Three Hun-duh-red (300)

Ryan

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I saw the movie "300" over the weekend, and curiously enough my exact feelings are summed up in Paul Byrnes' review in the Sydney Morning Herald, so I'll quote it below:

SMH.com.au said:
There must be 300 reasons to avoid this violent exercise in military propaganda.

This adaptation of the story of the 300 Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae, based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, would have Herodotus turning in his grave and Hitler rising from his.

It is violent enough to make you shudder and close enough to fascist art to make your skin crawl. It celebrates all the things the Fuehrer loved - the glorious, operatic spectacle of senseless death, the ruthless weeding out of the weak, the gross caricaturing of the enemy, the indoctrination of the young, even a mountain-climbing ordeal for the hero - and all as it purports to be a movie about freedom.

Welcome to the new double-speak: Sparta as a metaphor for America, courtesy of Warner Bros, in which the politics of eugenics is reborn amid one of the most sickeningly violent and mindless films of the new millennium. Adolf would have been pleased: he may have lost the war, but his ideas live on in mystical, military propaganda like this, aimed at spotty boys in need of heroes. God help us.

Of course, latent fascism isn't new in American military movies. It's just that it's rarely as politically naive as it is in 300. That's me being charitable. It's just possible the filmmakers intended it to be as inflammatory as it is. These are strange times and 300 fits the mood of a part of the West that would like to see the Middle-Eastern barbarians bathed in their own blood. This is their kind of movie, complete with references to "barbarians" and "Asian hordes". Perhaps the Klan has become a new demographic for Hollywood.


Much of the blame goes to Miller, who wrote the original comic and takes a credit as executive producer on the movie. He is a cult figure in the world of American comics. He revitalised Batman in the Dark Knight series, and he wrote and drew Sin City, which was turned into a popular film by Robert Rodriguez. The indisputable graphic power of Miller's comic-book art is reproduced in the film with sepia monumentalism; his politics are another thing entirely.

Much of the historical inaccuracy in the movie flows directly from his book, including the way the movie Spartans don't wear any body armour or even crests on their helmets. We don't know that much about the Spartans but we have a fair idea of what they wore in battle, and it included leg and chest plates for protection. Miller dispenses with these in favour of men in loincloths and red shawls, so we can see their rippling muscles.

These Spartans have more six packs than a butcher's picnic. David Wenham has never looked so buff as he does here, in a ridiculous role as the one-eyed historian to the Spartans. Nor, in fact, were the Persians equipped with attack elephants or giant rhinos. And unless a lot has changed since 480BC, the Persians were not as black as Nubians, either. The Persian king, Xerxes, is played as an effeminate man with an ego the size of Africa and way too much gold bling.

None of these things really matters. It's not a history lesson, as the film's preface clearly shows. The young Leonidas is sent into the wilds to fend for himself. We know the Spartans did something like this as part of their process of hardening boys into men but we take an immediate leap into fantasy when Leo faces a giant computer-generated wolf with headlight eyes. He lures the wolf into a crevice, where it becomes wedged. The boy draws back his pike and plunges it into the open mouth of the beast. Squelch!

This is the genesis of his strategy at Thermopylae. King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) will draw the army of Xerxes into the narrow pass in northern Greece where his vastly superior numbers will not help. Then the 300 brave Spartans, all that Leonidas was allowed to take from Sparta, will cut them down in waves, with superior tactics.

Herodotus, the Greek historian, tells us that this is what happened. Leonidas held off the Persians for two days at the pass, slaughtering 20,000 of their number with a disciplined defence, as Xerxes watched from a throne on a hill. The Greeks probably numbered more like 7000 at the start but let's not worry about that. This is the story of the brave 300 Spartans, not the semi-brave 6000 or more other Greeks.

The reason it's only about the Spartans is that the film seeks to glorify their martial culture, as a metaphor for America. Miller admires the toughness of their culture, in which weak babies were left to die on a mountain and boys were turned into expert killers who obeyed orders without question. Spartan men could have only one profession - soldier. Spartan women, personified in the film by the gorgeous Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey), were almost as tough.

The graphic novel was first published in 1998, but there's no doubt that the film's politics have been reforged hotter by the events of September 11. Here's what Miller has said about "the enemy": "For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against and the sixth-century barbarism they actually represent. These people saw people's heads off. They enslave women; they genetically (sic) mutilate their daughters. They do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I'm speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture. And I'm living in a city where 3000 of my neighbours were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built."

What Miller offers as a counter-argument is simply a much older kind of barbarism, dressed up to make the Spartans out to be freedom-lovers. Tell that to the serfs they forced into labour and the Helots they kept in line with secret police and death squads.
The Nazis took valuable lessons from Sparta so it's more than surprising to see Warner Bros, founded by four Jewish brothers, putting its resources into a movie that glorifies these ideas.


But then, it's only a comic-book movie, after all. No sense getting worked up, is there? It's only for youngsters who want a bit of blood and guts between computer games, right? No harm done.
 
This is the post from the other thread which sparked discussion about this movie before this thread was open.

Deckard said:
photo40hiresnk6.jpg

300

Fresh from the cinema trying to get it out of my system.

Well this thread was intended as a homage to the good historical/period movie and the only reason I am mentioning 300 here is because it is a perfect illustration of what has 21st century movie art mostly been reduced to - all form and no substance at all.
Yes the visual art in this movie is stunning but what is its function? Further programming of the unsuspecting masses?

This movie is filled with disturbing and fascist overtones.

Basically we have Spartans on one side as the good guys, six pack Übermensch defenders of Western civilization ( or killing machines willing to sacrifice their last drop of blood)
and Persians basically depicted as Mujahideen , treacherous and deformed.
The message is in your face really, too bad legendary battle at Thermophylae took place centuries before Islam was even concieved.
Nowadays it seems everything that Holliwood touches bears an obvious mark of the beast.

One could argue the authors wanted to stay faithfull to Frank Miller's( who is undoubtedly classical example of sadistic psychopath) graphic novel but at the end of the day 300 is nothing but Americana at its worst.
The stylized action, set to crunching guitar riffs, feels suffocating in its artificiality. Dialogue, taken mostly verbatim from Miller, comes cribbed from T-shirt slogans (real men wear crimson!) and Bruce Springsteen songs (no retreat, no surrender!).

Miller happens to be creator of Sin City so 300, shares Sin's unapologetically sadistic bent, littering the screen with scads of computer-generated sprays and spurting of blood with every stab in the chest, chop of a limb and hacking off of a head. Such an incessant assault on the senses is clearly designed with the Joystick Generation in mind, those video gamers raised on wave after wave of grisly displays of gratuitous dismemberment.

A monochromatic, testosterone-sodden cross of Gladiator and Sin City strictly for the bloodlust demographic.
A perfect little piece of psychopatic programming.

Definitelly to be missed, and if you wanna enjoy visuals there are plenty movie stills to be found on the net.
 
Actually I'll step out on the ledge and offer this: I liked it.

All of the above is accurate, I'm not gonna contest it's overtones of facism, elitism, Good White guys vs Bad brownskins...

But, and there is a but;

Paul Byrne said:
But then, it's only a comic-book movie, after all. No sense getting worked up, is there? It's only for youngsters who want a bit of blood and guts between computer games, right? No harm done.
imho, some movies have messages that are worth keeping, Spiderman gives us, "With Great Power, comes Great Responsibility", the original star wars gives us the pearls of yoda's wisdom, "Do or Do not, there is no try.", but movies like 300, Terminator, Sin City - These are the Junk food of film. Some more capable of understanding it then others, and i would hope the children that see 300 have parents that can put these things in perspective.

Unfortunately, i have a feeling, esp in america, those kinds of parents are lacking. Which is why it's good to have articles like Byrnes, and threads like these that can put things in perspective.

The reasons i enjoyed the film were completely seperate from the reasons Byrnes and the others above disliked it, the choreography and cinematography were excellent, the visuals stunning, the music well timed, and the script intriguing. Watching the spartans fight as one was impressive. That's how i evaluate any movie.

When all is said and done, it's like the man said: it's just a movie.
 
Cyre2067 said:
Actually I'll step out on the ledge and offer this: I liked it.

All of the above is accurate, I'm not gonna contest it's overtones of facism, elitism, Good White guys vs Bad brownskins...

But, and there is a but;

Paul Byrne said:
But then, it's only a comic-book movie, after all. No sense getting worked up, is there? It's only for youngsters who want a bit of blood and guts between computer games, right? No harm done.
I got the strongest impression that he was being sarcastic, otherwise he would've just contradicted everything he said if that was his true conclusion, osit
Cyre2067 said:
but movies like 300, Terminator, Sin City - These are the Junk food of film.
I personally wouldn't put Terminator in that group, I think Terminator is far from being junk, it was one of the most powerful movies I've ever seen and has all sorts of implications and food for thought, but maybe that's just me.
Cyre2067 said:
Some more capable of understanding it then others, and i would hope the children that see 300 have parents that can put these things in perspective. Unfortunately, i have a feeling, esp in america, those kinds of parents are lacking. Which is why it's good to have articles like Byrnes, and threads like these that can put things in perspective.
Yeah but articles like his, and especially threads like these are going to be seen by a tiny percentage of the people who saw the movie. Didn't your second sentence demonstrate the wishful thinking nature of the hope you expressed in the first sentence?


Cyre2067 said:
The reasons i enjoyed the film were completely seperate from the reasons Byrnes and the others above disliked it, the choreography and cinematography were excellent, the visuals stunning, the music well timed, and the script intriguing. Watching the spartans fight as one was impressive. That's how i evaluate any movie.
Ok but you should consider how impressive the Nazi war machine was also. If you saw the tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers marching in-step with those big nazi flags, dozens of tanks, and everything so coordinated and choreographed in synchronous presentation, you could say that it's pretty amazing and looks very cool as well. In fact, a big part of any war propaganda is the "appearance" and "grandiosity" of the army, just how huge and awesome it looks, how disciplined everyone is, it can really inspire awe and amazement, especially in young kids and teenagers who can't wait to be part of this giant well-oiled machine. In a sense it's like Vegas - it looks good and shiny and huge, that alone makes you wanna "go experience it" or "be part of it" just for the coolness factor.

It's probably similar to liking a psychopath because he's friendly, charming, is very clean-cut, has toned muscles, is very cool and always knows what to say in any social situation, has a great sense of humor, and very beautiful in appearance. I mean, like, the perfect guy/gal! :P
Cyre2067 said:
When all is said and done, it's like the man said: it's just a movie.
It is, but the impact of a movie seen by millions of people, most of whom totally affected by its propaganda, is not something that is "no big deal", at least I don't think so. Movies always have been used for propaganda during wartime, just as all other media. The handy thing about fiction is that it can be used to portray truths, and it can also be used to portray lies. And what is so "handy" about it, is that in fiction the propaganda can be completely undisguised as to its nature, but since it is under cover of "fiction", it cannot threaten the PTB because they can always say "it's just a movie, it's just a fake story!". So like those Murals at the Denver Airport. They show a very tyrranical pathocratic state of existence, but it's hard to complain because "they are just murals, just some silly pictures on some walls, they're not real!". Fiction provides great plausible deniability. Granted, the same thing can be used for the "good guys" - the Matrix can give a lot of truths in the guise of fiction as well, truths that cannot ever be told to so many people if they were to be given in the context of objective reality. Anyway, just some thoughts.
 
Azur said:
Bryan said:
There's nothing new about that.

_http://www.filmsite.org/birt.html
There are 92 years between the production of those two movies.

What do you think the implications of this are?
Just a comment on how things haven't changed all that much in the U.S. At some core level it seems as though facism never really went away, and TPTB like to find ways to bring it out and make it look great.
 
Bryan said:
Azur said:
Bryan said:
There's nothing new about that.

_http://www.filmsite.org/birt.html
There are 92 years between the production of those two movies.

What do you think the implications of this are?
Just a comment on how things haven't changed all that much in the U.S. At some core level it seems as though facism never really went away, and TPTB like to find ways to bring it out and make it look great.
Was the concept of "fascism" even around in 1915? If not, how does it apply here?
 
Azur said:
Was the concept of "fascism" even around in 1915?
Apparently the word "fascism" was created in 1919 in Italy (fascismo).

It's can be described as a form of corporatism (where a power is privileging a group against the rest of the population). So even if the word by itself is rather recent this kind of practice seems centuries old.
 
Cyre2067 wrote:

Some more capable of understanding it then others, and i would hope the children that see 300 have parents that can put these things in perspective. Unfortunately, i have a feeling, esp in america, those kinds of parents are lacking. Which is why it's good to have articles like Byrnes, and threads like these that can put things in perspective.

SAO wrote:

Yeah but articles like his, and especially threads like these are going to be seen by a tiny percentage of the people who saw the movie. Didn't your second sentence demonstrate the wishful thinking nature of the hope you expressed in the first sentence?
Oh totally, it is wishful thinking, however it's the reality of the situation. We get propaganda stuffed down our throats all day long. The stuff in 300 was obvious to me, not so obvious to some of the more average amerikans. I discussed it with my friends, and they agreed in a propagandistic (is that a word?) element to 300, but as an action movie, we enjoyed it.

Was the whole thing a sham? A bloody psychopathic piece of programming? I'd say no.

Was it a good action movie? I'd say yes.
Cyre2067 wrote:

The reasons i enjoyed the film were completely seperate from the reasons Byrnes and the others above disliked it, the choreography and cinematography were excellent, the visuals stunning, the music well timed, and the script intriguing. Watching the spartans fight as one was impressive. That's how i evaluate any movie.

SAO wrote:
Ok but you should consider how impressive the Nazi war machine was also. If you saw the tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers marching in-step with those big nazi flags, dozens of tanks, and everything so coordinated and choreographed in synchronous presentation, you could say that it's pretty amazing and looks very cool as well. In fact, a big part of any war propaganda is the "appearance" and "grandiosity" of the army, just how huge and awesome it looks, how disciplined everyone is, it can really inspire awe and amazement, especially in young kids and teenagers who can't wait to be part of this giant well-oiled machine. In a sense it's like Vegas - it looks good and shiny and huge, that alone makes you wanna "go experience it" or "be part of it" just for the coolness factor.
Well here you're kinda mixing my points. I was evaluating the movie as a film, by standards i use to evaluate any film. And to clarify, just because i watched them fight and thought their cohesiveness was impressive i didn't have any desire to join in the frey and 'be a spartan'...

And while i kinda see where you're going with the above paragraph, I'd have to disagree b/c the american war machine isn't 'well oiled', nor cohesive. It inspires no high lofty morals, nor does it fight for any particular cause. Nor do many of america's sons and daughters run off to join it, barely enough to do let it function as it is, and most there do so out of financial concerns as opposed to making a moral choice.

SAO said:
It is, but the impact of a movie seen by millions of people, most of whom totally affected by its propaganda, is not something that is "no big deal", at least I don't think so. Movies always have been used for propaganda during wartime, just as all other media. The handy thing about fiction is that it can be used to portray truths, and it can also be used to portray lies. And what is so "handy" about it, is that in fiction the propaganda can be completely undisguised as to its nature, but since it is under cover of "fiction", it cannot threaten the PTB because they can always say "it's just a movie, it's just a fake story!".
And here's where we disagree. I think it's 'no big deal' because it's obvious in the extreme. It's even comic to me, because of how obvious and overdone the whole movie was. Esp at the time the movie was released in theaters, it was a big time for anti-iranian sentiment, so it was almost the first thing i noticed. "Hmm a bunch of outnumbered white guys getting pwned by a horde of monster-like arabs. Coincidence?"

I think it even goes as far as making several points against the establishment, because the roles are obviously reversed. So while it may work as propaganda for some, it will have the opposite effect on others.

What it comes down to imho, is that it was an okay film, a good action movie, and a relatively weak piece of propaganda. If we're gonna talk about programming the populace and propaganda that stinks I'd point at something like 24.
 
Cyre2067 said:
Well here you're kinda mixing my points. I was evaluating the movie as a film, by standards i use to evaluate any film. And to clarify, just because i watched them fight and thought their cohesiveness was impressive i didn't have any desire to join in the frey and 'be a spartan'...
I didn't mean the movie would make you wanna join in and be a spartan, just that if you look at the army commercials, or marines or navy, you see them show rambo-style humanly-impossible feats, things that you never do in the real marines but they show it anyway because it makes a certain "point" about just how cool and strong and amazing you'll be, even if it is done in an unrealistic way. The army tends to go for "awesome gadgets" and "awesome jobs" that you could never have anywhere else, which in and of itself is interesting that the Army is selling itself as a "career opportunity" and that is certainly very telling about their target audience. Whether the army itself is well-oiled and cohesive isn't as important for recruitment as creating the appearance that it is, osit - and commercials are all about appearance. But my basic point is that if they made Yoda say subtle propaganda, and the whole Jedi order was based on instilling subtle psychopathic or distorted notions into the minds of the viewers, a movie like Star Wars doing this has the potential of more success than a movie that "sucked" as a movie itself and nobody cared for it or was impressed by its general execution and acting from the "normal" movie-review standards.

And I honestly think the analogy of a psychopath does apply in that, "normal" social standards of evaluating/reviewing a person would rate a clever psychopath as one of the best people ever, just like "normal" movie-review standards can rate some of the worst movies in terms of ponerogenesis factor as one of the best because that factor is not considered. All the "qualities" of the clever psychopath will appear to be top notch and inspiring and he/she can be a personal hero of a many as a result, receive tons of awards and medals, have many fans etc. But it is those very qualities that attract others and create this impression of greatness and humbleness that allow a psychopath to be so influencial over so many people. If the psychopath was an obvious asshole or idiot, he'd have a hard time manipulating and ponerizing others because they wouldn't take him seriously anyway.

And similarly, if you take a movie that has a king in it and his nation is presented as "the good guy" in the movie, the whole idea of a totalitarian "birthright" tyrant as being inherently evil would escape the viewers because he was, much like a psychopath does for himself, window-dressed as a really good guy and a really good thing for the nation. And there may be no choice, I mean if you wanna make a movie about kings and queens and tyrants, which are a stark reality especially of our past and certainly can make for a great movie, it wouldn't make any sense to insert a "president" in an era where that does not fit. So you may not be intending any propaganda, you just want to make a realistic and good movie with a good story, and you could very well succeed on a certain level, but that level could potentially exist for the sole purpose of spreading the disease underneath, just like the mask of a psychopath. I am not saying that this is the case with "300", but I don't know that it isn't either. And even if this isn't intentional, just the act of presenting a king as the good guy continues the idea that this concept of totalitarian ruler by birthright in and of itself isn't already psychopathic. Then you have all those warm and fuzzy fairy tales for kids etc where a king or queen can be dressed up to look like they are so humble and good and necessary for a civilization, and the viewers won't object in the least to the idea of a king/queen if they are "presented" the right way. Not that this is at all the intention of fairy tales (or is it?), or the intention of modern comedies like Shrek, and they could be great stories, but it doesn't mean that the job of acclimating people to ponerized ideas isn't done, especially if people are constantly exposed to this stuff since childhood.

Cyre2067 said:
And while i kinda see where you're going with the above paragraph, I'd have to disagree b/c the american war machine isn't 'well oiled', nor cohesive.
Perhaps in reality it's not, and an increasing number of people are beginning to see this, but you certainly won't get that impression from their commercials and from the words of our psychopathic politicians.

Cyre2067 said:
It inspires no high lofty morals, nor does it fight for any particular cause.
But what about the cause of "freedom and democracy" that is so loudly repeated to us? That is a lofty cause, it may be deceptive and oxymoronic in execution, but it's not designed to have critical thought applied to it, and many people don't.

Cyre2067 said:
Nor do many of america's sons and daughters run off to join it, barely enough to do let it function as it is, and most there do so out of financial concerns as opposed to making a moral choice.
I agree, but you do have all those "support the troops" ribbons on cars and other propaganda that injects supposed "morality" into our war machine. Isn't it our "morality" that is the target of things like "Saddam was an evil, evil man, and had to be stopped, he was terrorizing his own people!" etc? I think that while the initial cause of Iraq war was WMD's, once that failed, the idea of Saddam being really evil was the only thing that brainwashed the masses into allowing this to continue, and as such, I think it was in fact presented as a "moral" thing that US is doing, and those who joined the army (outside of the psychopaths) I'm sure had no intention to just go blow up random people, but only the evil terrorists and to spread freedom and democracy as they've been promised.

Cyre2067 said:
And here's where we disagree. I think it's 'no big deal' because it's obvious in the extreme.
I don't know just how obvious it is though to those who're not looking for any real-world implications in the movie, and just go to see it for the action. I would suspect that those people would be most likely to have certain ideas suggested to them without their knowledge. If they DO notice what you just said about a bunch of outnumbered white guys, that's different. And I certainly don't know how many people made the connection, and maybe I have a bias towards the lack of intelligence of a typical American audience, especially kids, so maybe you're right. I really cannot say just how "bad" something like this is. I think maybe in this day and age, having so many people start to get fed up with the US government, it might not be as bad as if that movie came out say, right after 911 or so.

Cyre2067 said:
What it comes down to imho, is that it was an okay film, a good action movie, and a relatively weak piece of propaganda. If we're gonna talk about programming the populace and propaganda that stinks I'd point at something like 24.
Good point, I mean it's not the only thing out there, and it is mild in comparison to other stuff we're exposed to. I suppose it all has its effects, but no one thing is single-handedly responsible for keeping everyone asleep. I think that people are slowly waking up, and another thing here is that if a propaganda is a little to obvious as you say, it can have the opposite effect and backfire if too many people see it, it'll just piss people off.
 
There's a couple of verses in the New Testament Apocrypha about the Spartans. In either Maccabees ! or 2, the Jewish author refers to the Spartans as our 'cousins' (close blood relatives) across the sea. The notes to the edition I have give a story of a tribe of Israelites who migrated to Sparta. I think Herodotus also tells this story. Neither of the books are with me at the moment, unfortunately; if I've misremembered, someone please correct me. The Helots were, apparently, the original inhabitants of that part of Greece, and it was they who became the slaves of the Spartans. One anecdotal report I read (now long lost, alas) tells of Spartan youths hunting unarmed helots to death, in order to hone Spartan fighting skills. And Spartan womenfolk were considered only as son-bearers; the rest of the time the women had to live with their daughters apart from the men. This is, I think, in Herodotus, or it can be researched on the web. Everything I've ever read about the Spartans tells me that they were not nice people; but even at school we learnt about the 'brave' and noble 300 Spartans, who sacrificed their lives to save their country against a barbarian invader.

Fwiw, from the trailer it was obvious what kind of film this was going to be, imo, and that was before the cowardly and effeminate-seeming Xerxes appeared in his scenes. Just from the trailer I could see the film was going to be propagandised rubbish, imo. This is why I thought 300 had been made, to tell you the truth; it was a deliberate attempt to stir up the general public of America and Britain against Iran osit, or at least to frame their mind-set.

Nice that some of you agree - great minds think alike, as they say! ;D

(N.B. to all - the page didn't download fully on my screen, so apologies if someone has already posted the 'Apocrypha' connection.)
 
It's interesting how historic Arcadia is very much exploited when militant and exaggerated myth pops up again and again trough history (like this one adapted from Frank Miller's comic book not ancient Greek marketing machine) and how openly was triggered toward Iran (Persia), 7d help us all when this kind of movies are blockbusters.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom