300

this review sounds like an essay in which the writer (Fuchs) made forced connections between scenes in the movie and social issues. I’m not saying they dont exist, because they certainly do. But the review comes across as overly analytical for a movie that is clearly built on a simple foundation: Good vs. evil. And as far as the hyper-masculinization, and blood and gore in 300, it couldnt have worked any other way. We’re talking about Spartans here. Mythology tells us that these were amongst the most skilled, brave and vicious warriors in history. Wether or not this is factdoesnt matter when it comes to telling this great story.

Also, The whole point was to have the visual element complement the story in a way that only a frank miller Graphic Novel could portray it: OVER THE TOP. I in fact found the battle scenes to be quite fresh (highlighted by the sepia tone of the shots) not “frustrating” nor “tedious” as Fuchs put it. In the end it comes across as mere nitpicking to harp over the issues surrounding sexual identity in 300, especially when we’re dealing with a time and a society in which gender roles were so clearly defined. This movie was awesome.

Comment by D — March 10, 2007 @ 1:06 am

This movie was extremely well done.  While history is presented in a modern context, no punches are pulled in regards to the brutal code of ethics held by the Spartans as a society, and the battle of Thermopylae is dealt with as it seems to have been, and continues to be in our human history, a miraculous feat of warfare carried out by a people who may have been fierce, hard and merciless, yet who aspired to some higher form of honor and pride.

    Ms. Fuch’s review, while certainly well-written, only deals with the story on screen and its historical precedent in the modern context, while I think the film as a whole only uses this context to provide a canvass on which to paint an overall picture which is not too much different, according to most historical accounts, to the circumstances, morals and emotions involved.  For those interested, “The Spartans”, by noted historian Paul Cartledge, is a good read on the actual history of many of the personages and events depicted in the film.

    There are questions raised by this film, especially in regards to the actual battle of Thermopylae, but not the psycho-sexual suggestions made by Ms. Fuchs.  The real comparison to current socio-political struggles I think lies based upon the fact that there is no society functioning currently on the world stage that represents anything close to what Leonidas and his 300 represented.  Dying for honor, not retreating against impossible odds, aspects of Spartan culture embodied in such institutions as the Agoge, we have nothing like this.  We live in a society that does not demand or put pressure on us to be decent human beings, to stand up and fight in the literal sense as well as the metaphorical, in whatever we all agree upon to be Right, irregardless of whether or not this is our own perspective on this subjective concept.

    Which is an example of the subsidiary questions.  People used to Think, and wonder what was Right, and when it was decided upon, they staked their lives and their way of life upon it.  The only pressures we experience are based upon commerce, upon a sense of ourselves which is manafactured in a very sterile and limited enviroment.  Yes, you can say that perhaps Spartan sense was manfactured as well, but I think that anyone with a bit of reason or feeling might see that there is an unexplainable distinction to be made.  I would think a somewhat inadequate way to give an example of it is this question…Are you willing to die for your beliefs?  Can you stand up right now, without pseudo-philosophical chattering,and know that your beliefs are more important than your life?

    I didn’t think so.  That’s a hard thing to come by nowadays.  For those that still want to draw modern comparisons as Ms. Fuchs does, before you bring up U.S. military actions, although there is a plethora of evidence against any comparison in that context anyway, we will stick to movies, in which way I would direct people to an excellent documentary called “Why We Fight”.

    I do not mean to personally attack Ms. Fuchs, but it is psycho-sexual interpretation that is getting old nowadays, to the point where a true story of humanity and its questions like this one is lost in a mess of limited perspectives.  The battle was no doubt violent, the enemy was the Persian army(as in, and I am Native American, so bear with me-They were NOT white), the sexual tesions and buckets of blood came with the original deal, whether exactly as depicted in the movie or not.  So the questions become about ourselves.

    In our history, if the 300 had not stood against the Persians when they did, and as I said, I feel the movie does a great job of depicting this in a way that it is easy to comprehend, the world would be a very different place.  Whether the Spartans or anything that happened is Right or Wrong is not an easy question to answer, but it is how we got here.  Greece was the foundation of our modern civilization.  So the macho grandstanding that Ms. Fuchs sees in this film may(or may not) be valid to talk about.  Yet it is, in no uncertain terms, how Ms. Fuchs got to write that, how I am sitting here now, how you who are reading this will get here.  Thermopylae was an event which shaped our world, for better or worse, but here it is.  I think that any movie that provokes such musings is one that should have judgement less passed on its technicalities, but should allow us to think about ourselves.  Okay, so that’s that.

Comment by Ernesto Guevara from New Paltz — March 10, 2007 @ 3:10 pm

I agree with D that a lot was read into this movie by your review. On the hand, I disagree that 300 was awesome. Maybe its visual presentation was awesome, but the movie as a whole, not so much. I did, however, make some connections about going to war in this movie and “current affairs,” but that wasn’t the intention of the film. From what I understand, the movie is a pretty faithful big screen imaging (except the subplot with the queen) of Frank Miller’s graphic novel, which came out back in 1999. We all bring our preconceived notions about the world around us to the movies we watch. We see things in them whether they were intended to be there on not. The New York Times article you referenced just goes to show that if you want to, you can make anything fit your particular political bent.

Comment by Jason of New Movie Friday — March 10, 2007 @ 3:38 pm

I’m afrain that I have to strongly disagree with Ernesto Guevera’s coments. His grasp of history is just as shakey as Fuchs’s attempt to impose a pyscho-sexual interpretation on the film. The values of the Spartans that he and the film defends include slavery, pedestry and child killing. Hardly the stuff many today would fight for. Would you Ernesto? In fact the people of Athens were themselves shocked by the slavery of the Spartans and this was one of the reasons why they regarded any alliance with suspicion.

Slavery was the main pillar of Spartan society as it was only through them that Spartan men could train themselves into an effective fighting force while the slaves, fellow Greeks, tilled the fields. Moreover, as a rite of passage, Spartan boys had to murder a slave to prove their manhood.

Ernesto then makes the unqualified assertion that Greece was the foundation of Modern civilisation. Careful study of history will show that many key Greek ideas such as Philosophy and mathematics were borrowed from the Egyptians while the first Human rights code was written by the Persians(yes the empire the Spartans fought)in the 6th century BC, the Cyrus cylinder.

Thus Ernseto, like the film and graphic novel take a historical battle and use it to propogate one simplistic theme: The West is good , the East is bad, end of story.

Comment by P — March 10, 2007 @ 9:06 pm

D says:
“And as far as the hyper-masculinization, and blood and gore in 300, it couldnt have worked any other way. We’re talking about Spartans here. Mythology tells us that these were amongst the most skilled, brave and vicious warriors in history. Wether or not this is factdoesnt matter when it comes to telling this great story.”

Oh, the battles really looked like this. Phew! I thought it was just Hollywood trying to grab us by the balls [sic] again!

The review is primarily valid.

The movie is a glorified video game.

Cheers!

Comment by q — March 11, 2007 @ 4:46 pm

I saw the movie. I’ve liked movies with politics I’ve disagreed with. I grew up with The Lord of the Rings, even though thinking critically I can’t agree with most of the politics. And as I mentioned on another site, I have no problem with honor, with good vs. evil, with epic scenes of whoop ass.

But this movie?

I had one word for it. <a href=“http://blacksmythe.com/blog/2007/03/10/300-the-modern-triumph-of-the-will/”>Fascist.</a>

Comment by Lester Spence from Baltimore — March 11, 2007 @ 5:08 pm

Just to clarify my earlier comments, my grasp of history is not that shaky.  I am aware of the nature of the Spartans, which I qualified merely as “brutal”, to make the space for other points, which I feel that the response to my comments did not touch on.  As I stated, I’m not making any judgements of right and wrong, which I think is where those who feel the film is “Fascist”, as this sums up the other comments made on it, make their mistake.
    As I said, I am Native American, an Akwesasne Mohawk, and the country we are sitting in now is built partly on the genocide of anywhere upwards of 33 million native peoples.  I make no decision of right or wrong in an objective sense on this either, it is the world we live in. 
    The only admonition I would make is that many people have a shaky hold on history, as yes, many advancements were put forth by a great many cultures at the time period the movie is set in, however, (and mathematics were “stolen” by the Persians from even older cultures, so what?), the Greeks put them together in the way that shaped what we are now.  I do not say that “the West is the best”, and although I understand that these discussions must be civil, I will go so far as to say that it is ignorant to draw such a conclusion from my initial comments.
    The point I was trying to make, and perhaps my own ignorance obscured it, is that this movie is not in many ways very different from what actually happened.  This is our history folks, and arguing against it means that you are arguing against part of yourself.  I am speaking all of this objectively of course, in a very personal sense, I revile those who stomp all over another people and culture in order to make their way.  However, in order to understand ourselves better, objectivity is needed, and “fascist” actions, by a great number of peoples and cultures have shaped our world, and are a part of who we are as humans.  This movie I think, deals with this very well.  It is good that Leonidas is a hero, to many in Germany, Hitler was a hero, and so on and so on.  The constant negation of the bad aspects of ourselves is damaging.  The fact is that the Spartans stood, and their stand at Thermopylae brought the world to where it is now.  This is fact.  The drive to die for a belief as the Spartans did is not present in our society.  You’re living in it.  The movie, in my opinion did a good job of portraying this even against the grain of what many want to see themselves as, but are not, because their search into themselves is not deep enough or honest enough.  Okay, so that’s explaining my position a bit better.  I don’t like the “West”, but here we are in it, anyway, Bubba.

Comment by Ernesto Guevara from New Paltz — March 11, 2007 @ 6:16 pm

Oops, I realized that I attributed math to the Persians in the above.  I don’t want my point to be overlooked in the way of technicalities.  I should have said Egyptians, or is that Phoenicians, since their early sea-voyages have been found to include an understanding of Latitude, the math used to derive at which would put them far beyond even the Egyptians, or do we attribute whoever may have given the Phoenicians this knowledge?  You see, that’s not that easy…Athenians liked boys too, who are we to judge now, it was a different world in those aspects, but perhaps in others it is not…Oh, and by the way, the Spartan slaves were called Helots—-There are different and more vulgar names for the slaves we kept a little more than two human lifetimes ago.  Not right or wrong, only accepting where we live and asking questions about it.  However you can’t ask questions if you don’t look at the whole picture…

Comment by Ernesto Guevara from New Paltz — March 11, 2007 @ 6:28 pm

I think Fuchs is right on target. And this from someone who enjoyed the original graphic novel, even as I frowned at certain hints of homophobia in them.

Will I see the film? I’m still debating that, because the look of the ads is so uber-manly that it makes me shake my head. Those ads remind me of the recruitment ads for the Marines, so frantically insisting that “We’re manly beyond all manliness!” The underlying insecurity is glaring.

Funny thing is, this sort of over the top manliness is different from the traditional macho man of 30-40-50 years ago. The models presented then may have been flawed & stuck in narrow gender roles, but at least they were confident in them. There was no need to be in your face about it, or make sure everyone knew how manly they were. They knew it themselves & didn’t have to prove it.

Not so now.

The increasing levels of anxiety & homophobia in American culture astound me. Instead of slightly larger than life, idealized models of manhood, now we get these grotesque steroid versions, which reek of fear & desperation. “300” obviously knows its demographic, though, that much is obvious.

Any film reflects the temper of its times. This one is no exception. Again, I’ll see it for myself before making any final judgment ... but I’m not particularly sanguine/

Comment by Tim Lukeman — March 12, 2007 @ 8:00 am

Ernesto, thanks for clarifying your position. Perhaps I misread yout intial argument that the beliefs of the Spartans which includes all the nasty things, was something you implicitly endorsed.

Howeve, I still find some aspects of your argument questionable. You make the point that the belief in dying for something is waht is admirable about the Spartans and that modern society no longer reflect these values.“The drive to die for a belief as the Spartans did is not present in our society.” You also cite the moral relevatistic to support this argument i.e. different cultures at different times did things differently therefore we are in no position to judge. Firstly, just because a person is wiling to die for something does not make it noble or good. The Nazis, the Soivet Union,  kamikaze pilots, Cruesaders, Suicide bombers, Al-Qaida all believed in their cause enough to kill and die for it, often causing massive death and destruction to non-combatants. To simply endorse the concept of dying for something divorced from what those actual beliefs are e.g. slavery, racism, subsitutes any moral judgement simply for unreflecting action.

Secondly, your entire argument is underpinned by a moral relativistic stance. I agree that we cannot wholly transpose modern defintions of human rights into the past and sit arrigantly on judgement. However, similarly, to dismiss any critical study of those actions and cliam there is no right or wrong and treat them soley as events is just as myopic. Within empires, there were prominent figures who spoke out against the actions of their rulers. E.g. Las Casas, the 16th century Spanish priest or the philosopher Michel de Montaigne. Even the ancient Greeks had writers who argued against their state’s destructive policies e.g.Aristophanes. All these dissenters clearly felt that moral judgements could be made about those actions within the moral context of those times. Many appealed to mercy, justice and reciprocity, concepts which cut across cultures and time. In fact, the golden rule of reciprocity is one that almost every culture shares and which most people would recognise as a worthy moral code. Thus we, in the modern world, can critically scrutinise and form judgements about the past through a close reading of the context of those times. History does not exist in a vaccum.

Finally, while you do not explicitly say the “West is Best” you do imply it: “the Greeks put them together in the way that shaped what we are now”. Without further elaboration , you seem to be arguing that the modern world is due soley to the Greeks. Certainly the Greeks contributed, as did the Romans, the Celts, the Arabs, the Africans, The native Americans, the Chinese etc. etc. To simply assert it does not make it true. For further information you should read Felip Fernandez-Armesto’s book Civilisations on how various civilisations shaped the world we live in today.

As you said in your last posting: ” you can’t ask questions if you don’t look at the whole picture…” Sound advice if one follows it.

Comment by P — March 12, 2007 @ 8:56 am

“Anxieties about masculine identity lie at the heart of 300, though the film doesn’t exactly resolve them.”

What else should one expect from Frank Miller? As Alan Moore once pointed out, no matter what he’s writing it’s the same macho noir story, be it Batman or Sin City or 300. I’ve never seen someone grapple with his obvious insecurities like Miller. It’s sad and creepy.

Comment by Monte Williams — March 12, 2007 @ 11:32 am

I highly enjoyed P’s reposting, and this is the sort of thing I think is worth talking about in regards to the film.  There is of course a bias in my argument, as I enjoy playing the devil’s advocate most of the time, and I do concede that there were many cultures that contributed to the state of humanity today.  The dominant paradigm however I would still put upon the Greeks, which is my interpreation of it, of course.  The Romans in particular were a very Greek-oriented state.  The entire region of Southern Europe and the Middle East was brought to a forcible melding (with good and bad results) by Alexander, who although he was hated by many Greeks for his embraces of many foriegn(to them) cultures(and the fact that he was Macedonian), also had a big hand in forming the globe as it stands today.
    As one of the minorities you mention, I have to say that although there is a surface attempt today to say “we all have contributed”, it is not true.  My people have contributed by having our land stolen, being forced through processes on reservations including “education” and “government” that have destroyed many of our cultures, and by dying by the millions literally, and by the hundreds of thousands spiritually.  The current politically correct embrace of our various peoples does not really mean too much.  Or, in a better example, a store that sells t-shirts with wolves on them, people that read Black Elk(he only represents the Lakota, but it seems for many people he is good enough to represent all), and the government trading casino space for land claims, so that nobody learns too much about the hundreds of treaties that mean we still own over half of the U.S., these things to not constitute a contribution to this culture in the same way as Greek, Roman, and consequent, parallel and previous European histories do.
    Many cultural arts were stolen, in effect, by dominant European culture, this isn’t exactly a “contribution” by their innovators.  Africans biggest “contribution”, in terms of societal effect is the work they did building much of the economic infrastructure of this country as slaves.  Just to be honest.  So no, the “West is the best” is still notmy point, although as I said, I enjoyed your last insights immensely.
    Also, you have forced me to elucidate my own point more clearly with each response.  Which is this…  Brutality, horrible things done by one people to another have a place.  We may disagree, we may revolt against it, but even these are reaction to the original state. In terms of a contribution to this discussion, this is a concept of my people, although many of them are withered by bitterness and anger now, and have forgotten.  I suppose it’s not much different than what I understand about some aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism.  We must do what is Right for us in our own personal context, but overall, we cannot deny what happens.  This is not something to judge as Right or Wrong.  It is to live your life, even if it is a life of fighting what is Wrong for you, but Accepting what it is.  What it is.  What this world is.
    So to come back to the movie, from which I think both of us have pleasantly meandered, this portrayal of brutal Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae works quite well I think.  There are others here calling it Fascist.  Sure, but that diminishes it?  No one here can recognize that as a human trait, and one that is very prevalent in our modern society?  It is a very good portrayal of it, and since I enjoy films and other works that are honest with their material, especially historical material, I like it.  I do not say that hate trumps love, I do not say that fascism trumps freedom(whatever that is, but that is another conversation). I say that they all are, and they are all important to understand to understand ourselves.  However, to touch on the last point, anyone who is willing to die for their beliefs is one worthy of respect, and the concept of ideals meaning more tham flesh is an important one.  I hope I’ve elucidated enough now that this is clearer.  This is where respect for one’s enemy in places like feudal Japan, Native American cultures and even older European cultures came from.  Many, no matter how different their ways, respected the Spartans on the battlefield.  We don’t have that today, I think.  As I will check out the book you recommended since I have not read it yet, I would encourage you to check out “Why We Fight”, if you haven’t seen it yet, it is an excellent documentary on modern reasons for warfare, and if you have the time for a short book that gives a more personal view on what I’m trying to outline, check out the “Hagakure”, a 16th century samurai writing by Yamamoto Tsunetomo. 
    The movie inspired this conversation, so I’ll stick by it, I feel it asks questions, whether Frank Miller intended them in such a lofty sense or not.  Perhaps it is beeter for his material that he did not.  But to deny it as some piece of horrible trash does not do justice to the kind of things that such a work should make us ask about ourselves.  Questions like this are not easy, certainly not as easy as some of the others here would posit with their tired protestations of too much masculinity, too much violence, too much psycho-sexual imagery, etc.  Frank Miller and the filmmakers live in the same world as you and me, as Leonidas did, as Gandhi did, as Hitler did, we all come from the same place.  So what kind of place is it?  What’s important is that it’s honest as far as it can be…

Comment by Ernesto Guevara from New Paltz — March 12, 2007 @ 2:44 pm

“The increasing levels of anxiety & homophobia in American culture astound me. Instead of slightly larger than life, idealized models of manhood, now we get these grotesque steroid versions, which reek of fear & desperation. ‘300’ obviously knows its demographic…”

Tim, thanks for expressing what i was feeling (and a bit more) without sarcasm - i am so “weak” i cannot help but revert to it. must be the fault of my sex. [see what i mean!?]

at any rate, the energy is well-received.

interesting discussion overall.

Comment by q — March 12, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

Why does everyone have to rip on the president?
Honestly, the man holds so much important power, but so little actual power.
Everything falls to the underlings, and who fail blame him for everything. Just because he’s the man with cajones and actually takes all the blame makes him a good president.
    Plus everyone who really insults him is ignorant and does not understand exactly how the world works; how big the government and the beuacracy and everything is now, it takes years to get things done.

Comment by biggs from us — March 12, 2007 @ 7:41 pm

I read all the previous reviews and I have a few thing to say.

1. Most of you are a bunch of wussies.

2. .....especially the reviewer.

3. artistic license…..... it followed a graphic   NOVEL! It was not designed to tell the true, exact tale. The spirit of the event, the significance of their achievment was the primary function.

4.  The movie kicked ass.  I’ve seen a lot of films, a lot more than most of you pseudo-political douches at least.  You don’t know a good movie when it’s right in front of you.

Comment by MIchael from Pennsylvania — March 12, 2007 @ 10:53 pm

Fuchs…not many people can blandly join the ranks of sameness of every other person who gets paid to sit and watch a movie…but you succeeded.  Over analyzed teetering on paranoia.  C’mon…it’s a frickin’ movie.  It’s eye candy.  For once there is a movie that just has a bit of fun and pokes fun @ itself.  Lighten up.

When we live in a world where an actress is nominated for an Oscar for a teenie bopper movie about the life-changing world of fashion (Meryl Streep - The Devil Wears Shoes or something like that)...a good blood and guts, where people are actually doing something (fictional or not) besides sitting in a cafe smoking and sipping some foamy pathetic excuse for coffee is refreshing.  I am a simpleton.  And I am tired of the endless montage of movies that make statements about whatever is the topic of the day.

I understand it’s your job to pick apart absolutely everything that comes out and do nothing about solving the problem with our entertainment industry.  I understand you probably abhor folks like me who go to movies to (don’t tell anyone, this is our secret) escape.  I understand that projecting what we think the movie means is all the rage right now…and will continue to be so…and probably to your surprise - I understand all the nuances that comes with a movie like 300.  But please do me a favor - just go to a movie and enjoy it and let us common folk alone.

I liked the movie just for the things you didn’t…probably.  I liked the fact it was overdone.  I liked the fact that it wasn’t how it probably went down.  I liked all the hyper intense fight moves.  I liked the slowed down cinematography.  I liked the sepia feel.  I liked that the hunchback got rejected.  I liked that there was little dialogue (me caveman).  I liked that everyone was killed off for something that mattered.  I liked that it obviously irritated you…a critic…a person who gets paid to watch movies…and probably liked The Devil Wears Over Priced Shoes because it had absolutely zero substance…just like this movie.

Please…just ligthen up.  Grab a beer…kick back…watch some Tommy Boy and just have some fun.  It’s just a movie.

Comment by G — March 12, 2007 @ 11:09 pm

i am irannian this film no right

i am irannian this film no right

i am irannian this film no right

i am irannian this film no right

i am irannian this film no right

i am irannian this film no right

Comment by jalal — March 13, 2007 @ 4:13 am

q, thanks for you response. I think some of the subsequent posts only prove my point.

Every film, every piece of entertainment, no matter how fluffy & lightweight, carries cultural subtext. It’s quite blatant in “300.” Whatever else its virtues or flaws as a film, it clearly expresses a fear-driven testosterone model of manhood to celebrate & revel in ... or more precisely, to take refuge in. This is far more than traditional manliness, which included such traits as quiet valor, courtesy, never bullying, never having to make a public point of toughness, etc., in addition to its more macho aspects. This is wish fulfillment for men who are terrified of the feminine, terrified of the homosexual, terrified of admitting human weakness. It’s an utterly unrealistic model, and one that leads all to easily to failure & disaster—look no further than the oh-so-tough “stay the course” politics which have resulted in the Iraq disaster. In the end, it’s a model for remaining one-dimensional adolescents, rather than maturing into grown men.

Comment by Tim Lukeman — March 13, 2007 @ 4:52 am

Ernesto, Thanks for repsonding and clarifying your position. I too enjoy your postings and have definately been forced to think my positon through clearly.

I understand where you are coming from especially the point you make about nobility and honour in the anicent world . I have read the Hagakure as well as the Book of Five Rings, Beowulf, the Song of Roland, The outlaws of the Marsh and The Romance of the three kingdoms. All these texts celebrate martial vritues and ethics such as loyaty and bravery. There is much to admire, but to reiterate my previous argument, much if these were idealised codes which were more often honoured in the breach then in practice. Often warriors could be brutal bloody and commit atrocities as you yourself pointed out. Treachery was not uncommon and honour could be used flexibly to achieve strategic objectives(Check out the wikipedia article on the Samurai). What is also striking is that these martial values also existed besides other values which stressed Compassion, peace and even non-violence( read about Ashoka’s conversion from miliary leader to non-violent king. Thus I stand by my previous argument.

Anyway, I think I’ve gone on a tangent away from the movie and the Fuchs’s review. It has been interesting debating with you and I’ll be sure to catch “Why we fight” when I can.

Comment by P — March 13, 2007 @ 7:47 am

I think penis-envy has softened Ms. Fuch’s brain, because she utterly missed the message of the movie, and intentionally injects her own homoerotic bias into her review. 

I suppose I have no choice but to review the film a little now on my own site.

Comment by Foehammer from United States — March 13, 2007 @ 1:52 pm

Mr. Lukeman…I am sure you are referring to mine as well as the previous comment on this movie.  As a heterosexual male, I am in no way one of those who, as you say,

“This is wish fulfillment for men who are terrified of the feminine, terrified of the homosexual, terrified of admitting human weakness. It’s an utterly unrealistic model, and one that leads all to easily to failure & disaster—look no further than the oh-so-tough “stay the course” politics which have resulted in the Iraq disaster.”

Why do you jump there?  Why do you assume because people like this movie we are terrified of anything?  Why do you assume we are automatically on board with the Iraq crap?  Why do you assume we, how do you put it, “it’s a model for remaining one-dimensional adolescents, rather than maturing into grown men?”  Why do you assume all of us secretly long to beat folks up and push the oppressed around?  You make broad assumptions based on people liking a movie.  You live in a small world.  You are closed minded and a bit pompous to think that “us hetrosexual folks don’t know nothin’ about cultural subtext.”  C’mon…please be a little more tolerant than that.  And why do you jump into the political mess?  You make bold statements but have zero solutions.  You attack and insult based on a person’s movie going preferences and enjoyment of a movie?  Wow.

Mr. Lukeman…when was the last time you stood for the oppressed other than attacking movie goers?  Have you ever stepped into a situation where the defenseless was defended without force?  Have you ever stopped for a moment and given people hope through your actions and not your tongue?  Have you ever backed away from a fight you know you could win (verbal or physical) because the other person was obviously weaker on all levels or did you attack?  By your comments above…I would suspect that, no, you haven’t because you are displaying the bullying, lack of valor, lack of courtesy you so abhor.

Mr. Lukeman…I would love to take you out for a beer and chat about this @ length…but in about an hour I am taking my 2 kids (ages 8 and 5) over to Mexico (I live on the border) to help build a house for a family that lives in a cardboard box/pallet house.  You are more than welcome to come. 

Enjoy your movie talk…

Comment by G — March 13, 2007 @ 2:10 pm

Believe it or not, I appreciate the opposite opinions posted here. The idea of manhood is one that should be discussed in depth. I do wonder why you assume I’m NOT hetersexual myself, though. :)

I do believe thhere are things worth fighting for, and that courage & valor are positive masculine virtues. I said as much in my previous posts. What troubles me is the overwrought, almost hysterical caricature of those virtues in so much of contemporary culture.

When I was a boy, I seldom heard people shouting “We’re Number One!” about America. Why? because everyone took that for granted, and felt no need to assert it. They had no doubts; it was evident to everyone. It was only when people started having doubts about the status & power of America that we began to see overwrought partiotism.

In the same way, when I was a boy, most men didn’t revel in ultra-masculinity, didn’t feel they had to make a point of it in public—because for the most part, they had few self-doubts about the masculine role in American society. Much has changed since then, and for a lot of men (not all, I hasten to add), the celebration of such ultra-masculinity only points up their own insecurities.

Again, I welcome this discussion.

Comment by Tim Lukeman — March 13, 2007 @ 2:24 pm

“foehammer” enuf said

only a movie. don’t bring any baggage. don’t leave with any questions. drop or deposit your garbage as political affiliations dictate. do not in any way consume the visual text even though you’ve paid for it.

ok.

kick/lick some ass.
it depends.

but rest upon your self-satisfied
i-have-reached-out-to-all-humans stance
or fuck-you-i-have-a-full-bottle.

perhaps one does not
have to “be on board” to provide
the fuel.

sorry gentlemen, but the discussion
(caring, true)
betrays the issues.

*

no credentials (social
or intellectual) included.

Comment by q — March 13, 2007 @ 6:30 pm

To:  Warner Bros. Picture Company
To: Warner Bros. Pictures Company
Cc: Zack Snyder (director)

Dear Warner Bros. Picture Company,

We the undersigned, through this letter, protest your irresponsible, unethical and unscientific actions.
This letter is in concern of making the movie, 300 by your company, which, according to all historical documents, is fraudulent and distorted, and its broadcast guarantees the violation of undeniable international legal rights.
It is a proven scholarly fact that the Persian Empire in 480 B.C was the most magnificent and civilized empire. Established by the Cyrus the great, the writer of the first human right declaration, Persians ruled over significant portions of Greater Iran, the east modern Afghanistan and beyond into central Asia; in the north and west all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the upper Balkans peninsula (Thrace), and most of the Black Sea coastal regions; in the west and southwest the territories of modern Iraq, northern Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, all significant population centers of ancient Egypt and as far west as portions of Libya. Having twenty nations under control, encompassing approximately 7.5 million square kilometers, unquestionably the Achaemenid Empire was territorially the largest empire of classical antiquity.
Based on the Zoroastrian doctrine, it was the strong emphasis on honesty and integrity that gave the ancient Persians credibility to rule the world, even in the eyes of the people belonging to the conquered nations (Herodotus, mid 5th century B.C). Truth for the sake of truth, was the universal motto and the very core of the Persian culture that was followed not only by the great kings, but even the ordinary Persians made it a point to adhere to this code of conduct.
We did not expect Warner Bros. Picture company, as one of the world’s largest producers of film and television entertainment to ignore the proven obvious historical facts, and damage its own reputation by showing the Persian army at the battle of Thermopylae as some monstrous savages, and thus create an atmosphere of public mistrust in its content, and hurt the national pride of the millions of Persians while doing so.
While announcing our disgust at such a heresy, we demand an immediate historical review and quick apology from the responsible people.

Sincerely,
http://www.petitiononline.com/wpci96c/petition.html

Comment by Bobby from Persia ( Iran ) — March 13, 2007 @ 10:35 pm

Have to pop in one more time about the above.  Debating issues is one thing, but I think even those who wanted no debate and just wanted to enjoy the movie had a point, in their own way…but the above…  I hope that no one is ignorant enough to sign themselves off on such a twisted and unfounded petition, it is the moral equivalent of suing McDonald’s for one being an idiot and spilling hot coffee on one’s lap.  To be fair, even some of the conversations the rest of us have had were like dribbling the cup.
    Okay, so first of all,there is much to be admired in Iranian culture as it stands today, if that is in fact where the writer is from.  Persia however no longer exists, and fell very long ago to Sunni Muslim caliphates, being devastated even a little before 1,000 B.C. and after, along with Iraq in the changes that came with battles between the ancestors of the modern Sunnis and Shia sects, who believed that Ali was the true heir of Mohammed, including such radical sects as the Ismaili and their offshoot, the Assassins, founded by Hassan i Sabbah.  Then came the barbarian Crusaders, and the trouble they caused.  The remnants of Persia were absorbed and transformed from the original shape, as such important cultures as the Babylonians and Sumerians of modern Iraq were before them.  No doubt the Persians were very advanced and had many great and noble aspects to their culture.  However, even the greatest Empires are expanded not through enlightenment and peaceful awe, but through the sword.  This is the actual history as we know it…Persia tried several times to conquer what is now Greece as they had conquered other peoples.  At Thermopylae, a small mountain pass near the sea, King Leonidas of Sparta and 300 Spartan warriors chosen for their skill as warriors and for the fact that all left behind male heirs, held off the Persian landing and advance, which realistically numbered about 250,000.  So great were Persian losses and so fierce were the Spartan reputations and actions at the “Hot Gates”, which the Spartans had used like this before, that Xerxes turned back his armies and waited for several months before trying to invade again.  By this time, because it is apparent that Leonidas’ sacrifice had political motivation, the rest of Greece banded together, and the Persians were defeated, unable to conquer Greece.
    So, why should we petition against a movie company that portrays this?  Perhaps we should make a movie where the Spartans are the villains, and the Persians win, and conquer all of Greece?  And as far as heroes vs. villains, while all bad aspects of Sparta are not represented, the movie does show such things as their eugenically killing unfit babies, and being quite aggressive and “laconic”(everyone should look up the meaning and etymological root of this word.)  So they aren’t exactly great guys themselves.  But only a country like Sparta could’ve pulled off the real historical feat.  I think the Persian empire is shown as corrupt and decadent, but all such empires usually are, certainly ours today is, but as far as cries of racism, they WERE Persian.
    I think that we all have a lot on our minds these days, and the world is in a chaos of events, ideas and conflicts, so the timing of this movie isn’t great in this context.  But it does not purport to speak to them as many of us are taking it, since Miller wrote the graphic novel in 1999, based on older books by authors such as Steven Pressman, who wrote “The Hot Gates”.  If anyone’s interested, Miller’s other works, such as “The Dark Knight Strikes Again”, show a complete contempt for Western Government, and several of Miller’s recurring themes, that of Man(and he does present it in a masculine way-look up “masculine” as well, for those that are going to jump all over that) venting moral rage aginst an overarching enemy, many times implicitly or explicitly the government of the United States.  Miller seems to believe in fighting fire with fire.  Since that is what he thinks, and that historically, is what the Spartans did, why is it surprising that we get this movie?  Take it on it’s own merits.
    Also, the largest and richest Empire of “classical” times, even translating wealth of the time into modern wealth, was the Empire of Alexander the Great. He would still be the richest man in the world if he were alive today, and his riches were not just monetary, but of knowledge.  He ordered collected the writings and learnings of many people, including the Persians, so that all could learn from each other.  The library at Alexandria is arguably the greatest ever built.  Its final destruction, after surviving some other beatings, came with the Romans, who also had a larger empire tham the Persians, larger even than Alexander’s perhaps, although probably not as knowledge-based as the Persian and Alexandrian.  After that it was tatters that the Crusading Europeans destroyed the last vestiges of.  All things change, nobody is innocent folks, so to be blunt, screw this stupid petition, enjoy movies for what they are, movies(obviously, I have trouble with this as well), and if there is more to be said, perhaps we should start saying it to each other out in the real world, and doing real things to change what we see as problems…Okay…

Comment by Ernesto Guevara from NewPaltz — March 14, 2007 @ 7:51 am

Also, so I don’t forget in what I mentioned above, The “credibility to rule the world”?  If P is still reading these comments on this movie, although we have quite amiably and constructively agreed to disagree, I offer this as what I’m talking about vis-a-vis everyone having an element of fascism to the way they think, even when they’re in effect arguing against the very thing that they themselves are asserting.  I’m sorry to whoever wrote this, since I’ve already said harsh things, but such statments as asserting “credibility to rule the world” are ridiculous and illustrtate the person who states them as someone with a very dangerously limited ability to be critical and to reason…

Comment by Ernest Guevara from New Paltz — March 14, 2007 @ 8:11 am

Very Nice..

Comment by Komain Sarapimpa from Bangkok, THAILAND — March 18, 2007 @ 9:13 pm

This movie gave me an hour and a half adrenaline rush AFTER I watched it for the first time. I’ve seen the movie five times so far, and it’s been exciting every time. The point I’m trying to make here is that I think the reviewer didn’t put enough consideration into the fact that 300 is an action movie, more specifically, an action movie focusing on men who (ironically) lived to die in combat. Melee combat. I think that’s a more than reasonable explaination for why the Spartans were so cut, they trained their whole lives to fight in melee combat. They are also represented as more than human, like super heros or something. It just twitches my nerves when someone points at a buff person and says, “They’re insecure in their sexuality, why else would they get big muscles to show off their masculinity?” Well, in this case, I must refer to what I said above: The resonable explaination the Spartans are so buff is because they were trained to fight face to face with their enemies in melee combat, which means they rely on their own strength, which comes from muscles. Also, people can work out for the following reasons: It feels good, it relieves stress, they want to have healthy bodies. None of these things are tied to security about your sexuality.

Comment by Justin from California, USA — March 24, 2007 @ 1:44 am

I find that if one looks for the moral of this story, it isn’t about the US-Iran affairs. And anyone who thinks it is has been smoking way too much crack. This movie was about a fictional work that was created by one of the greatest COMIC BOOK writers of my time. I and my group of friends went this evening to see this film, and it was EPIC. One of the best films I’ve seen so far this year. However, this film in no way, shape, or form was a political statement about the US going to war with Iran. That’s beyond logic. What this story was about was 300 warriors that stood against a one million man army, and all that they asked in for return, is for their people to remember them. Plain and simple. In no way, shape, or form did this movie tell me that “Persians are evil people.”

To Mr. Lukeman,
Two of those friends I went out with this evening were gay. And yet again, they felt the movie rocked. “This is wish fulfillment for men who are terrified of the feminine….” This was the most retarded thing I think I’ve ever seen anyone post. What the hell ever happened to man being his own man? Please. Let’s remember that in the Heterosexual world, women like men of all types. Some girls like there men thin and lanky, while other prefers their men to be just like a “Spartan”. I personally married a “Spartan”, not a “Willy Wonka”. I enjoy the feeling knowing that my husband has a sense of Honor and Valor. A sense that he IS a MAN and that he drives on the need to not only support his family, but to protect them from harm. Even if it means that he must lay down his life as I would do the same. Please quit picking apart a movie, that in all aspects (though loosely based on an historical event.) the times were different.

Most men are terrified to admit they have human weakness. Most men these days how found new venues in which to “make a public point of toughness.” And most Heterosexual men ARE “terrified of the homosexual”. Not because of Homosexuals, but because it in all aspects of human nature, goes against the grain. It’s human nature to fear the unknown and to fear things that are “Taboo”.

“It’s an utterly unrealistic model, and one that leads all too easily to failure & disaster—looks no further than the oh-so-tough “stay the course” politics which have resulted in the Iraq disaster.” To this statement all can say is, you read what you wanted to read into it. My guess is you are most likely a far-left liberal that believes it was huge mistake to go into Iraq. That’s your opinion and nothing less. You read what you wanted to as you watched this film roll on the big screen. However, I will agree that it’s “an utterly unrealistic model” since were talking about a time period before the birth of Christ and Spartans were said to be decedents of Hercules himself. There is no way in this modern age men are EXPECTED to act as a “Spartan”.

In civilized modern times, we have weapons of mass destruction to kill for us. We, even as Americans, no longer must bloody ours hands, we simply push a button or pull a trigger and technology does it for us.  Just imagine, if you can, what battle, combat, and war would be like if the flint-lock and black powder guns had never been invented? My guess, there would be an ass load of “Spartans” running around the world.

Comment by Angelia — March 25, 2007 @ 1:14 am

I have been reading your comments with great intrigue, after initially disagreeing with the review, it has encouraged me to question the film further, and find my own thoughts on issues raised. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that appears to be consensus amongst commenter’s, the notion that if men display the traditional hegemonic masculine characteristics they must, somehow, be insecure with their sexuality. Both in Spartan times and contemporary times we live in a society that encourages the socialisation of traditional gender roles, and men that embrace patriarchy do so to fit in with what society demands. I suggest the men, and women, that imply they do so to overcompensate their femininity or homosexual tendencies are the insecure ones, it all sounds to me like jealousy.

As for the petition, it quite clearly demonstrates the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. You intend to display the glory of Persians, yet you show yourself to be the contrary- narrow minded, spinelessness and fear. I suggest you accept the film was made to portray the Spartans brutal valour and not be a balanced historical account.

The comment from ‘biggs from us’ is a little immature and naïve to say the least. You state: ‘everyone who really insults [The president} is ignorant and does not understand exactly how the world works; how big the government and the beuacracy and everything is now, it takes years to get things done’
Everyone is aware of the American situation with congress and, due to separation of powers, have only 10% of laws passed.

Mr Guvevara et al,  you seem to be extremely well-informed on the subject of ancient history, so I wonder if you could answer me some questions I have, having watched ‘300’;

1.  What became of the Spartans? How come their society and culture does not exist today, one would have thought that it would have survived due to the nature of Spartan society- ‘the finest warriors’ of the time’.
2.  ‘Democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are mentioned in the film and I wonder what the situation and definition of two terms we take for granted would have been in those times. In the film they appear to have a democratic council that votes on issues, yet the have a King. Would he have been a constitutional monarch? Or a force working in harmony with the preliminary parliament?
3.  I have read that Sparta was a city run by the oppressed minority group called Herlot’s or something, though this is not mentioned in the film. Did they too fight in Sparta’s army? Or where they involved with training? I have read also that a boy became man in these times not by slaying a wolf but by slaying an unarmed ‘Helot’- how true is this?
4.  Any recommend good reads, particularly with regards to ancient Greek civilisation and Roman civilisation? As I intend to study Modern and Ancient History at Oxford next year and, although I am not required to, feel compelled to get ‘stuck in’ with this part of history.

Sorry if these questions seem silly to you!!
And sorry I couldn’t offer an interesting debate.

Thankyou,
Adriana

Comment by Adriana Coppola from Gloucester, England — April 17, 2007 @ 11:58 am