Okay,
I’m back from New Orleans. And I will blog about it but…
300 was awful. I just had to say that. The film 300 was terrible. I couldn’t get through 30 minutes without pointing out the historical and cultural inaccuracies. I just couldn’t do it.
Why are the Spartans fighting in their drawz? After all, they did wear some armor.
Why is Xerxes wearing golden spandex underwear and gold chains?
Why are all the bad guys non Caucasian? So the all white, oops I mean, Spartan army is good but the multi-culti Persian army of Indians, Africans, Arabs and Persians is bad?
Why does Gerard Butler’s chest look like a prop? All the soldiers look like they are wearing fake chests!!!!
The Persian soldiers look Persian–modest clothes, beards and all but Xerxes looks like a stripper!
Oh, and Spartans didn’t engage in man-boy love? Only the Athenians? YEAH RIGHT!!!!!
Was it just me or were they looking for new ways to show people getting cut up?
We could say that 300 is some sorta of covert film about Western bravery and fortitude fighting against the evil, barbaric hordes of the East. But it’s so dang stupid that most people will stop watching before they draw that conclusion.
As a lover of historical fiction and epic films, I was disappointed. Rant over.
JDsg said,
June 23, 2008 at 5:33 am
I couldn’t get through 30 minutes without pointing out the historical and cultural inaccuracies. I just couldn’t do it.
Is there any “historical” movie that doesn’t take liberties with the facts?
Why are the Spartans fighting in their drawz? After all, they did wear some armor.
Well, now, actually, there is the possibility that they didn’t wear armor by this time: “It is often disputed which torso armor the Spartans wore during the Persian Wars, if any, though it seems likely they either continued to wear bronze cuirasses of a more sculptured type, or instead had adopted the linothōrax.” (Wikipedia)
Why is Xerxes wearing golden spandex underwear and gold chains?
The thing I love about “Xerxes” is that this is “Karl” from Love Actually.
We could say that 300 is some sorta of covert film about Western bravery and fortitude fighting against the evil, barbaric hordes of the East.
The thing that has always galled me is that 300 is a movie that proclaims the goodness of “free citizenship in the autonomous polis” vs. the “collective serfdom” of the East. “We are with you, sire! For Sparta, for freedom, to the death!” And yet, freedom is only for the master. Sparta, of course, was very much a slave economy, highly dependent upon the helots. (Actually, slaves were very common throughout all of Greece.) So I find that theme through the movie to be very hypocritical.
If you’d like to read a decent book about Sparta, I’d recommend Paul Cartledge’s The Spartans: An Epic History. I’ve read through this several times already.
Mr Moo said,
June 23, 2008 at 9:57 am
I asked my good friend Chris whether it was any good, he said ‘its alright’. I then asked him whether my intial impression from the pre-publicity of the film being ‘men in leather diapers shouting and squabbling’ was accurate. He said on the whole, that was a fair reflection of the film. I have not yet seen it.
Aaminah said,
June 23, 2008 at 10:16 am
Asalaamu alaikum.
Sadly, most people I know think it was one of the best films ever made, heralding in a new film quality. And these are people who I thought were otherwise fairly intelligent, sensitive to race issues (like your aforementioned “why are the ‘good’ guys all white and the ‘bad’ guys all colored”, which they would most certainly criticize in almost any other media, but seem to think is appropriate in this movie), concerned about media justice and accuracy, and not entirely unknowledgeable about history.
A big “selling point” to most people I know, one reason why they LOVED the movie, is this mix of computer generation & live action. They think this is something fabulous. It’s the same method used in Beowulf. Personally, just from the commercials (for both 300 and Beowulf), I was very not impressed with this new style. It’s ugly. It looks fake. Either make a freakin’ animated film, or make a live action film. The combination in this form is ridiculous.
All in all, the commercial alone is enough to make me ill, and I’ve no desire whatsoever to see the film, not even in order to properly critique it. I just don’t think I could stomach it.
JDsg said,
June 23, 2008 at 2:16 pm
It’s ugly. It looks fake.
I agree, but I think it’s the nature of the technology at this time. Sort of like how CGI was back in the early 80s (e.g., Tron). Give it five years and you’ll prolly never know they did it all on bluescreen, insha’allah.
masooma3333 said,
June 23, 2008 at 3:54 pm
You do realize it is based on a comic book and not supposed to be really historical?
fahad said,
June 23, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me actually. The author of 300 has a decidedly anti muslim bias, and considers “Islamofascism” as a major challenge to be confronted.
izzymo said,
June 24, 2008 at 5:08 am
Salaamz folks
Isn’t funny how this entry got a lot of comments. Oh, we do love cracking on bad movies, don’t we? LOL!
JDsg: We can always depend on you to be our local Blogistan history buff.
Yeah, that whole “FOR FREEDOM!” bit was annoying. Hello, didn’t most societies, if not all of them, had some form of slavery? But you can’t tell me those chests didn’t look like props.
Mr Moo: Thanks for stopping by. Your blog in infamous.
Leather diapers. Yeah, that about sums it up. But Xerxes had the special honor of wearing golden undies.
Aaminah: I feel kinda mixed about the computer graphics. That was one of the reasons why I wanted to see it but then the I read the reviews…I lost interest. I usually like that artsy digital stuff but the script makes me want to throw popcorn at the screen then what’s the point. It’s just another reason why I don’t go to movies anymore. I just want until it comes on cable.
JDsg again: Dude, you remember Tron!!?!?! I love that film because it looks soooo dated. It’s like dinosaur technology compared to what they are doing now.
Masooma: Yes. I don’t mind directors taking poetic license. But they took it to the moon.
Fahad: Surprise. @@ I get tired of seeing these people living out their grand delusions on the silver screen.
JDsg said,
June 24, 2008 at 5:58 am
Of course I remember Tron.
I have a copy at home (along with about 150 or so other movies that Milady and I have bought in five years of marriage 
).
George Carty said,
June 24, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Any of you read Dr. Samar Abbas’s The 300 Savages?
aiman said,
June 25, 2008 at 7:54 am
I think 300 is another example of the Eurocentric discourse of Hollywood. I was bugged about it by some of my friends; there was nothing interesting about it apart from the new special effects.
10000 BC is another dreadful film said to have no historical validity. Glad I didn’t watch it.
“Oh, and Spartans didn’t engage in man-boy love? Only the Athenians? YEAH RIGHT!!!!!”
Interesting point. One of the Greek philosophy professors I had a unit with last year informed us that this practice was to ensure the supremacy of masculinity. Socrates, considered to be an all-rounder (and he was indeed a great thinker), was one of the most desirable men in the view of men. What is odd is that the film does not further explore this issue. If it had been an Oriental practice, you’d have a white saviour waiting at the door. Nor any critique of it by liberal critics who love war and mayhem. Which is the second point. Movies and videogames nowadays are making war and mayhem attractive.
Dana said,
June 27, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Aiman: I can’t help thinking that’s what homosexuality is still about for at least some gay men. I hate to say it because I come from a mindset of wanting to live and let live if people aren’t hurting one another, but when you work with a gay man who has a license plate on his car that says NO FISH, and when you hear enough “breeder” jokes from gay men, and when even the bisexual men you know date or marry women who are decidedly unfeminine, you start wondering what the heck is going on. It’s as if they’ve decided being female is yucky, so all that’s left are men or man-like women. You know, I’m not heterosexual because I think women are yucky, I’m that way because I think men are attractive. Positive definition, not negative.
On top of that I’ve run across descriptions of “lesbians” who have decided that they’re attracted to men after all, but they still want to be called lesbians; and of “transgender” men (female-to-male) who are incredibly sexist toward women-born-women and who seem to be transitioning primarily because they think female characteristics are yucky, not because they really feel like they are guys. I believe Ariel Levy’s book Female Chauvinist Pigs documents these latter two phenomena, IIRC.
These sorts of things have been sort of transforming my worldview about gender expression and sexual orientation and now I wonder if those aren’t really chosen after all. And I think the thought mechanism involved is this:
1. A man observes that society equates physical sex, gender expression, and sexual orientation. I.e., “being male” means “acting masculine according to cultural dictates” AND “attraction to women,” where “women” equals “being female” which means “acting feminine according to cultural dictates.”
2. That man realizes he doesn’t completely live up to the standard. Maybe he doesn’t go in for macho behavior. Maybe he’d rather walk around in a kilt or thobe than in pants, but he’s not aware of those kinds of garments so he thinks he has to wear a dress, which leads him to think maybe he’s “really” female. Maybe the women he’s attracted to are tomboys, which makes him think he’s “really” gay. Maybe he’s just not attracted to every woman that moves which, rather than leading him to think he’s just really selective, leads him to think he doesn’t like women. After all, chasing anything in a skirt that moves is the “traditional” definition of masculinity in the West and in a lot of other places.
And I’m not just pulling this out of a hat; I’ve heard some interesting conversations and declarations over the years from LGBT people in this vein, and Ariel Levy’s book sort of pushed me a little farther. (I don’t think she intended that outcome, but still.) I also think it’s interesting, getting back to ancient Greek homosexuality, that you will see gay men refer to that time period and the sexual habits of that culture but you won’t see them going all the way and acknowledging that it was the ultimate expression of misogyny at that time. Odd.
Which brings me to thinking about something else. I am undecided in terms of religious belief, although I have never been an atheist. But it seems to me that if God really opposes homosexuality, maybe there are reasons for that beyond “it’s yucky.” Maybe He saw the misogyny going on too, and figured women have enough to deal with without throwing more fuel on the fire. Maybe strongly encouraging men and women to marry means that men are forced to interact with at least one woman in their lives and to therefore understand that women aren’t yucky or worthy of hatred. Who knows?
mo said,
July 1, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Holywood is run by the Jews, the Jews have been and are calling for a war with Iran (Persians)…300 is a Zionist anti Iranian Propaganda movie, it is not Eurocentric, it is Zio-centric. Sto giving your money to holywood.
Thomas Jackson said,
July 2, 2008 at 7:23 am
Duh, we all know the Persian Empire was composed of Norwegians now. I can imagine making a movie about India’s fight for Independepence and decrying the Indians because they unlike the British Empire had no blacks, Muslims, Latins, etc in their ranks.
Pathetic. If only the Persians had won.
aiman said,
July 5, 2008 at 11:55 am
“bout India’s fight for Independepence and decrying the Indians because they unlike the British Empire had no blacks, Muslims, Latins, etc in their ranks.”
A small correction. India had Muslims in its ranks for the fight for Independence.
George Carty said,
July 10, 2008 at 8:07 am
Dana, do you think that anti-hijab prejudice is motivated at least in part by hatred of femininity?