The Movie 300

[hyperborean]

So, did anyone watch the movie "300" yet? Personally I think that the director created a very accurate representation of spartan culture and philosophy. Anyone beg to differ? Something the movie left out about the Battle of Thermopylae?

Anyways, the whole living and dying for you country (+ group unity and honor) mentality is something the western world hasn't seen since Roman times.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/300Poster.jpg/200px-300Poster.jpg

[manolia]

Hi hyperborean.
The movie is on theatres here but i do hesitate a little to see it. Having watched movies on ancient Greece has been somewhat of a painfull experience for me and everyone who is acquainted with greek history. Most of them were nice movies, well crafted, with good actors, costumes etc but their inaccuracy was sometimes painfull. And maybe if a movie is about greek mythology or fictitious events in general, there is no "harm" done. But when coping with historical events..some movies can be rather annoying. (For instance in the movie "Troy" with Brad Pitt, where Sparta is supposed to have a haven, or the fact that Achilleas goes inside the walls of Troy and fights, the fact that ancient greek priests are dressed with the garment that todays' Christian Orthodox priests wear, or the fact that they destroy Trojan temples when it is known that Trojans were also greek so they had the same gods and lots more).

If by chance my friends (or my curiosity) do prevail on me i will come back to this thread and maybe we have a decent conversasion.

[Tuesday]

Anyways, the whole living and dying for you country (+ group unity and honor) mentally is something the western world hasn't seen since Roman times.


How do you come to this conclusion? Do you have any special event of Roman history in mind?

However, I strongly disagree with you. First of all, every war produces this kind of situation where people have to die for what is supposedly a greater good; be it country or freedom or whatever. And I honestly don't think that a whole lot of people die for honor...maybe in duels, but certainly not in wars where the life of a single fighting soldier is pretty much insignificant. Where is the honor in getting shredded to pieces by a machine gun some hundred yards away in a muddy trench? Or in getting your head chopped of during some giant melee?

And as to the battle itself: I was certainly not as glorious as it is often portrayed. After all, it was a rather desperate act and there was probably a lot less machismo ;)

Btw: If you want a modern day comparison, you should take a look at the Battle of Stalingrad.

[Virgil]

I have not watched it. It jst came out this weekend. But it has caught my interest. I may see it or just wait for the DVD to come out.

[Triskele]

my biggest problem with the movie is the inaccuracy of the armor and ability of the spartan and persian warriors. although it is true that the spartans have a bond forged of constant companionship from the age of 6 to the age of 30, we can not hope to replicate the level of bonding these men had simply due to the fact that their training was so harsh it bordered on torture.

[watkinsguy]

I have not seen it either, but from what I have heard from friends, it is a very good portrayel of Ancient Greece warfare and such :) I look forward to seeing it though.

[Dante Wodehouse]

The living and dying for your country existed up until the end of WWII, when people were just tired of dying. During the World Wars, people took it to such a far level that they got sick of it. I think that a healthy dose of nationalism would do Americans good. The lack of patriotism in America is a very disturbing thing to me, and I have thought on it much. I have come to the conclusion that it is because America has been built on glorifying the underdog, and now that we aren't the underdog and have no countries that we are even competing against, we feel like the tyrants that we have spent 200 years vilifying.

[Dante Wodehouse]

On a more responsive note (forgive me for straying from the point), I thought the Greek side of the movie was well represented, but the entire situation was greatly over exagerated. The Persian forces were incredibly exaggerated, but what is to be expected from Hollywood?

[SheykAbdullah]

my biggest problem with the movie is the inaccuracy of the armor and ability of the spartan and persian warriors. although it is true that the spartans have a bond forged of constant companionship from the age of 6 to the age of 30, we can not hope to replicate the level of bonding these men had simply due to the fact that their training was so harsh it bordered on torture.

It doesn't take torture to create bonding as strong as the Spartans had. Have you talked to modern soldier who have gone through war? It's the same for them as the Spartans.

[Logos]

my biggest problem with the movie is the inaccuracy of the armor and ability of the spartan and persian warriors.

And you're not the only one. As a historian and friend of a movie producer I can appreciate both 'sides' of the film-making industry trying to depict 'historical' works. Ephraim Lytle, assistant prof. of Hellenistic history at the University of Toronto also has some critique :p

http://www.thestar.com/article/190493

I'll wait till it comes out on DVD so I can enjoy a drink at home while I watch it :D

[hyperborean]

How accurate was the spartan army's physical shape? Did they really all have muscles like that? 8 packs...tree trunk legs...they were beasts! It may be just a Hollywood exaggeration, but it must have been hard on the actors to get in that kind of shape.

[Asa Adams]

How do you come to this conclusion? Do you have any special event of Roman history in mind?

I honestly don't think that a whole lot of people die for honor...maybe in duels, but certainly not in wars.

Like the spartans? :lol:

[B-Mental]

This movie was shown in the US we call it the Alamo.

[Lily Adams]

I have yet to see it, so I can't say whether it was historically accurate or not. A good friend of mine who saw it liked it a lot and she is a history geek, so I'm guessing it's tolerable for someone who knows what they're watching.

I want to see this movie so bad! Amazing Grace, too. :(

[hyperborean]

I found a good article on the accuracy of the movie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/300_fact_or_fiction.html

[Countess]

I haven't seen it and don't want to for sundry reasons, but mostly out of the desire to not have it subconsciously influence what I'm writing now (a story where one of the characters has a back history built around Sparta.)

Spartans did some horrible things (leaving weak babies on a mountain to die ranks among them along with institutionalized pederasty) but their virtue lay in their dedication to their country. Sparta was a militaristic state, and love of one's nation superceded all other loves.

While love of country is a very noble virtue, it can also bring about personal downfall. I am thinking now of my own novel, wherein Tristan (a Spartan out of time due to immortality) is disillusioned because modern America has lost sight of nobility and become "a slave to greed, consumerism and materialism".
Unfortunately, his inability to see *anything higher* than love of country makes him ripe for the subtle manipulations of *the evil Greek Guy* (haven't named him yet. I kinda like leaving him nameless - makes you wonder exactly who he is/is he the devil himself.)

The EGG (Evil Greek Guy) uses Tristan's noble aspirations to convince him to join a new nation, an alliance of his peers. He becomes "wicked above all others" because his fierce passion for his people/vampires leads him to do what not ought to be done/what even other vampires fear of doing, and he does so *out of the noblest of intentions*.

I say this to demonstrate that while Sparta was in many ways more progressive or virtuous than her neighboring Athenians (and even Rome when it became decadent), it was not the Ideal by far because The State was God.

[Virgil]

Anyways, the whole living and dying for you country (+ group unity and honor) mentality is something the western world hasn't seen since Roman times.



Hyperborean, where did you learn that soldiers today have not made self sacrifices knowing that they will die? It happens often. Here is the latest medal of honor winner:

DUNHAM, JASON L.

Rank and organization: Corporal, 4th Platoon, Co. K, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, 1st Marine Division (Reinforced), U.S. Marine Corps. Place and date: Karabilah, Iraq, 14 April 2004. Entered service at: Scio, NY. Born: 10 November 1981, Scio, New York. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, 1st Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004, Corporal Dunham’s squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander’s convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

Here is the definition of the Medal of Honor:

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States. It is often colloquially referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor because the President presents the award "in the name of the Congress".[3] It is bestowed on a member of the United States armed forces who distinguishes himself or herself "…conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States

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

[Nick Rubashov]

From what I've heard, The movie does touch on some points of real Spartan culture, but all in all, 300 can not be said to have any strong historical basis. Remember, the movie is based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, not the history of Sparta. I think the only thing which could be considered historically accurate is the bond between the Spartan soldiers, as they were seen in Greek history as the equivalent of our Delta Force. Spartan soldiers could be called the epitome of the professional soldier in Greek times; and I believe the movie gives a very good, however dramatized, look into the Spartan philosophy of life and death.

[Thorwench]

How accurate was the spartan army's physical shape? Did they really all have muscles like that? 8 packs...tree trunk legs...they were beasts! It may be just a Hollywood exaggeration, but it must have been hard on the actors to get in that kind of shape.

I haven't watched the movie yet, it hasn't even started in Germany but considering this discussion I will certainly go and see it.
Anyway, I am not an expert on Greek body shapes but I would think that they were not THAT hunky. Greeks valued the allrounder (decathlon) the most. The true hero and star of their olympic games wasn't the 100m sprinter or jumper or what not but was the winner of the decathlon competition. This would also make much sense because a good warrior is fast AND strong and needs multiple skills. Greek statues also suggest the same. The guys are strong and well muscled but still relatively lithe. Achilles, the quintessential fighter, could have been (and was) mistaken for a girl when dressing up as one in order to avoid having to go to war. I think it required Odysseus' (?) wit to discover his true identity.

[manolia]

. Achilles, the quintessential fighter, could have been (and was) mistaken for a girl when dressing up as one in order to avoid having to go to war. I think it required Odysseus' (?) wit to discover his true identity.

That could also mean that greek women have muscles. You should see my cousin :lol: :lol:

Now seriously. You are right . Having seen many statues (recently i visited Olympia for the 10th time) and especially Hermes of Praxiteles (it's in the museum of Olympia) i am of the same opinion concerning their bodies.

Here's a picture of the statue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hermes_by_Praxiteles.jpg

[Countess]

Hyperbolean: Re physical shape:

Spartan newborns were bathed in wine to see if they would survive. Those judged weak were left to die on a mountainside. Spartans were born, not made (although they were in love with blonde hair - which is why Tristan was adopted).

Anyhow, they entered military camp at age 7; were flogged almost to death by elder peers (to see if they would survive). They were thrown in the wilderness to see if they could survive on their own (They were expected to steal food but not get caught, and kill rogue Helots in the process).

They then had a feast with their peers (a sort of induction). Althletics and gymnastics were above academics; finally, they had competitions to see who could take the worst beating.

Yeah, they were tough as nails.

[Lyn]

Do you think it matters if a film is historically accurate? Can it still be entertaining/influential even if its not? Or can it be dangerous to distort history? I'm thinking of possibly the worst film EVER for historical accuracy - Braveheart, which despite being completly ridiculous still managed to influence a bunch of chavvy Dundonians into beating up English people and inspired a statue of Mel Gibson as William Wallace in some kind of daft tribute. But then I suppose reporting of history is by its nature not 'true' anyway - its always distorted to a certain extent. I'm off to see 300 tommorow anyway.

[Virgil]

Here is an article by Victor Davis Hanson, an ancient historian on the movie.



Fact or Fiction?
300 gets the big ideas right.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Crowds are flocking to see the film 300 about the ancient Spartans’ last stand at the pass at Thermopylae against an invading Persian army. Yet many critics, in panning 300, have alleged that the film is essentially historically inaccurate. Are they right?

Here are some answers. But first two qualifiers. I wrote an introduction to a book about the making of 300 after being shown a rough cut of the movie in October. And, second, remember that 300 does not claim to follow exactly ancient accounts of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. Instead, it is an impressionistic take on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, intended to entertain and shock first, and instruct second.


© 2007 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWNhNjViZWE5NGNjNzBkMjQ1M2E2ZjdhYjhkYTU3MDk=&w=MA==

[drunkenKOALA]

300 paints Xerxes as an arrogant megalomaniac, and his Persian army as barbaric; but Leonidas, his Spartan army, and the mentality needed to crave for and indulge in their heroics, is every bit as arrogant, every bit as barbaric, and every bit as full of hubris, if not more. Indeed, to the less educated minds, it would be hard to decide who to root against: the meterosexual Xerxes, who cruelly and callously uses violence and blood as means for his ends; or Leonidas, rampaging about in leather speedos--as becoming a bona fide madman and true king--treating violence and blood not as means to any end, but as a glorious end in and of itself. But, worry not, because what would have been a difficult choice between Machiavelli the diplomat and Conan the barbarian, is made absurdly simple and easy by the educated observation that the latter is extremely likable and very agreeable, or, which is the same thing, white.

To those whose skulls are too dull and thick to be penetrated by this obvious and educated observation, the dialogue defines ignorance, the philosophy epitomizes barbarism, the movie insults history. It leaves that, for these uneducated individuals, the only possible, which is not to say probable, redeeming qualities are the graphic art and visual effects--but when we have the misfortune of witnessing the crime that is someone's (indeed one is amused to think that it could have been anyone's) choice of wardrobe for the likable, white Spartans, doubtless a consequence of extraordinary taste and superhuman sense of fashion, what had seemed impossible (300 leather speedos) is rendered possible (300 leather speedos, now standing still, now in full motion, running, jumping, bulging, sweating right in front of your eyes on the big screen), and what had been hoped to be possible, though not to say probable, became quite impossible.

If Leonidas and Xerxes, in Hell, had the luxury of taking a break from their daily scheduled tortures to enjoy, together, a movie about themselves, they'd have surely, after, and perhaps while, watching 300, have drank to each other and expressed their sincere sympathy and condolences to each other for being thus prostituted.

[Debrasue]

Can you smell the rampant & irrational fear! Of what..."appearing" ignorant? "bulging" codpieces? "balletic" sword fighting? Well.... I must be one of those dull & thick skulled "less educated minds". Alas...I have no ego...LOL!...but I loved the movie!!!Totally blew me away! And I never once gave a thought to going out & bashing Persians....now that guy sitting behind me talking on his cell phone was was coming real close (LOL!)...but being the civil person I am, I quietly asked him not to do that, and he said OK. For the type of movie it was....probably not everyone's cup of tea...it was unique, fun, over-the top, and yes..for me..a little inspiring! The truth is the battle of Thermopylae and the sacrifice of the 300 Spartans (& 700 Thespians) did unite the rest of Greece to fend off the invading, massive Persian force, opening the door for democracy. Frank Miller's story of the 300 is "based" on an historical event....it is his interpretation made into a movie....not a documentary! Much ado! The graphics & visuals were new & different, the music was awesome. Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead) did an great job bringing Miller's graphic novel to life! And the acting wasn't half bad either... Gerard Butler was excellent as King Leonidas, Rodrigo Santoro was cast very well as Xerxes. The whole atmosphere of the movie was as if someone were relating to you a legend....the people & events larger than life. And what's wrong with that? In fact after seeing this movie I was inspired to research more about the battle, and found out that most of the" important" stuff was accurate! Any way...I guess you can tell I really liked this movie, and I'm glad I didn't listen to the negative critiques, especially by those who didn't even see the movie! I would have missed something special...and I hate when that happens! Just my "less educated"but humble opinion!;)
I just found this, the latest from Cannes...
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117964148.html?categoryId=2532&cs=1

Virgil...Right-on!

[Nightshade]

MY sister went and says its great...I then went dug up my copy of the legend/event.
I Havent seen it yet becase I wont goto the cinema alone and my friends wont go and see it because someone has put it upon youtube and they dont see the point of going to the ciema when you can get it for free in the comfort of your home....:mad:

The other thing holding me back was as I actually told said sister its all wrong *grumble grumble* course I doubt it can be as bad as Troy which soooooo annoyed me.

[Debrasue]

Nightshade,

Find someone....your sister, maybe,...and go see this movie! It really needs to be seen on the "big" screen. In fact 300 has broken all records at IMAX! youtube just doesn't do it justice! Check out the official 300 website....it's cool & has more info on how the movie was made (the production notes, especially). Don't let anyone deprive you of a good time at the movies! Just leave all of your fear & preconceptions at the door & enjoy it! It's just a movie...it wont hurt you, LOL!

ps I took my mother, who is 70 ish, and she loved it! She even cried at the end! We saw it twice...the second time was better!

[Stanislaw]

In my opinion, this movie was bigger than the starwars prequels (and I'm a hardcore starwars junkie!).

The historicle accuracy is quite questionable...but then again, its not a documentry, its an action movie.

I quite liked the special effects, some of the quirky one liners, and the crazy spear fighting action.
It was definitly better than sin city (also written by miller) but, if you liked 300, I would also recommend checking out sin city, if you like tarentino movies though.

[Debrasue]

Stanislaw,
Those quirky one liners......most of those were actually spoken....as recorded by the historian Herodotus.....maybe they sound less quirky in Greek! And , of course, there is something about being lost in translation.

Debrasue