"There's no reason we can't be civilized. Is there?"

[elfs]

So, I went and saw 300 tonight with j5nn5r tonight. It is a manly movie, about manly men doing the manliest of things. It has good humor, for its moments, but it is mostly a ballet of blood, of warriors in the thick of battle showing the difference between a disciplined army and a rout.

I tried, I really did, to see the political in it, and I failed. You can't make a movie about Thermopylae and deny that the Greeks were pale and the armies of the east weren't. Xerxes was a decadent SOB, but hey, so he was in real life. Yes, the movie was over the top in its goriness. Yes, it out-woos John Woo for it's fast/slow/fast illustrations of battle and gore. And it has more severed heads than a good Freddy film.

But the movie's heroes are dedicated to reason and nobility, two qualities that do not lend themselves to the Bush administration, or the U.N., or to any govermental entity currently stalking the Earth. In the end, 300 is a paean to doing what is right and just. It had nothing to do with your sexuality or your politics.

The camera work is beautiful. The men are handsome. The Virtual Studios work is amazing. The choreography is freakin' gorgeous. It's a manly film. Go see it.

Comments

[nbarnes.livejournal.com]

John Rogers at Kung Fu Monkey pretty much has the last word on the topic of 300's politics.

Basically, 300 is, just exactly as you say, 'a manly movie, about manly men doing the manliest of things'. Reading the movie, its parallels and politics are all over the map, largely because, one has to suppose, the director really didn't have an agenda beyond the glorification of hot hot greek guys stabbing things in slo-mo.

[nbarnes.livejournal.com]

Bleh. I failed my Markup roll. Here's the Kung Fu Monkey link:

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/03/writing-300-and-viewpoints.html

But I don't like blood and gore...

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

especially if there's not much more than beefcake for relief from it. No thanks.

[zonereyrie.livejournal.com]

It is a fun movie - I just hope not too many people think it has anything to do with the real history.

[woggie.livejournal.com]

There's a good Freddie film?

Oops. My bias is revealed. :p

What I didn't understand...

[norikos-author.livejournal.com]

was the CNN.com review blasting 300 for its _lack_ of gore, while complaining about the amount of gore. Apparently the gore wasn't... um... gory enough for the reviewer?

Oh. It also blasted it for glorifying war and military tradition.

*walks off, shaking head* I'll never understand reviewers.

[ibsulon.livejournal.com]

wait...

Sparta... who was much closer to the Soviet Union than freedom and reason loving Athens (though the whole citizen distinction is not lost on me there)

Sparta... who in the movie denegrates Athenians for being boy-lovers when the exact opposite prejudice can be found -- in fact, there is more than one alligation that the Spartans were a mainly homosexual/bisexual (I won't say gay as that implies much more than I wish) culture as the boys entering the army were given a mentor - and part of that relationship was sexual.

Sparta... which looked surprisingly like American masculinity and Persia somehow takes on the characteristics of feminity? (Forget decadent.. that man was a drag queen!) Oh - and how about the depiction of the lesbians when tempting the hunchback?

Or the scene in front of the council? "Freedom is not free?" I remember one advertizement calling it the west's first battle for freedom.

All I'm saying is that it's perpetrating some very proto-American memes while using as contrast the ancestor to a country currently in rising conflict with the United States.

[themassivebri.livejournal.com]

Sparta... who in the movie denegrates Athenians for being boy-lovers when the exact opposite prejudice can be found -- in fact, there is more than one alligation that the Spartans were a mainly homosexual/bisexual (I won't say gay as that implies much more than I wish) culture as the boys entering the army were given a mentor - and part of that relationship was sexual.

this was pretty well hashed in the comics. a possible interpretation is that the Spartans were looking down on the Athenians for being boy-lovers, because the Spartans were _men_-lovers.

as for mainly homo/bisexual, little Spartans had to come from somewhere, but I believe there is extensive documentation that women in that time were largely considered baby-machines, and it wouldn't surprise me that pleasure taking was a male thing, to be done with other males.

[abostick59.livejournal.com]

You can't make a movie about Thermopylae and deny that the Greeks were pale and the armies of the east weren't.

Oh yes you can:

Ancient Greece and Rome used white (lenkon in Greek; alba in Latin) as one description of skin color. Its light appearance was distinguished, for example, in a comparison of white-skinned Persian soldiers from the sun-tanned skin of Greek troops in Xenophon's Agesilaus.

Here's the relevant quote from Xenopohon:

But seeing that contempt for the foe is calculated to infuse a certain strength in face of battle, he ordered his criers to strip naked the barbarians captured by his foraging parties, and so to sell them. The soldiers who saw the white skins of these folk, unused to strip for toil, soft and sleek and lazy-looking, as of people who could only stir abroad in carriages, concluded that a war with women would scarcely be more formidable. [emphasis added]

[(Anonymous)]

I'm going to hit a few different points on this.

First...Bah! politics and history quibbles. Also it had some problems with realism (how does an army feed itself when all they carry are capes, shields, lances and swords?).

Of *course* it wasn't historically accurate but, I can tell you, the fighting was. The stunt men had to create the martial arts of the movie, based on no history what so ever. We don't know the details of how the Spartans fought but, we know how the human body moves and what it is capable of. I thought the movements were akin to deadly dancers. I thought the carriage and fighting of the men was spectacular.

The rest of it? Overblown and over the top but, I'm going to buy this movie purely for the martial arts and how they captured what warriors are about.

Yes war is violent. Killing is violent. Defending the life of another against grave bodily injury or death can be very violent. I think it's about time we showed our society just how violent killing is.

Maybe they will not be so fast to send our sons, daughters, brothers and fathers to battle in Persia so casually.

[j5nn5r.livejournal.com]

I'm going to hit a few different points on this.

First...Bah! politics and history quibbles. Also it had some problems with realism (how does an army feed itself when all they carry are capes, shields, lances and swords?).

Of *course* it wasn't historically accurate but, I can tell you, the fighting was. The stunt men had to create the martial arts of the movie, based on no history what so ever. We don't know the details of how the Spartans fought but, we know how the human body moves and what it is capable of. I thought the movements were akin to deadly dancers. I thought the carriage and fighting of the men was spectacular.

The rest of it? Overblown and over the top but, I'm going to buy this movie purely for the martial arts and how they captured what warriors are about.

Yes war is violent. Killing is violent. Defending the life of another against grave bodily injury or death can be very violent. I think it's about time we showed our society just how violent killing is.

Maybe they will not be so fast to send our sons, daughters, brothers and fathers to battle in Persia so casually.

[(Anonymous)]

>First...Bah! politics and history quibbles. Also it had some problems with >realism (how does an army feed itself when all they carry are capes, >shields, lances and swords?). How does the army feed itself? Well, historical sources such as Xenophon's _March of the Ten Thousand_ imply that a 'baggage train' with beasts of burden, carts, and people caring for them could carry various supplies. So the soldiers wouldn't have to carry all that crap themselves. >Of *course* it wasn't historically accurate but, I can tell you, the >fighting was. The stunt men had to create the martial arts of the movie, >based on no history what so ever. We don't know the details of how the >Spartans fought but, we know how the human body moves and what it is >capable of. I thought the movements were akin to deadly dancers. I thought >the carriage and fighting of the men was spectacular. Some facts about how the Greek soldiers fought are recorded in history; for example, we can know some facts about Greek use of spears and shield walls and how these techniques were effective against Persians. Other questions can even be approached indirectly--for example, Xenophon wrote books on hunting and horsemanship from which we can learn some things and make educated guesses about others. But only political and historical quibblers would be likely to know about these things. :-) In _Wired_ magazine I read that "wire work" was used in some fight scenes, and saw a still photo of an implausible leap by a Spartan soldier, so I don't expect realism. As for political comentary, thoughtful reading of Greek history can tell us some rather ugly facts about what winning a war can sometimes involve and how warmaking can go bad. And unthoughtful reading of Greek history has inspired morons to charge in the wrong directions, even in the current president's administration.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry about the formatting error above. This should be better.

>First...Bah! politics and history quibbles. Also it had some problems with
>realism (how does an army feed itself when all they carry are capes,
>shields, lances and swords?).

How does the army feed itself? Well, historical sources
such as Xenophon's _March of the Ten Thousand_
imply that a 'baggage train' with beasts of burden, carts,
and people caring for them could carry various supplies.
So the soldiers wouldn't have to carry all that crap themselves.

>Of *course* it wasn't historically accurate but, I can tell you, the
>fighting was. The stunt men had to create the martial arts of the movie,
>based on no history what so ever. We don't know the details of how the
>Spartans fought but, we know how the human body moves and what it is
>capable of. I thought the movements were akin to deadly dancers. I thought
>the carriage and fighting of the men was spectacular.

Huh? The fighting *was* historically accurate, or was accurate?

Some facts about how the Greek soldiers fought are recorded in history;
for example, we can know some facts about Greek use of spears and
shield walls and how these techniques were effective against Persians.

Other questions can even be approached indirectly--for example,
Xenophon wrote books on hunting and horsemanship from which we can
learn some things and make educated guesses about others.

But only political and historical quibblers would be likely
to know about these things. :-)

In _Wired_ magazine I read that "wire work" was used in some fight scenes,
and saw a still photo of an implausible leap by a Spartan soldier,
so I don't expect realism.

As for political commentary, thoughtful reading of Greek history can
tell us some rather ugly facts about what winning a war can sometimes
involve and how warmaking can go bad. And unthoughtful reading of
Greek history has inspired morons to charge in the wrong directions,
even prominently in the current president's administration.