"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

[(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.