comment to your journal but it is not very responsive (maybe getting hammered right now).

[Ranillon]

I've been thinking about the statement made by Prof. Razmju and the responses to it here. At first, I tended to agree that it was at least overreaction and borderline hypocritical. But, upon further thought, maybe we shouldn't be so harsh.

How would you feel if one of your national heroes were portrayed as a villian in a movie (based on a comic book based on a movie based on the other side's version of what happened)?


I hate to say it, but -- though I think he went overboard -- Razmju is basically correct. The Persians are shown as an invading horde of hapless slaves and grotesque inhuman monsters lead by a decadent, androgynous megalomaniac. By comparison, the Spartans (who were, obviously, Greek in real life) are played by a bunch northern European wonder-soldiers with sculpted bodies and waxed chests. I mean, come on, that alone should raise some red flags.

That said, I found the movie too silly to really take offense over it. But, I can certainly see how others might.

Imagine, by comparison, a movie where the heroes are a band of movie-star handsome Waffen-SS "heroically" fighting off the hordes of allied invaders who are presented as -- if Soviet -- mindless hordes of devolved humanoids whipped into action by their demonic Commissar masters or -- if US and British -- as effete and decadent technologists fiendishly unleashing their unholy creations upon their enemies.

How many here in the "west" do you think would take that movie without any negative comment?

[Ranillon]

I'm reminded of another movie based on a true historical "desperate last stand" against ridiculous odds... but just try to imagine the reaction if someone tried to redo "Zulu" today.

This would depend on how it was done, I think. If they stuck to the history and gave at least a generally accurate view of both sides I don't think there would be a problem. However, if the Zulu's were presented as literally inhuman and bestial while the British get halos about their heads (or vice versa) then I think some might quibble with such a presentation.

[Serenitude]

I hate to say it, but -- though I think he went overboard -- Razmju is basically correct. The Persians are shown as an invading horde of hapless slaves and grotesque inhuman monsters lead by a decadent, androgynous megalomaniac.

Although, honestly, I don't agree, for the most part, with Razmju, I will agree that you perspective is fairly accurate. The portrayal of the Persian appearance is absurd from a historical perspective. However, the hapless slaves part is somewhat correct. How else do you describe the first day's casualties - captured Medians forced, against their will, to be the victims of the first wave? And do you disagree that the Persians were an invading horde? How else to describe them? I think that's pretty accurate ;)

By comparison, the Spartans (who were, obviously, Greek in real life) are played by a bunch northern European wonder-soldiers with sculpted bodies and waxed chests. I mean, come on, that alone should raise some red flags.

This is more accurate than you may realize. The Spartans were the super-soldiers of their day. Reasonable estimates point to their being outnumbered at the stand at around 100/1 in infantry. Reasonable estimates put their efficiency to at least 10 elite Persian soldiers killed per Spartan. That's an awesome ratio if you know your military history. For instance, the elite US Army Rangers averaged around 4/1 in kill ratio in Viet Nam. Also, we have fairly substantial evidence of the sculpted bodies and waxed chests. They were members of a warrior-cult that placed euthanistic extremist value on physical conditioning, and were also known to be vain. History tells us of Xerxes being stunned to hear from is scout that on the 3rd morning, the Spartans were waxing each other's bodies and doing each other's hair. He mistook this for simple vanity, when in fact, they were preparing each other as corpses. Overall, I recognize your point, but there is more to the story if you research it ;)

That said, I found the movie too silly to really take offense over it. But, I can certainly see how others might.

I can also see how some might take offense. But this is true of all war movies, wether old John Wayne yarns or Julius Ceasar romantizations. It's just the genre, and the nature of storytelling. 2 good guys senselessly annihilating each other doesn't seem to have the same visceral appeal.

Imagine, by comparison, a movie where the heroes are a band of movie-star handsome Waffen-SS "heroically" fighting off the hordes of allied invaders who are presented as -- if Soviet -- mindless hordes of devolved humanoids whipped into action by their demonic Commissar masters or -- if US and British -- as effete and decadent technologists fiendishly unleashing their unholy creations upon their enemies.

Apples and oranges, and trying to poison the well as well ;) Nazi comparisons, especially when not directly relevant, are a bad sign trying to present an argument.

How many here in the "west" do you think would take that movie without any negative comment?

Probably how we take most movie, magazine, television, internet, newspaper, etc... articles about the west, eminating from the Middle East, where the West is commonly described in derogatory terms that dwarf this movie - ie; with a gigantic "Meh" :rolleyes: Sure, there would be few vocal groups looking for something to be offended by, but by and large, no one would care. But, again, we are flirting dangerously on the verge of decorm and political rules. This is probably best left to angrynight's blog ;)

[debateaway]

Happy No Ruz, welcome to the board.

The reality is, it is just a movie. It does not advocate for the hatred of Persians. It seems like a silly thing to get so upset about.

Happy No Ruz, thank you,

I did not say it advocated at point blank, for if it did there would be outrage, instead the film uses clever tactics to make the Persians look evil through other means.
I know its just a movie, but then if 10 films were made that portrayed Persians in a bad light would you still say that? ;-). Its just a movie now, but I am sure it would encourage for other films to be made that posses the same derogatory ignorance.



For example, think about this. "An untold number, but an awful lot, of Persian soldiers drawn from all corners of the Empire came, fought, and lost their lives to 300 Spartans (with the aid of roughly 7000 other Greeks who left before the last attack)." Would you see that movie if it were from the Persian perspective? It's historically accurate, to be sure, but it doesn't portray the Persians in a very favourable light even seen from their perspective, if you think about it.


No I wouldn’t, but there are many other great battles that the Persians won in order to expand / defend their empire…yet no movies about that. They would be very interesting believe me. During gladiator the romans where the invading force (if iam not mistaken) yet they were shown in a good light.

Welcome to the BAUT forum, Debateaway!

Hollywood is driven by making money, not historical accuracy. Unfortunately, in the post 9/11 America, there is not a huge demand for entertainment glorifying Persian invasion and conquest. I do not mean this as a slander. I mean it in the sense that if a studio spent $110 dollars making such a film, they'd lose $110 dollars.

I see your point however I would disagree, I believe there would be a lot of people willing to watch such a film (providing that they have amazing graphics, detail and gore of course ;-). Is that statement based on any market research or is that a general feeling you have? (don’t mean to slander either ). Yes one would hope for the film to drive viewers to research more but in reality out of a 100 people how many would you say would actually go home and research what happened? The fair chunk that don't (i believe) will not have a good overview of the Persian empire (which did so much in terms of currency, trade and technological advancements).



Reasonable estimates put their efficiency to at least 10 elite Persian soldiers killed per Spartan.
.

(I would again presume Greek texts). And also what does “elite Persian soldiers” mean? I thought the army had a mixture of soldiers from all parts of the empire, where they all “elite”? Pardon my ignorance ;-).



I can also see how some might take offence. But this is true of all war movies
.

Yes many other movies out there (for example Braveheart) that create offence , but then again there is always another film that makes them look good. From the Persian perspective they are all bad (i.e 300) !!! Lol.


As a summary I would say I wish there were a balanced number of films out there about the Persians but there isn't!!!! That is why I voiced my concern.

[Ranillon]

However, the hapless slaves part is somewhat correct. How else do you describe the first day's casualties - captured Medians forced, against their will, to be the victims of the first wave? And do you disagree that the Persians were an invading horde? How else to describe them? I think that's pretty accurate ;)


From everything I've read this would not be accurate. The troops of Xerxes' army weren't slaves in part or in whole, but rather paid soldiers. I've also seen no evidence that the Medes were "forced against their will" to attack -- they may have been reluctant to make a frontal assault, but that is far different than being slaves whipped into charging to their doom. The Medes were, after all, favored in the Empire and were second only to the Persians themselves in status. Meanwhile, the Greeks did bring along slaves who were doubtlessly made to aid in the fighting to one degree or another.

Yes, the Persians were the invaders, but remember they had been provoked. While that doesn't necessarily justify their actions it certainly demonstrates they weren't just a "Lord of the Rings" like tide of evil as portrayed in the film.


This is more accurate than you may realize. The Spartans were the super-soldiers of their day. Reasonable estimates point to their being outnumbered at the stand at around 100/1 in infantry. Reasonable estimates put their efficiency to at least 10 elite Persian soldiers killed per Spartan.
That's an awesome ratio if you know your military history.


Sure, but this wasn't just the result of the Spartans being better battlefield fighters. Far more important was that they were fighting in the best possible circumstances -- a close-in attrition battle where their flanks were secure from attack. This negated the Persian advantages of numbers and mobility while heightening the advantages of the Greek heavy infantry phalanx. This shows that (at least in this case) the Greeks were better tacticians, but it is does not as such prove any innate superiority as a whole (which is what the film basically suggests).

Likewise, the film grossly exaggerates the role of the Spartans in the battle. The Greeks had many thousands of troops from various city-states that took part. The Spartans may have been the best available, but the rest weren't merely the clumsy, if enthusiastic peasants as shown in the movie. After all, the "boy-loving" Athenians defeated the Persians all on their own at Marathon ten years earlier. Alone the mere 300 Spartans likely would not have lasted even a day in the real battle. They would have been simply too few to hold the pass (although they could have died just as heroically).


Also, we have fairly substantial evidence of the sculpted bodies and waxed chests. They were members of a warrior-cult that placed euthanistic extremist value on physical conditioning,


Ah, but they weren't all Northern Europeans with a king who apparently grew up in Edinburgh. Nor did they routinely go around in their underwear nor survive years of harsh conditioning and combat without nary a scar or lingering injury. And, although admittedly one cannot be entirely sure, it is also unlikely they all had movie-star good looks.

That is what gives what would otherwise be a historical retelling its racial overtones (IMHO) -- the effective hijacking of the valor of a group of pagan Greeks by modern WASP culture. Again, I was not personally insulted, but when the movie goes out of its way to use such provocative and heavy-handed imagery it opens itself up to criticisms of racism and bias.


I can also see how some might take offense. But this is true of all war movies, wether old John Wayne yarns or Julius Ceasar romantizations. It's just the genre, and the nature of storytelling.


I don't think the imagery of the movie can be dismissed so easily as a mere result of genre conventions. Sure, we expect to see movies told from a particular point-of-view that tends to bias one side over another. Take Braveheart, a movie that 300 clearly wishes to emulate. As it is told from the viewpoint of William Wallace and his struggles the movie clearly has a pro-Scottish bias. Nothing too alarming or unprecedented about that as such things go. But, then again, it doesn't present the English as literal monsters, whipped slaves, or unthinking minions of evil.

That is were 300 goes from merely being a genre picture to one that shamelessly offers us ideas and images that in most any other context would be immediately vilified as racist. It takes those conventions and warps them beyond all recognition. Yes, it is just a “comic-book movie”, but I don’t think that fact can serve as an excuse to exempt a movie no matter how extreme from criticism.


Apples and oranges, and trying to poison the well as well ;) Nazi comparisons, especially when not directly relevant, are a bad sign trying to present an argument.

Actually, I think you are completely wrong here -- and disingenuous to boot. My example was right on the money -- I was presenting a theoretical movie with imagery just as biased and distorted (IMHO) as 300 that would doubtlessly raise the ire of many if not most people in Europe and the US (and rightly so).

Consider this -- 300 offers us as heroic figures a group of elitist, hyper-masculine sociopaths who can calmly chow down on lunch while human beings are butchered around them and who take pride in the fact that they murder their own children who don’t measure up to their notions of genetic purity. Meanwhile, their enemies are presented either as mindless slaves to authority, literal inhuman monsters, or as decadent, effeminate megalomaniacs whose amount of body piercings seems directly proportional to their need to compensate for feelings of inferiority. Now add in the fact that all the “good-guys” are attractive white Anglo-Saxons that look as though they just walked out of a body-building competition while the “bad guys” are of black or middle-eastern stock – not to mention often physically deformed or otherwise grotesque looking. Come on! When discussing that sort of brazen imagery the difficulty is in not bringing up the subject of Nazis.

But, again, we are flirting dangerously on the verge of decorm and political rules.

Maybe, but then again I’d consider it intellectually dishonest to talk about the aspects of the movie we like and then cry foul when others bring up points we don’t.

[Serenitude]

I'm going state this: I disagree with nearly everything you say. I also believe you have an agenda and an axe to grind. I think most of your history is off when not dead wrong. Your uneeded comparisons to Nazism, "boy-lover" shots, WASP jabs, etc... are belying a hyperbolus, emotional appeal. I could, easily enough (although it would take an incredible amount of time) refute you point for point.

However, when you accuse me (or any other member) of being disingenuous, and end suggesting I'm "intellectually dishonest and crying foul when others bring up points we don't", you are crossing the line. First off, I don't need to cry foul - I have an easy enough time refuting your posts and still could. I only asked you to keep it from being any more political than needed, reminding you of forum rules on decorum and politics. You can either abide by these same rules we're all restricted by, or post elsewhere should you disagree with them. If your post were directed at another forum member, I'd officially warn you. I'm more easy going about myself, but don't appreciate being the strawman for your anger, nor do I appreciate the accusations. This thread is beginning to walk a thin line, as I've tried to warn you of above, and I urge you to reign in your passion and ease off the suble and not-so-subtle ad homs. I have a delete button about 3 inches away from my mouse pointer, and a ban button not much farther. Were I (or any other staff) even remotely interested in stifling your opinion, I could use it. Obviously, I am not, nor would I even consider such unless you egregiously and repeatedly refused to follow the rules of this forum. I have absolutely no interest in keeping you from expressing your opinion on this or any other subject, wether I agree or disagree, so long as you obey the rules of the forum. You have a right to post your thoughts, so ease up on the fascist angle. Forgive me if I belabor this, but I want this to be crystal clear, so we can avoid further unpleasantness.

Feel free to continue to discuss your point - I'm not going to stop you if you can do so in a civil manner. However, I am going to withdraw at this point, because I've posted my view, you've had your response, and I'm going to leave it at that - my blood pressure is up after reading your accusations. Again, however, I'm cautioning you - keep it civil and on topic, and leave the racist (yes, WASP is rascist), and other ad homs, as well as the agenda, out of your posts.

[RalofTyr]

In a thread about Spartans, you guys have to settle your arguments with swords.

To battle.

[Serenitude]

In a thread about Spartans, you guys have to settle your arguments with swords.

To battle.

:lol: No, I think it's just best to leave things where they are ;)

[Ranillon]

Feel free to continue to discuss your point - I'm not going to stop you if you can do so in a civil manner. However, I am going to withdraw at this point, because I've posted my view, you've had your response, and I'm going to leave it at that - my blood pressure is up after reading your accusations. Again, however, I'm cautioning you - keep it civil and on topic, and leave the racist (yes, WASP is rascist), and other ad homs, as well as the agenda, out of your posts.

I think there is something you are missing.

Remember, I have not accused you or anyone else in particular of anything relating directly to the movie -- I've not named you as a "racist" or anything similar. Heck, technically I've not even per se accused the movie of being such things. Rather, all I have pointed out is that 300 clearly borrows heavily from concepts and images commonly considered to be racist and elitist, so much so that it cannot help but make one bring such ideas into any conversation relating to the meaning and structure of the film. This strikes me as being so self-evident I am frankly surprised you disagree with this at all and that we aren't instead debating just how far the images go and how fair criticisms of them may be.

Instead, you have with alarming speed turned to being the one making "accusations" of racist and otherwise improper statements on my part. One can call this "Arguing from Personal Insult" -- instead of challenging the statements of the other person (which, remember, in this case aren't being leveled at you or your moral character) an individual instead takes automatic umbridge and uses that supposed offense to dismiss another's arguments without further consideration. This may also be backed up with threats of punishment if the other person does not cease challenging the individual's views.

Problem is, such responses are really only appropriate (and even then one can argue otherwise) if the other is making direct accusations toward the individual in question that not only clearly extreme and provocative, but have absolutely no intellectually validity. I don't understand how anyone could see what I wrote and suggest it comes anywhere near fitting that criteria. Therefore, in the absence of meeting such a requirement the tactic of "Arguing from Personal Insult" becomes at best a case of the individual who has lost emotional perspective or at worst a case of an individual using intimidation and threat to quash disagreement with his views.

While I believe the truth is the former and not the latter, nevertheless one must ask -- Just who is the one being "disingenuous" in this instance?

[Gillianren]

Yes, the Persians were the invaders, but remember they had been provoked. While that doesn't necessarily justify their actions it certainly demonstrates they weren't just a "Lord of the Rings" like tide of evil as portrayed in the film.

Um, how were they "provoked" into wanting the Spartan territory? I mean, regardless of the fact that the Spartans did, indeed--as portrayed in the movie--violate all custom and honour by killing a messenger, the messenger kind of was there to say, "Give us your land or be destroyed." It's not as though he were there to say, "Xerxes says he likes your helmets." Now, it's not my era, so I could be wrong on this, but the Greeks weren't trying to overtake Persian land, were they? They were perfectly content to fight amongst themselves. Why is it okay for the Persians to invade?

Ah, but they weren't all Northern Europeans with a king who apparently grew up in Edinburgh. Nor did they routinely go around in their underwear nor survive years of harsh conditioning and combat without nary a scar or lingering injury. And, although admittedly one cannot be entirely sure, it is also unlikely they all had movie-star good looks.

Well, no, but it is a movie. For a start, I didn't think all of the Spartans were "movie-star good looking." I thought very few of them were, in all honesty. Besides, a Spartan with a lingering injury wouldn't have been brought along.

That is what gives what would otherwise be a historical retelling its racial overtones (IMHO) -- the effective hijacking of the valor of a group of pagan Greeks by modern WASP culture. Again, I was not personally insulted, but when the movie goes out of its way to use such provocative and heavy-handed imagery it opens itself up to criticisms of racism and bias.

First off, what's wrong with Pagans?

Second . . . it's a war movie. Provocative and heavy-handed imagery is part and parcel of the genre. And it's not as though the movie (more so than the graphic novel, in point of fact) doesn't show the flaws of Spartan society and of a few individual Spartans. Yes. The Persians were over the top. That's because Frank Moore likes things that way regardless of who his adversaries are.

I don't think the imagery of the movie can be dismissed so easily as a mere result of genre conventions. Sure, we expect to see movies told from a particular point-of-view that tends to bias one side over another. Take Braveheart, a movie that 300 clearly wishes to emulate. As it is told from the viewpoint of William Wallace and his struggles the movie clearly has a pro-Scottish bias. Nothing too alarming or unprecedented about that as such things go. But, then again, it doesn't present the English as literal monsters, whipped slaves, or unthinking minions of evil.

I do. Not literal monsters, but think about this for a minute. The English were rapists in that movie, and murderers--not just Longshanks, but the rank and file as well. And at that, it's much more even-handed than your average World War II movie--I mean the era, not the event. Have you seen how the Japanese used to be portrayed? How the Indians usually are in your average Western? Americans like things clear cut, and humanizing our adversaries doesn't help with that.

That is were 300 goes from merely being a genre picture to one that shamelessly offers us ideas and images that in most any other context would be immediately vilified as racist. It takes those conventions and warps them beyond all recognition. Yes, it is just a “comic-book movie”, but I don’t think that fact can serve as an excuse to exempt a movie no matter how extreme from criticism.

Except I don't think most people associated the Persians with modern-day Iran until the Iranian government (which, again, needs to look to its own discussion of Jews for a minute) started kicking up a fuss. I did, and I'm sure at least 90% of the people here did, but I doubt the average movie-goer did. The Persians are an exotic villain with no direct correlation to any modern people--and let's face it, the Ephori, who are Greeks, are also pretty much shown as inhuman monsters--and worse, given how willing they are to sell out all of Greece.

Actually, I think you are completely wrong here -- and disingenuous to boot. My example was right on the money -- I was presenting a theoretical movie with imagery just as biased and distorted (IMHO) as 300 that would doubtlessly raise the ire of many if not most people in Europe and the US (and rightly so).

Well, let's start with the distance of a couple thousand years, shall we? The wounds of the Holocaust are still fresh. Besides, the Czechs weren't exactly leaping up to invade Germany, now, were they?

Consider this -- 300 offers us as heroic figures a group of elitist, hyper-masculine sociopaths who can calmly chow down on lunch while human beings are butchered around them and who take pride in the fact that they murder their own children who don’t measure up to their notions of genetic purity. Meanwhile, their enemies are presented either as mindless slaves to authority, literal inhuman monsters, or as decadent, effeminate megalomaniacs whose amount of body piercings seems directly proportional to their need to compensate for feelings of inferiority. Now add in the fact that all the “good-guys” are attractive white Anglo-Saxons that look as though they just walked out of a body-building competition while the “bad guys” are of black or middle-eastern stock – not to mention often physically deformed or otherwise grotesque looking. Come on! When discussing that sort of brazen imagery the difficulty is in not bringing up the subject of Nazis.

Show me where the Spartans are shown slaughtering millions of Persians--or anyone else--because they're the wrong ethnicity or even because they disagree with Spartan politics. Let's start there, shall we?

Let's continue with the fact that the Spartans were not sociopaths. A sociopath doesn't care about societal standards. In Spartan society, dying for the sake of the greater good of the state was a good thing, second only to, well, killing lots of other people for the greater good of the state. Yes. They were practicing eugenics a couple thousand years before the term existed. And they suffer for it in the movie by being betrayed by someone who escapes their program, right?

As to the "grotesque" nature of the Persians, well, it was a popular battlefield tactic of the time to seem scarier than you actually were. Winning by intimidation might save the lives of your men. We only really get a look at Xerxes' court, which was decadent. Which, you know, it was, historically speaking. I don't think a majority of the Spartans looked Anglo-Saxon; quite a few looked more Celtic, frankly. They looked white, but that's different than Anglo-Saxon.

[Ranillon]

Um, how were they "provoked" into wanting the Spartan territory?

Historically, the invasion of Greece was the direct result of earlier Greek (mostly Athenian) intervention in a revolt against the Persians in Ionia. That is why the primary target of both invasions was Athens (in fact, some historians argue that the primary reason why Xerxes gave up his invasion after Salamis is that he had already achieved his aims, namely the destruction of Athens -- he burned it to the ground). Technically, the Persians never got near Spartan territory, but the Spartans certainly feared they would thus their participation.

Why is it okay for the Persians to invade?


I'm not suggesting that it was as such. I was just pointing out that in real life the invasion and the motives of those involved are for more grey than the black and white rationale given in the movie. Also, given that "invasions" of one group against another were part-and-parcel of life back then the act did not carry the same sort of stain of immorality then as it does now.


Besides, a Spartan with a lingering injury wouldn't have been brought along.


What about scars? I find it hard to believe that a lifetime of hardship and conflict would result in a legion of men who all look like the greatest danger they've ever had to face was a bowflex machine. :-)

However, this is admittedly (like most of these points) minor when taken in isolation. It's just the sum total that invites criticism, IMHO.


First off, what's wrong with Pagans?


Nothing.


Second . . . it's a war movie. Provocative and heavy-handed imagery is part and parcel of the genre. And it's not as though the movie (more so than the graphic novel, in point of fact) doesn't show the flaws of Spartan society and of a few individual Spartans. Yes. The Persians were over the top. That's because Frank Moore likes things that way regardless of who his adversaries are.


Again, let me be clear -- I was not personally insulted by the movie. Nor am I suggesting that the movie shouldn't have been made or that those that made it acted immorally. I'm just pointing out the the attitudes and imagery used in the movie seems needlessly heavy-handed and simplistic and invites criticsm from others (particularly those of Persian descent). If one makes a movie or TV show and uses material typically associated with racist or culturally chauvanistic attitudes they shouldn't be surprised when others comment on it even if ultimately that material was used innocently.


I do. Not literal monsters, but think about this for a minute. The English were rapists in that movie, and murderers--not just Longshanks, but the rank and file as well.


Oh, the movie certainly had a Scottish bias (not saying that was wrong, only that it is evident), enough perhaps to criticize. But, I'd argue that it is clearly not the same level as 300.


And at that, it's much more even-handed than your average World War II movie--I mean the era, not the event. Have you seen how the Japanese used to be portrayed? How the Indians usually are in your average Western? Americans like things clear cut, and humanizing our adversaries doesn't help with that.


Sure, but 300 is a movie about an invasion of ancient Greece that occurred 2500 years ago, not an attack on one's family and nation in progress. Even with that the portrayal of the Japanese -- while understandable given the circumstances of the time -- in such movies is now generally seen as an embarrassment (compare those movies to a modern war movie such as Letters from Iwo Jima).

I would argue that is is precisely because the movie is about people who aren't Americans who fought thousands of years ago that effectively gets 300 off-the-hook for much criticism outside those cultures that still identify with the ancient combatants. I frankly wonder if my own lack of moral outrage is because I too am an American and have no emotional investment in the peoples and areas of the movie.

That is why I brought up the WW2 example (and because it is one easily understood) -- to basically ask the question that if we use the same imagery, but make the story about areas and events many in American do care about does the movie suddenly appear obviously racist? I'd argue that it does, at least given modern sensibilities about such things. Whether the movie is racist in fact (as opposed to just culturally tone deaf) is another matter.


Except I don't think most people associated the Persians with modern-day Iran until the Iranian government (which, again, needs to look to its own discussion of Jews for a minute) started kicking up a fuss.


I'm sure that was a factor -- how much I don't know. But, I (and others I know) started asking these questions upon seeing the movie. We didn't wait for any official note of outrage from Tehran.


The Persians are an exotic villain with no direct correlation to any modern people--and let's face it, the Ephori, who are Greeks, are also pretty much shown as inhuman monsters--and worse, given how willing they are to sell out all of Greece.


Well, the term "Persia" is still closely tied to that of "Iran" even in the West. I am personally not sure how anyone with any related historical or cultural knowledge wouldn't make the connection. However, beyond that the juxaposition of white heroes taking on hordes of dark-skinned enemies (played by actors who are Black or Middle-Eastern) would be enough to at least raise eyebrows I would think.

As for the Ephori (which, of course, in real life were nothing like how they were presented in the movie) they are offered as being so literally inhuman and morally disgusting that it's easy to dis-identify with them in the movie -- e.g. they don't represent a stain on the Spartan character so much as they are just an adjunct to the Persian menace. IMHO, at least. They also fit the movie's clear "good is beautiful, evil is ugly" sensibility.


Well, let's start with the distance of a couple thousand years, shall we? The wounds of the Holocaust are still fresh. Besides, the Czechs weren't exactly leaping up to invade Germany, now, were they?


This is an interesting quesiton: Is something less prejudiced because it refers to something in the distant past, although many today still identify with those involved? Or, to put it another way, if the movie portrayed the Persians as enlightened do-gooders wishing to save the slaves of Greece from their literally inhuman Spartan oppressors would that be no different than the actual movie? More to the point, would the average American be as blase' about the imagery of the movie in such a case? I personally suspect not, which is ultimately the point I am trying to make.


Show me where the Spartans are shown slaughtering millions of Persians--or anyone else--because they're the wrong ethnicity or even because they disagree with Spartan politics. Let's start there, shall we?


The movie shows the Spartans not only commiting, but taking implicit pride in infanticide. It also shows them slaughtering wounded men who were no longer a threat. Maybe the body-count remained in the mere tens of thousands, but how high does the total need to get before it would make the Spartans look bad?

And, note that my example of the Waffen-SS was narrowly defined -- I was deliberately offering an example that would allow the movie to easily cut-out the worst of Nazi Germany's crimes in the same way 300 side-stepped the vast majority of Spartan behaviors that modern audiences would doubtlessly see as horrific. By doing so it makes it far easier to show the Spartans in a positive light.

But, the emotional reactions to my example just help prove my point -- is the potential racist/prejudice imagery of a movie okay just because it doesn't push any of our own cultural buttons? I ask that honestly, not rhetorically. My point is that 300 by its very nature makes us ask such questions.


Let's continue with the fact that the Spartans were not sociopaths. A sociopath doesn't care about societal standards.


Not as I understand it. A sociopath is someone who feels no empathy for others. That doesn't prevent them from following rules or realizing the practical benefits of going along with the law when it is to their own benefit.

I bring up the term because it is the only one that really fits (IMHO) when you present a scene where the "heroes" are mercilessly killing wounded and helpless men while cutting jokes and eating lunch. Basically, no empathy is being shown, thus my use of the term.

Of course, I'd argue that one of the flaws of the movie is that it tries to have it both ways -- the Spartans are presented as both noble knights out to defend justice and freedom yet at the same time heartless butchers who relishing killing and feel not one apparent ounce of empathy for anyone not Greek. I just don't think that works.

[Jim]

Folks, while I appreciate the discussions as much as any other history geek, maybe we should rein in the passion a bit.

Let's remember we are discussing a movie, and that no one has yet claimed it is completely accurate (or even fair) in its depictions.

[davidlpf]

In a recent Space interview ( actually Frank Miller showing his collection of models from 300 and Sin City) he admitted he took off the the breast plates and skirts or kilts for the effect, he did not mention anything else about the the movie but would imagine like any other movie the official story was changed to make a better movie.

[Gillianren]

Historically, the invasion of Greece was the direct result of earlier Greek (mostly Athenian) intervention in a revolt against the Persians in Ionia. That is why the primary target of both invasions was Athens (in fact, some historians argue that the primary reason why Xerxes gave up his invasion after Salamis is that he had already achieved his aims, namely the destruction of Athens -- he burned it to the ground). Technically, the Persians never got near Spartan territory, but the Spartans certainly feared they would thus their participation.

But Ionia's Greek, you know. It was still an invasion force, however you look at it. Besides, it's better to fight an enemy on ground you aren't planning to farm any time soon, surely?

I'm not suggesting that it was as such. I was just pointing out that in real life the invasion and the motives of those involved are for more grey than the black and white rationale given in the movie. Also, given that "invasions" of one group against another were part-and-parcel of life back then the act did not carry the same sort of stain of immorality then as it does now.

Well, no, and that's part of my problem. People are trying to use modern-day morality on Spartans and Persians, and that's frankly foolish. The moral code both societies worked under were radically different from the one we espouse today, and I don't think anyone really thinks living as a Spartan would be a good thing for us. It's just that, within the narrow confine of this one moment of history as we view it, the Spartans were the heroes.

What about scars? I find it hard to believe that a lifetime of hardship and conflict would result in a legion of men who all look like the greatest danger they've ever had to face was a bowflex machine. :-)

Some of them did have scars. And I agree that more of them should have. That's Hollywood for you.

However, this is admittedly (like most of these points) minor when taken in isolation. It's just the sum total that invites criticism, IMHO.

And I disagree. I think the error you're falling into is trying to cover ancient societies in modern morality, and when it doesn't stand up, you're calling it offensive.

Again, let me be clear -- I was not personally insulted by the movie. Nor am I suggesting that the movie shouldn't have been made or that those that made it acted immorally. I'm just pointing out the the attitudes and imagery used in the movie seems needlessly heavy-handed and simplistic and invites criticsm from others (particularly those of Persian descent). If one makes a movie or TV show and uses material typically associated with racist or culturally chauvanistic attitudes they shouldn't be surprised when others comment on it even if ultimately that material was used innocently.

Hey, I'm sure a story could be told in which the Persians triumph as heroes, and I think it could sell. This particular story isn't one of them. And, to the contrary, I thought there was a great deal of conflict within the story about who was in the right. After all, Leonidas was breaking Spartan law, and it's only when it was revealed (and this is just in the movie, not the graphic novel; I don't think it's historical, either, but this isn't my era) that the person arguing loudest that Leonidas needed to pay for disobeying Spartan law was also being bribed by the Persians.

Oh, the movie certainly had a Scottish bias (not saying that was wrong, only that it is evident), enough perhaps to criticize. But, I'd argue that it is clearly not the same level as 300.

It's less of a fantasy, too. Besides, the murder of William Wallace's wife is completely fictional, you know.

Sure, but 300 is a movie about an invasion of ancient Greece that occurred 2500 years ago, not an attack on one's family and nation in progress. Even with that the portrayal of the Japanese -- while understandable given the circumstances of the time -- in such movies is now generally seen as an embarrassment (compare those movies to a modern war movie such as Letters from Iwo Jima).

True. Now look at those 2500 years again. It would be equally possible to make a movie where the Spartans are horrible, horrible people (I could certainly do it myself!), but this particular story isn't that one. Whatever story you choose to tell about evil Spartans. (It would probably be from an Athenian perspective, though, because, well, the Persians were indeed trying to override Greece entirely, and it's hard for them to come across as heroes in that.)

I would argue that is is precisely because the movie is about people who aren't Americans who fought thousands of years ago that effectively gets 300 off-the-hook for much criticism outside those cultures that still identify with the ancient combatants. I frankly wonder if my own lack of moral outrage is because I too am an American and have no emotional investment in the peoples and areas of the movie.

And I do have emotional investment in the area, if not the people per se. I'm not sure exactly how far away from Thermopylae from wherever my boyfriend is, but not very compared to how far away I am. And I'm pretty sure that the place he is now, wherever that is, was once part of the Persian empire. The lesson 300 teaches us, I think, is that battles have been fought there an awful long time, and they aren't going to stop any time soon.

That is why I brought up the WW2 example (and because it is one easily understood) -- to basically ask the question that if we use the same imagery, but make the story about areas and events many in American do care about does the movie suddenly appear obviously racist? I'd argue that it does, at least given modern sensibilities about such things. Whether the movie is racist in fact (as opposed to just culturally tone deaf) is another matter.

I think it's neither. I think that neither culture portrayed truly exists anymore, though certainly there are still people in both Sparta and Persia. However, the differences have piled up over the last couple of thousand years, and at least it's a heck of a lot more historically accurate than most movies set even fifty years ago.

Well, the term "Persia" is still closely tied to that of "Iran" even in the West. I am personally not sure how anyone with any related historical or cultural knowledge wouldn't make the connection. However, beyond that the juxaposition of white heroes taking on hordes of dark-skinned enemies (played by actors who are Black or Middle-Eastern) would be enough to at least raise eyebrows I would think.

I'm at a friend's apartment right now. He's intelligent, educated, and aware of the existence of the Persian Empire--and was before. He didn't realize Persia and Iran were the same place. And the majority of American movie-goers aren't as intelligent and educated as he. Besides, I thought most of the heroes were olive-skinned, as Greeks are, and most of the Persians were darker-skinned, as Persians are. I didn't think about it at all, except to wonder exactly how many blacks would have been part of the Persian Empire, which I still haven't looked up and ought to. (I get distracted kind of easily by sources of information.)

As for the Ephori (which, of course, in real life were nothing like how they were presented in the movie) they are offered as being so literally inhuman and morally disgusting that it's easy to dis-identify with them in the movie -- e.g. they don't represent a stain on the Spartan character so much as they are just an adjunct to the Persian menace. IMHO, at least. They also fit the movie's clear "good is beautiful, evil is ugly" sensibility.

But the Oracle is beautiful and subverted by the Ephori. Not all of the Spartans are terribly attractive--the story-teller isn't, for one. And Xerxes is physically more attractive than Leonidas--and wow, look at the beauties in his mobile court. I think you're over-simplifying.

This is an interesting quesiton: Is something less prejudiced because it refers to something in the distant past, although many today still identify with those involved? Or, to put it another way, if the movie portrayed the Persians as enlightened do-gooders wishing to save the slaves of Greece from their literally inhuman Spartan oppressors would that be no different than the actual movie? More to the point, would the average American be as blase' about the imagery of the movie in such a case? I personally suspect not, which is ultimately the point I am trying to make.

To start, it wouldn't be in the slightest historically accurate, especially given that Persians had slaves as well. The Spartans were, from a strict historical perspective, fighting to avoid being overrun by the Persian Empire--just as they are shown in the movie. That's the problem with your Nazi allegory, in case you're curious. We know the Spartans are flawed, though I will say that, as a woman, I'd rather have been a Spartan than just about any other culture of the era. Whereas the Nazis were the conquerors.

The movie shows the Spartans not only commiting, but taking implicit pride in infanticide. It also shows them slaughtering wounded men who were no longer a threat. Maybe the body-count remained in the mere tens of thousands, but how high does the total need to get before it would make the Spartans look bad?

But that's entirely different from Nazi war crimes. The only infants slaughtered by the Spartans were Spartan ones. As to slaughtering wounded men, you are aware that it was a relatively common practice at the time, right? I mean, that the Persians would have done it as well?

And, note that my example of the Waffen-SS was narrowly defined -- I was deliberately offering an example that would allow the movie to easily cut-out the worst of Nazi Germany's crimes in the same way 300 side-stepped the vast majority of Spartan behaviors that modern audiences would doubtlessly see as horrific. By doing so it makes it far easier to show the Spartans in a positive light.

As is the fact that the Spartans aren't, in this instance, conquerors. As is the fact that the Spartans only kill their own children. The comparison simply isn't valid.

But, the emotional reactions to my example just help prove my point -- is the potential racist/prejudice imagery of a movie okay just because it doesn't push any of our own cultural buttons? I ask that honestly, not rhetorically. My point is that 300 by its very nature makes us ask such questions.

No, I'm arguing you on a purely historical level, here. I don't see this as a racial issue, and nor would the Spartans. I don't think the Spartans actually had a concept of race, though I could well be wrong, here. They divided all the world into three, as I recall. Spartans, non-Spartan Greeks, and everyone else. If the invaders had been Rome, for example . . . well, it would be hugely anachronistic. Still. The Spartans still would have been the heroes, because they were battling the invaders, regardless of the European origin of those invaders.

Not as I understand it. A sociopath is someone who feels no empathy for others. That doesn't prevent them from following rules or realizing the practical benefits of going along with the law when it is to their own benefit.

But the entire culture follows those rules. What's more, the Spartans are shown being empathetic to one another, to the king, the queen, their children. Even Leonidas himself is shown being empathetic toward Ephialtes; it's just that he isn't physically capable of fighting in the Spartan style, which would have risked the lives of all the other men. That's not at all sociopathological.

I bring up the term because it is the only one that really fits (IMHO) when you present a scene where the "heroes" are mercilessly killing wounded and helpless men while cutting jokes and eating lunch. Basically, no empathy is being shown, thus my use of the term.

In that one scene. They are societally programmed to do that sort of thing. It's what we still try to train our soldiers for in this day, too.

Of course, I'd argue that one of the flaws of the movie is that it tries to have it both ways -- the Spartans are presented as both noble knights out to defend justice and freedom yet at the same time heartless butchers who relishing killing and feel not one apparent ounce of empathy for anyone not Greek. I just don't think that works.

Welcome to the vagaries of history.

[Delvo]

Isn't killing a wounded man who's lying on the battefield either:
1. Practical because he might be faking or might recover with some rest and would then be dangerous again, or...
2. Merciful to someone whose death would otherwise be longer and slower?

Anyway, I explain a lot of the stuff in the movie based on the fact that it's meant to describe the story as the Spartans who were there would/might tell it. Of course Spartans telling the tale would be expected to say the Persians were ugly or deformed, for example. And the movie itself contains several indicators that that is how it's meant:

1. Three species of animal shown with obviously different appearances from what those species really look like; obviously a deliberate departure from reality for style in a way that any viewer can see, not even faintly an attempt at realism or making anyone think it's real
2. Same thing for snow in Greece (at least at low enough altitudes that someone on a solo survival mission would actually be there)
3. Narration by a guy who was there, so we're being shown the story he's telling
4. Red and orange/bronze color scheme (even the sky) obviously not meant to make anyone think it really was that way... but which does look like the dominant colors in which historical and mythical scenes were painted against a black background on ancient Greek ceramics that we've all seen at least pictures of

With the rest of the movie done in a style that says "This is a Greek tale told from Greek perspective with Greek embellishments" in those ways unrelated to the characters, why would anyone expect the character portrayals to be any different, to deviate from the pattern?

In a thread about Spartans, you guys have to settle your arguments with swords.Not swords; spears! (Spears being the primary battlefield weapon and swords a "sidearm" like a pistol carried by modern rifle-equipped infantry is one of the issues that guys who are really into swords and such like to whine about movies getting wrong, and this one, oddly, essentially got it right.)

[HenrikOlsen]

But Ionia's Greek, you know. It was still an invasion force, however you look at it. Besides, it's better to fight an enemy on ground you aren't planning to farm any time soon, surely?

Once you've remove the dropped weapons, it's not bad.
Blood is an excellent fertilizer.

[Tog_]

Isn't killing a wounded man who's lying on the battefield either:
1. Practical because he might be faking or might recover with some rest and would then be dangerous again, or...
2. Merciful to someone whose death would otherwise be longer and slower?


3. Tactically sound. You don't want some wounded guy 100 yards from your camp yelling out your positions to someone on the hillside listening.

As for the cracking of jokes, Police and EMTs do it too. If you empathize with a victim of an accident, it will get to you. Same thing goes for enemy soldiers on a battlefield. What would have been cruel would have been to keep them alive and tease them with food and water for as long as they lived.

It was also mentioned above about the use of slaves with "whips at their backs" being driven forward to death. Anyone see Enemy at the Gates? The story about the battle for Stalingrad in World War Two, where the story came down to a Russian sniper and a German one. It was farily accurate hitorically and showed the Russians as both the good guys, and the side that forced people into battle. At the start of the film, Each man was issued 5 bullets. Every other man was issued a rifle. The instructions wre basically, "When the guy in front of you falls, grab the gun and keep going. Anyone turning around will be shot."

[Delvo]

...and the Germans went through an area full of Russians lying on the ground and stabbed them all with bayonets or shot them to make sure they weren't faking it.

The "good guys" in that movie, the ones trying to defend their home from invasion, also had overwhelming numbers... they just couldn't come anywhere near Germany's level of machinery.

[foreignkid]

Is this movie as good as my friends are trying to make it be? Or are they just hypnotized by the plethora of blood and severed bodies?

[HenrikOlsen]

If they also liked "Apocalypto" the answer is the latter.:)

[Musashi]

It is fun to watch. I don't know if that makes it a good movie or not, but I think so.

[Doodler]

Imagine, by comparison, a movie where the heroes are a band of movie-star handsome Waffen-SS "heroically" fighting off the hordes of allied invaders who are presented as -- if Soviet -- mindless hordes of devolved humanoids whipped into action by their demonic Commissar masters or -- if US and British -- as effete and decadent technologists fiendishly unleashing their unholy creations upon their enemies.

How many here in the "west" do you think would take that movie without any negative comment?

Call me crazy, but I did like Starship Troopers.

[V-GER]

What makes you think that you are in a position to say that "Iranians" are not in a position to lecture anyone?

Because I can!

As humans we can lecture whoever or when ever. It is up to the individual to listen or not.

That right to lecture apparently doesn't apply to Hollywood or Danish cartoonists.

Are you implying that because of what our president says we can not express our own views??? LOL. Great logic you have there. (I do not agree with our government before you start labelling me an extremist supporter)

You can say what ever pleases you, but your presidents views take away the credibility of the good professors argument and offense. It's called double standards, something the west gets blamed a lot of.


But you have to ask yourself; has there been a huge film that supports Persia?

Why should Hollywood make a movie about Persia, let alone a huge one!?! Isn't it obvious that western people tend to make movies from a western point of view to other western people? Hollywood isn't required to cater to everybody's whims. Besides, it's not like I'm seeing an uproar over the lack of caucasian actors in Bollywood movies(nor should there be, just a comparison).

If Iranians want to see a movie supporting Persians, they can make it themselves.

Also remember most of the text out there that captures the war between the Persian and Spartans (or other Greek factions) is actually written by Greeks!!!!

History is mostly written by winners, too bad.

Most of the Persian texts were burned when we were conquered by the Arabs and Mongols.

Maybe you could make a movie about that?

Doodler wrote:
Call me crazy, but I did like Starship Troopers.
I love Starship Troopers.

[Lord Jubjub]

Starship troopers was a bit unfocused. Good movie, but it seemed to veer from satire to serious almost every other scene. I chalk it up to the director taking the original story seriously when it was intended to be rather satirical.

This movie (300) clearly was made from the POV of a Greek partisan and was intended to do so.

[debateaway]

Because I can!

But you are not in a position to say that I can not lecture or another Iranian can not lecture because of what our government says. Am I missing something here or are u under the ignorant illusion that our president talks for all of us? please do tell...


That right to lecture apparently doesn't apply to Hollywood or Danish cartoonists.



Well they can lecture and they still do but you have to ask what are they lecturing about? is it the right time? and do they have half a brain to see what reaction their work could potentially induce?


You can say what ever pleases you, but your presidents views take away the credibility of the good professors argument and offense. It's called double standards, something the west gets blamed a lot of.



Well as I said our government does not speak for everyone and if you choose to allow what our government say effect the what any other Iranian says then....well there are interesting words I can use but I will digress. Why are you generalising???? P.S. do not even go there with Double standards!



Why should Hollywood make a movie about Persia, let alone a huge one!?! Isn't it obvious that western people tend to make movies from a western point of view to other western people? Hollywood isn't required to cater to everybody's whims. Besides, it's not like I'm seeing an uproar over the lack of caucasian actors in Bollywood movies(nor should there be, just a comparison).



Because it would do well. There are many stories that can be recreated and will sell. Well no that is not true: HAVE YOU SEEN KINGDOM OF HEAVEN? If not then see it before you make any further comment about this matter. Interesting point you raised about the Bollywood movies. Yes there is a lack of Caucasians but Bollywood movies are very specialised and have narrow scope (not that that is bad) therefore it creates an environment which makes it hard for any real huge influx of Caucasian for example. On the other hand Hollywood movies have very wide scope therefore all kinds of people are required to fill the roles. (tho I would like there to be more mixed people in Bollywood). Well in actual fact there are mixed people. I have seen Caucasian people audition for such roles and succeed). P.S. I bet you were gutted when shilpa won big brother IN YER FACE!!! LOL


If Iranians want to see a movie supporting Persians, they can make it themselves.


All very well but errr.. again I think you are being ignorant. Well lets see....the people in Iran have no freedom and there is countless restrictions and red tape that would prevent such a movie being made and it being exciting.


History is mostly written by winners, too bad.


Not necessarily. There are lots of losers out there but the text and stories survived.
(i.e. when the Americans invaded er...em....America and killed off the Indians)
Also what do you mean by winners???? lol. Would it be not wise then to question historical "facts" as it is biased??????? or do you believe everything everyone tells you as long as it fits with your stereotyping?


Maybe you could make a movie about that?


I think making a movie about you would be more funny

I love Starship Troopers.

see what I mean????

P.S. I can not believe you are a senior member LMAO

[Serenitude]

Debateaway - we have forum rules governing civility and decorum. You have just crossed them. I took it when it was directed at me, but I will not abide another forum member being treated rudely and insulted.

You may consider this an official warning. ANY further behaviour of this type will lead to banning for a time specified by the severity of offense.

As well, thread closed.