I just discovered the trailer for this movie the other day on apple.com. I'm no comic book fan, so I've never read the comic, but I am a bit of a history buff. And who hasn't heard of the Battle of Thermopylae? Plus, Sin City was pretty good and this is being done in a similar sorta style, not as stylized though. The trailer looks really good. I'm looking forward to it.
Has anyone read the comic? How good was it? How far did it go from the history into fantasy?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Oh look, it's the old Orientalist 'evil Persia' routine. Also, only 298 Spartans fought at Thermopylae.
---
Now that I'm done being a party pooping jerk, that trailer does look exciting and in a gritty stylistic way, beautiful. Gotta love Xerxes' throne. I'll definitely watch it when it comes out.
Sorry, haven't read the comic. Just a fellow history buff and red blooded Laconia fan. I would be interested to know more as well.
[ December 07, 2006, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's a thread for this already, search for 300 or Frank Miller or some such.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Here. Not a very big thread, but it has the same title and content.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Ahh, sorry, I missed that.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I think there was one before mine too, by Puffy . Kinda funny. But yeah, as you can tell, I'm really looking forward to this movie.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I just discovered the trailer for this movie the other day on apple.com. I'm no comic book fan, so I've never read the comic, but I am a bit of a history buff. And who hasn't heard of the Battle of Thermopylae?
Wasn't that in Donaldson's Gap series?
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
The name, yes. Angus Thermopyle (notice there's no "a" in his last name).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Looks entertaining but the war rhino kinda bothered me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This looks great. Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
I've been waiting for this thread! I saw the trailer weeks ago, but I never really bothered to find enough information on the movie to start a thread. It looks awesome though.
Edit: I guess I missed the first one as well. Are we continuing discussion over there?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've been reconsidering this movie. Originally I decided to boycott it, because of the obviously ridiculous historical errors.
But I've decided to give it a second chance, but I want to see another, new, trailer for it.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I think they released a new one today (over at yahoo movies). Seen that one yet?
The new one looks as if they're taking the historical accounts as a starting point, and having a lot of fun with the story after that.
I'll definitely be seeing it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
War rhinos? I don't even think they had elephants let alone rhinos.
Weird little mutant people? Mostly naked warriors (RIDICULOUS)? And where the hell are the Thebans and, the other guys I can't remember who fought with the Spartans? And the few thousand that came but were sent away? Spartans talking about fighting for freedom (well, that's questionable, eh). Talking about dying for Sparta being the best thing to do? Also ridiculous, read Tyrtaois, men didn't die for Sparta, their aim was to LIVE for Sparta.
Visually it looks stunning. But this ISN'T the story of the Battle of Thermopylae, too many glaring inaccuracies, and it's really bugging me because the REAL story is so much better. This is Miller's Rape of Greek History.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I've always found fiction with a small foundation in actual events be a bit more... palatable than much of fiction that tries so hard to build a story from scratch (or at least refuses to admit they share such an origin with an event in history). Even striving too hard to match the historical records of an event can damage a movie (Troy and Gladiator come to mind, though it wasn't the financial end of the movies that were damaged).
I agree the real story of Thermopylae would make a great movie, but you probably wouldn't want Frank Miller within a continent of the production process. To me, this movie is considerably more about style than historical accuracy (and I'd be shocked if anyone involved in it tried to argue differently).
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Gladiator didn't really strive for historical accuracy where the events of the story were concerned. In the costumes, fighting styles and in the way Rome looked and worked sure. But the story of Gladiator is entirely fiction.
And yeah, Lyrhawn, this is called "Historical Fantasy" rather than history. Apparently the creatures we see were a hunch back -- I think that's supposed to be Ephialtes, the traitor. And a giant -- of the sort that is a man with Gigantism. Both of those do actually exist... even if they are fairly stylized in this. Those are just what I've seen in the specials about the movie, I have no idea what else appeared in the comics.
quote: men didn't die for Sparta, their aim was to LIVE for Sparta.
Actually, not according to Wikipedia:
quote:The Spartan king was put in charge of the army at Thermopylae.[24] Of his overlordship Herodotus says only that they especially looked up to him. He was convinced that he was going to certain death, which he would not have been if he had thought the forces given him were adequate for a victory. He selected only men who had fathered sons that were old enough to take over the family responsibilities. Plutarch mentions in his Sayings of Spartan Women that after encouraging her husband before his departure for the battlefield, Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas I asked him what she should do when he had left. To this he replied:
Marry a good man, and have good children.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's supposed to be Ephialtes? That's messed up.
And that blurb from Wikipedia makes little sense. Leonidas knew he was going to certain death because of the words of the Oracle at Delphi, who said that either a Spartan King would die, or Sparta would cease to exist (something to that effect). So of course he knew he was going to die, and that had nothing to do with the number or quality of his men.
Sure they died when it was necessary, but they wouldn't throw their lives away for nothing. When you hear men talking in other cultures about the honor of dying for their country, Spartans were talking about their being more honor in fighting and LIVING for their nation, for their families, than in throwing your life away. Men who fought and lived could do more service to their family and nation than a man who died. It isn't that they would avoid battle, hell, Spartans are where you look first if you're looking for the opposite of a pacifist.
Besides, your Wikipedia quote says nothing that refutes what I said.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Lyrhawn, Sparta very often avoided battle. For much of its history the city had population issues (very small population of warrior males, especially in relation to the number of helots) which made it perilous to risk full-on fights. Because as good as the Spartans were at hoplite warfare, both sides always suffer heavy casualties.
In fact, by sending only 300 Spartans to Thermopylae, the Spartans were postponing their commitment. While the battle was raging, the Isthmus of Corinth was being reinforced. *That* was where the Spartans wanted to fight, not at a mountain pass north of Athens.
As for dying; certainly, Sparta like any human culture had a definite prevalence for living, and their warriors wouldn't throw their life away for nothing. But if our sources (Xenophon, Thucydides or Plutarch to name a few) are accurate on this point, there was considerable shame in surviving a defeat. You could potentially become an Inferior that way, or at least become ostracised by the Homoioi. That would mean living with public humiliation, most likely in relative poverty (whatever that constitutes in a city like Sparta) and total loss of self-respect for most Spartans. That shame would also curse your children.
It's important not to get sucked into the Spartan mirage, and I'm not saying 300 is an accurate representation in any regard (yes, the rhino, the totally unusable/unsafe well and the lack of armour bother me too), but you can't dismiss the fact that Sparta had a very real fatalist outlook. The only way you could get your name inscribed on a tombstone, for example, was to die in battle or bear children.
The aim was to serve the state to the utmost, and to shrink from that responsibility for fear of death was shameful in the extreme. Hence the phrase, 'With it, or on it.'
They meant it.
[ December 08, 2006, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson.
Sparta rarely chose not to fight because they were outnumbered. Most of the time when they didn't fight it was because they just didn't care, but this varies depending on what time period we're discussing. Besides, Helots more often than not fought in battle with the Spartiates and Perioikoi. They didn't shrink away from battle because of numbers. They probably should have more often.
Fighting at Thermopylae served more than one purpose. It gave everyone time to return to their homes and either get the heck out of dodge, as the Athenians did, or reinforce, as the Spartans, Corinthians, and their friends did. I also might add, that Herodotus says the Spartans and their allies fully intended to send thousands more troops to Thermopylae, not intending for the battle to end so soon, but they had to finish their little festival (the same sort that kept them from Marathon) and the Olympic games. The Athenians were supposed to have done better at the Battle of Artemisium as well. Thermopylae was a better spot to fight than the isthmus. After they broke out at Thermopylae sure they wanted to retreat to the isthmus, they didn't care so much for Attica and surrounding areas, but Thermopylae was still the best chance they had to stop the enemy. And the isthmus was not, I doubt anyway, being reinforced by Spartans AS the battle was taking place.
What is the "Spartan mirage?"
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
No worries mate.
Re: Sparta avoiding battle
You underestimate the threat of the helots. The Spartans were always outnumbered by the helot population, and lived in almost constant fear of uprising. At the very least they were extremely cautious about sending their able warriors away, leaving their women and young boys surrounded by the unfree serfs who worked the land for them. When you say the helots went with the Spartans to fight, that's true. But only a small fraction can be taken along, and you'll also have read that the Spartiates would be careful about leaving their weapons lying about with the helots around. The perioikoi were generally more loyal (many fought to end when Sparta was finally overrun), but they were also treated better and were more autonomous. Still, the perioikoi were not completely trusted either, and their settlements were small and dispersed (the Spartans considered perioikoi cities to be threats).
To give an example of Spartan vulnerability to the helots, in 465 there was a major helot uprising following an earthquake which left the city vulnerable. The Spartans were able to corner the helots on Mt Ithome, but had to call on *Athens* to help put the rebellion down.
As for the Spartans 'not caring', which battles/periods are you talking about? A rough survey of Spartan strategy during the Peloponnesian War, for example, should show that Sparta was very interested in avoiding pitched battles lest she had a considerable strategic advantage. Spartan commanders were also well known for being crafty and deceptive. One commander preferred to burn down a sacred forest an enemy was marching through, rather than engaging them in open battle. All this despite their code of honour and their disdained for arrows; there is a contrast between Spartan conduct and Spartan propaganda. In war, you do what you must to win, and for Sparta that meant conserving their precious hoplites.
Hoplites were needed for: - Fathering more hoplites - Protecting Sparta against the helots and perioikoi - Protecting Sparta against neighbours like Argos - Maintaining Sparta's hegemony
Re: Thermopylae
As it turns out Thermopylae definitely was a better place to fight than the Isthmus of Corinth. Themistocles was right. But it was Sparta's preference to fight to protect the Peloponnese rather than Attica, and that is the main reason for Sparta withholding its main force. Sparta was never very enthusiastic about coming to Athens' aid, as you rightly pointed out. The festival was very convenient.
The wall at the isthmus was almost complete by the time Leonidas was at Thermopylae. Check your sources. It's even in Herodotus.
Re: The Spartan mirage
The Spartan mirage is the image of fearlessness and fatalistic militarism which Sparta is famous for, and which the Spartans built up as their first line of defence. Psychological supremacy, in effect. Enemies would think twice about fighting Sparta, and this propaganda (which was very deeply engrained in the culture) saved Sparta many unnecessary skirmishes. Take the krypteia for example, which was at least partially aimed at instilling fear in the helots. The phrase 'Spartan mirage' was coined by Francois Ollier and picked up in its English form by Paul Cartledge.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think I underestimate the threat of the Helots at all. They rebelled every generation or so, but the Spartans were damned good at keeping them in line. I think you underestimate the numbers of Helots that fought in battles alongside the Spartans. There were never more than a few thousand Spartiates at any given time, with maybe double that number of perioikoi (at the high end of estimates), but helots numbered in the tens of thousands. If you hear of a Spartan army of 15,000, that's probably 3,000 Spartiates and 12,000 Helots, or maybe 4,000 perioikoi and 8,000 Helots, but the point is they fought in huge numbers in larger battles. They outnumbered Spartiates by thousands at the Battle of Platea.
Of course, after a major battle like that, it wouldn't be surprising to see the Spartans march home, call out the best warrios of the Helots, honor them, and then kill them to keep them from rising up. If by "small fraction" you mean of the ENTIRE helot population, then sure, but if you mean small in proportion to the Spartiates, then I think you're wrong about that, especially for bigger battles. Perioikoi weren't technically speaking slaves. They weren't full citizens, but they weren't on the level of helots or Athenian duloi. They were more likely merchants or craftsmen.
Spartans were curious in choosing WHEN to go to battle. I don't disagree with you about their prosection of war, but really, beyond the Peloponesse, they didn't really seem to care very often. Later on, Spartan mercenaries would go far and wide, but I'd also argue that at that point, Spartan society was already on a pretty bad downward spiral. They never liked being given orders, which is why when the ruler of Syracuse (Gelon?) offered them thousands of troops, supplies, and ships to fight the Persians, and all he wanted in return was command of the army or navy, they said no, and turned that all down, just to stay in control. They were in charge of the League that fought of Sparta, but once the threat was gone, the want back to the Peloponesse, not really having any will to empire beyond it. That's when Athens stood up, took away Spartan rule and asserted hegemony over the Delian League. When Athens entered their realm of influence, they fought back, and the Pelopponesian Wars started, which they won, and went back into complacency.
When I say they don't care, it's because they have an odd sense of when to, and when not to commit themselves to action. They'll go off to fight in Asia Minor in the name of some long distant relative colony, but refuse to fight at their backdoor in Attica. They'll fight 300 to a million, against overwhelming odds, but won't give up command of the army in return for vast masses of aide from Syracuse. They didn't shy away from battle to protect their Hoplites. They often sent off large, large numbers of them to battle, though rarely super far from home, but then, most battles of the time were fought with relatively few numbers, rarely more than a couple thousand at a time.
As for Thermopylae, Herodotus states it was the intention of the Spartans to fight in full force at Thermopylae. Fight them there with the help of the Atticans, or fight them at the isthmus, less defensibly, with less help. The Spartans weren't stupid. Their suggestion was to abandon Attica and have everyone join in the defense of the Peloponesse, well the Atticans weren't stupid either and refused. Funny how you use Herodotus to support one of your claims, but say his statements are merely 'convenient' when it doesn't support you. Anyway, I think after Thermopylae failed, they had little intention of fighting to defend Attica on the open plain, but Thermopylae was a necessary battle, and I believe they'd have fought it much more openly if they could have.
Consider Marathon. Not fighting there was stupid. The isthmus wouldn't have saved them against an army that could land thousands of troops on any beach on the peninsula. It was good fortune, and damned good soldiering that won Athens that battle, and the battle that followed, but had Sparta the sense of self preservation they would have cancelled their festival and gone anyway. I think it serves as good backup to the festival being celebrated during the Battle of thermopylae (the carneia?) as a main reason why more troops weren't sent.
If there intention was never to venture out from the istmus, why did they leave it to fight at Plataea the following year?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
BTW, what did you mean by your comment about Artemisium? The Battle of Thermopylae was over and the Spartans annihilated before the Greek fleet retreated, and the Persians lost many ships there due to storms.
quote:If you hear of a Spartan army of 15,000, that's probably 3,000 Spartiates and 12,000 Helots, or maybe 4,000 perioikoi and 8,000 Helots, but the point is they fought in huge numbers in larger battles. They outnumbered Spartiates by thousands at the Battle of Platea.
Probably even less Spartiates. At Platea there was a ratio of 1:7, Spartiates:Helots.
quote:If by "small fraction" you mean of the ENTIRE helot population, then sure, but if you mean small in proportion to the Spartiates, then I think you're wrong about that, especially for bigger battles.
The Spartans took the entire helot population with them to battle? If you show me some sources on that one, I will reconsider.
The thing is, even if Sparta was successful in putting down helot revolts, it came remarkably close to failing on many occasions. One of the main reasons for the creation of the Peloponessian League was to protect Sparta in case she couldn't handle it alone.
quote:Perioikoi weren't technically speaking slaves. They weren't full citizens, but they weren't on the level of helots or Athenian duloi. They were more likely merchants or craftsmen.
I called the helots "unfree serfs", and never used the word "slave", especially "chattel slave" or "duloi" anywhere in my post.
quote:Spartans were curious in choosing WHEN to go to battle. I don't disagree with you about their prosection of war, but really, beyond the Peloponesse, they didn't really seem to care very often. Later on, Spartan mercenaries would go far and wide, but I'd also argue that at that point, Spartan society was already on a pretty bad downward spiral. They never liked being given orders, which is why when the ruler of Syracuse (Gelon?) offered them thousands of troops, supplies, and ships to fight the Persians, and all he wanted in return was command of the army or navy, they said no, and turned that all down, just to stay in control. They were in charge of the League that fought of Sparta, but once the threat was gone, the want back to the Peloponesse, not really having any will to empire beyond it.
Mercenaries don't represent Spartan policy. But I would agree that Sparta did not have the kind of will to empire that Athens did.
That is, even if it did, Spartan power structures were incompatible with maintaining a Greek empire, especially among the islands where Athens was able to expand its League.
quote:When I say they don't care, it's because they have an odd sense of when to, and when not to commit themselves to action. They'll go off to fight in Asia Minor in the name of some long distant relative colony, but refuse to fight at their backdoor in Attica. They'll fight 300 to a million, against overwhelming odds, but won't give up command of the army in return for vast masses of aide from Syracuse.
Much of this depends on the individuals leading Sparta (generals or kings) at the time and the specifics of the situation. Which incident in Asia Minor are you talking about?
I've already said that the Spartans' reasoning was that it would be easier to defend the isthmus. They turned out to be wrong, but that was Spartan strategy at the time.
As for command of an army - that is a major status symbol. Cities in need of Sparta would often ask for assistance and receive 1 man, a commander, to lead their forces. Again, the Spartan mirage, which helped a city with such a small population maintain control over so many.
quote:They didn't shy away from battle to protect their Hoplites.
Well, I'm saying they did.
quote:As for Thermopylae, Herodotus states it was the intention of the Spartans to fight in full force at Thermopylae. Fight them there with the help of the Atticans, or fight them at the isthmus, less defensibly, with less help. The Spartans weren't stupid. Their suggestion was to abandon Attica and have everyone join in the defense of the Peloponesse, well the Atticans weren't stupid either and refused. Funny how you use Herodotus to support one of your claims, but say his statements are merely 'convenient' when it doesn't support you. Anyway, I think after Thermopylae failed, they had little intention of fighting to defend Attica on the open plain, but Thermopylae was a necessary battle, and I believe they'd have fought it much more openly if they could have.
There is a big difference between Herodotus talking about the construction of a wall, and Herodotus conjecturing as to Sparta's intent. On many occasions, other literary sources and archaeology have proven Herodotus right on his accounts of certain events, but his history is highly dramatised, and his analysis of the war and the intentions of its combatants (he himself was an Ionian Greek) has come under much fire by modern historians. Unfortunately he is our main source for the period, as Thucydides makes only passing mention of it. Ctesias is hardly better than Herodotus, and other sources such as Aeschylus or the Athenian records only shed so much light.
I argued that Sparta's preference was to defend the Peloponnese, and that it was the chief reason for Sparta withholding its troops.
I never said the Spartans were 'stupid' - in fact I think they were some of the craftiest, most intelligent commanders in Greece at the time, conservative though they were.
quote:Consider Marathon. Not fighting there was stupid. The isthmus wouldn't have saved them against an army that could land thousands of troops on any beach on the peninsula. It was good fortune, and damned good soldiering that won Athens that battle, and the battle that followed, but had Sparta the sense of self preservation they would have cancelled their festival and gone anyway. I think it serves as good backup to the festival being celebrated during the Battle of thermopylae (the carneia?) as a main reason why more troops weren't sent.
You seem to have reversed yourself about the Spartans being 'stupid'.
And a certain element of surprise helped the Athenians, but yes, Sparta did sit out. That invasion force however wasn't nearly as large as Xerxes'. The Spartans were pious, and I'm not saying they took their festivals lightly. What I did say is that during Xerxes' invasion, there were more pressing issues on the Spartans' minds than the festival.
quote:If there intention was never to venture out from the istmus, why did they leave it to fight at Plataea the following year?
I didn't say they intended never to leave the isthmus. I said they were very reluctant to, especially if they were to fight a long drawn out campaign so far away. By the time of Plataea, the Persian navy had been routed for the most part and the Persian army didn't have nearly the support it used to.
Also, Sparta was beginning to lose face, being reluctant to provide more direct help following Thermopylae. Athens, though it had no intention of actually medizing, delayed its response to a Persian bribe offer and threatened the Spartans that if they did not help, Athens would be forced to look for support elsewhere. Every once in a while Sparta would *have* to go out and prove that all these glorious rumours about their hoplites were really true.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:BTW, what did you mean by your comment about Artemisium? The Battle of Thermopylae was over and the Spartans annihilated before the Greek fleet retreated, and the Persians lost many ships there due to storms.
Well that wasn't SUPPOSED to happen. Artemisium was supposed to be a success, it was the Athenian contribution and part of their excuse for everyone taking off and leaving the Spartans behind (even though they volunteered), I guess you could call it a face saving gesture. But Thermopylae was supposed to take longer than it did. That could probably be attributed to them not expected Ephialtes to screw them over.
quote:Probably even less Spartiates. At Platea there was a ratio of 1:7, Spartiates:Helots.
This is what I was asking you about, you said a small fraction of Helots were taken to battle. I said if you meant a small fraction of their entire population then I agree, but if you meant a small fraction in comparison to the number of Spartans there, then you're wrong. Certainly doesn't look like with a seven to one ratio they were all that careful about the number of Helots they had with them. My point being they often took relatively large numbers of helots into battle with them, you seemed to be disputing that.
quote:Mercenaries don't represent Spartan policy. But I would agree that Sparta did not have the kind of will to empire that Athens did.
Towards the end they certainly seemed to. Kings whored out Spartan mercenaries for money, or they left home of their own volition for money. Once the search for money becamse a part of the Spartan ethos, their society had already collapsed. It's ironic that they were the first to create any sort of coinage (in Greece anyway), but at the same time abhorred and villified wealth and the search to attain it. Mercs didn't speak for Sparta, but when Sparta started to matter less and less towards the end, Spartan mercs were ubiquitous, and were for hire by all.
quote:As for command of an army - that is a major status symbol. Cities in need of Sparta would often ask for assistance and receive 1 man, a commander, to lead their forces. Again, the Spartan mirage, which helped a city with such a small population maintain control over so many.
Don't remember the name of the city they went to defend in Asia Minor, I just remember the story in Herodotus (I think), about a representative from a city in Asia Minor who pleaded for the help of the King and his request was granted. I think it ended up being that it was made under false pretenses and the king was mad afterwards. Anyway, sorry I don't remember.
And a single commander could certainly do a lot of good. They weren't just figureheads. It was a single Spartan that trained the army of Carthage to fight for itself, instead of just hiring unorganized mercenaries. He turned them into a real fighting force, then when they asked him to lead their army said no, and returned to Sparta. I wouldn't call that a mirage.
quote:Well, I'm saying they did.
Agree to disagree.
quote:There is a big difference between Herodotus talking about the construction of a wall, and Herodotus conjecturing as to Sparta's intent. On many occasions, other literary sources and archaeology have proven Herodotus right on his accounts of certain events, but his history is highly dramatised, and his analysis of the war and the intentions of its combatants (he himself was an Ionian Greek) has come under much fire by modern historians.
I argued that Sparta's preference was to defend the Peloponnese, and that it was the chief reason for Sparta withholding its troops.
I never said the Spartans were 'stupid' - in fact I think they were some of the craftiest, most intelligent commanders in Greece at the time, conservative though they were.
Modern historians, when it comes to judging the accuracy of ancient historians, when they don't have specific refutations from competing historians, are just guessing. Seriously, if they don't have anything to refute it, and they still won't believe it, it's an opinion. Herodotus wasn't quite as studious as his student Thucydides, but he still had sources, it wasn't all guesswork and dramatization on his part (though that's certainly a theme). His numbers by the way are still some of the most trusted, even though I think they're rather inflated a lot of the time.
With no evidence to the contrary, I lean towards trusting him on the intent of the Spartans. Given their reluctance to do battle with the Persians at Marathon during the same festival that kept them from major operations at Thermopylae, and which by the way, also kept major Attican powers from attending as well, when it most certainly was in their direct interest to be there, I'm led to believe that Herodotus is probably right.
Besides, where are the details about the wall being constructed? I don't doubt that it was built, but there's a big difference between setting up an armed camp around the isthmus and having a wall built. I agree that their chief aim was to defend the peninsula, but I don't think that is what kept them at home. They still faced overwhelming odds when they went to fight at Plataea, and quite frankly, they might have been better served to stay behind the wall at that point. And Herodotus was Doric, not Ionian. The man was from Helicarnassus, a Dorian colony, and though he spent a lot of time in Ionian Athens, he was never a citizen there. 20th century historians have given him a lot of credit previously denied due to recent discoveries that back up a lot of his claims. I think he made a ton of embellishments here and there, but for the most part he probably came closer to the truth than not. I think you're being selective in picking and choosing which bits of Herodotus to believe, kicking out whatever disagrees with your viewpoint, and using what is good for you, without any real basis for doing so.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but disagree with much too. I guess a lot of this comes down to which historian you trust, and whose version of history you trust, and how much you've actually read on the subject. You sound fairly well read on it, and I know I am, so I guess we just have to settle on a general disagreement and let that be.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:
quote:Probably even less Spartiates. At Platea there was a ratio of 1:7, Spartiates:Helots.
This is what I was asking you about, you said a small fraction of Helots were taken to battle. I said if you meant a small fraction of their entire population then I agree, but if you meant a small fraction in comparison to the number of Spartans there, then you're wrong. Certainly doesn't look like with a seven to one ratio they were all that careful about the number of Helots they had with them. My point being they often took relatively large numbers of helots into battle with them, you seemed to be disputing that.
Oh, ok now I see what you mean. Yes, I meant a small fraction of the total helot population, which means plenty of helots left at home to start a rebellion.
The Spartans were definitely careful about bringing helots along. Xenophon's details on Spartan camp arrangements can attest to that. Only, their small numbers compelled them to bring many along.
quote:
quote:Mercenaries don't represent Spartan policy. But I would agree that Sparta did not have the kind of will to empire that Athens did.
Towards the end they certainly seemed to. Kings whored out Spartan mercenaries for money, or they left home of their own volition for money. Once the search for money becamse a part of the Spartan ethos, their society had already collapsed. It's ironic that they were the first to create any sort of coinage (in Greece anyway), but at the same time abhorred and villified wealth and the search to attain it. Mercs didn't speak for Sparta, but when Sparta started to matter less and less towards the end, Spartan mercs were ubiquitous, and were for hire by all.
Spartan mercenaries did spread farther after Sparta lost hegemony status and many of the helots successfully revolted. But what does that have to do with Sparta withholding its hoplites while it still *did* have control over its helot population?
quote:And a single commander could certainly do a lot of good. They weren't just figureheads. It was a single Spartan that trained the army of Carthage to fight for itself, instead of just hiring unorganized mercenaries. He turned them into a real fighting force, then when they asked him to lead their army said no, and returned to Sparta. I wouldn't call that a mirage.
I stand corrected. This is true.
It is also important however as a propaganda tool; they act as living proof that Spartiates can achieve what appear to be superhuman feats.
quote:
quote:Well, I'm saying they did.
Agree to disagree.
Okay.
I think we've injected enough testosterone into this thread as it is. I'll refrain from being sarcastic, sorry.
quote:
quote:There is a big difference between Herodotus talking about the construction of a wall, and Herodotus conjecturing as to Sparta's intent. On many occasions, other literary sources and archaeology have proven Herodotus right on his accounts of certain events, but his history is highly dramatised, and his analysis of the war and the intentions of its combatants (he himself was an Ionian Greek) has come under much fire by modern historians.
I argued that Sparta's preference was to defend the Peloponnese, and that it was the chief reason for Sparta withholding its troops.
I never said the Spartans were 'stupid' - in fact I think they were some of the craftiest, most intelligent commanders in Greece at the time, conservative though they were.
Modern historians, when it comes to judging the accuracy of ancient historians, when they don't have specific refutations from competing historians, are just guessing. Seriously, if they don't have anything to refute it, and they still won't believe it, it's an opinion. Herodotus wasn't quite as studious as his student Thucydides, but he still had sources, it wasn't all guesswork and dramatization on his part (though that's certainly a theme). His numbers by the way are still some of the most trusted, even though I think they're rather inflated a lot of the time.
With no evidence to the contrary, I lean towards trusting him on the intent of the Spartans. Given their reluctance to do battle with the Persians at Marathon during the same festival that kept them from major operations at Thermopylae, and which by the way, also kept major Attican powers from attending as well, when it most certainly was in their direct interest to be there, I'm led to believe that Herodotus is probably right.
Besides, where are the details about the wall being constructed? I don't doubt that it was built, but there's a big difference between setting up an armed camp around the isthmus and having a wall built. I agree that their chief aim was to defend the peninsula, but I don't think that is what kept them at home. They still faced overwhelming odds when they went to fight at Plataea, and quite frankly, they might have been better served to stay behind the wall at that point. And Herodotus was Doric, not Ionian. The man was from Helicarnassus, a Dorian colony, and though he spent a lot of time in Ionian Athens, he was never a citizen there. 20th century historians have given him a lot of credit previously denied due to recent discoveries that back up a lot of his claims. I think he made a ton of embellishments here and there, but for the most part he probably came closer to the truth than not. I think you're being selective in picking and choosing which bits of Herodotus to believe, kicking out whatever disagrees with your viewpoint, and using what is good for you, without any real basis for doing so.
That accusation does bother me. I did have reasons for disagreeing with Herodotus on this particular point, and it was the practical fact that Sparta
a) Was constantly under pressure to keep the helots under control and its neighbours under its influence (Xenophon, Thucydides and a multitude of other sources support this)
and
b) Deliberate fostered a terrifying self-image to maintain military supremacy with the minimum application of force. (most modern authors, citing ancient sources, agree to some extent, especially Cartledge)
I realise that much archaeology and other ancient sources have corroborated Herodotus, but I thought this matter is one of those dramatic embellishments or analytical shortcomings his work is riddled with.
On the other hand I recognise that the Spartans were pious, and that things like Oracles played a very real and important part in the minds of Greek commanders and politicians of the day.
As for the wall, to my great annoyance I've found I was wrong about its timing. It was almost complete by the time Salamis was being fought. My sincere apologies for my quip about your source-checking. I also thought Halicarnassus was Ionian. I was the one at fault.
Here is a passage out of Terry Buckley's "Aspects of Greek History":
quote:It is believed that the Spartans, although sharing this opinion [that the Isthmus of Corinth was a preferable chokepoint], did not openly oppose this strategy, since a refusal to defend Central Greece could have led to the medism of Athens and its navy, and the fatal weakening of the Greek forces and of Sparta's claim to leadership. Furthermore, it is argued, there are three pieces of evidence which show that the Spartans knew that the army was too small to hold Thermopylae and were unwilling to send reinforcements there; but, in order to stop their allies in central Greece from medizing, sent the minimum possible force with no intention of reinforcing this army.
First, there was the invitation to the Locrians and the Phocians to join the Greeks at Thermopylae:
quote:For the Greeks themselves invited them, telling them through messengers that they themselves had come as an advance guard for the rest, and that the rest of the allies were expected to arrive any day. (Herodotus 7.203.1)
It is reasonable to believe that 'the Greeks' in the above quotation are Leonidas and the commanders of the other Peloponnesian contingents. This is clear evidence that the 4,000 Peloponnesians were only an advance guard and therefore were insufficient for the task of holding Thermopylae. Second, the Spartans claim that they could not come at once with their full force owing to their celevration of the religious feast of the Carneia, repeated by the Peloponnesians in their celevration of the Olympic festival, was a convenient excuse to delay the sending of troops until the fall of Thermopylae (7.206). The insincerity of the Spartans and Peloponnesians is laid bare by the fact that their religious scruples did not stop them from sending some forces. Third, when the Greek army at Thermopylae lost its nerve at the arrival of Xerxes' army and the Peloponnesians wished to retreat:
quote:Leonidas voted to remain there and to send messengers to the cities, ordering them to send help on the grounds that they were too few in number to withstand the Persian army. (Herodotus 7.203.1)
All this evidence reveals the Spartans believed that the fall of Thermopylae was inevitable and therefore its defence was unwise, but political considerations dictated that they had to make some effort and give the appearance of talking the defence of Thermopylae seriously.
To your credit though, Buckley then goes "On the other hand..." and states that: - The outcome of battle shows that the Greeks did not actually lack the manpower to hold Thermopylae, at least for a while. They lost it because of the incompetence of the Phocians holding Anopaea. - Losing central Greece would greatly damage Greek morale. It was in the interest of Sparta to support the effort. - The Spartans didn't think the battle would be decided so soon, and only said that the Carneia was 'in the way' (7.206.1) - The story about Leonidas considering withdrawal and his request for more troops were probably derived from an anti-Peloponnesian source. - We know that Thermopylae and Artemisium are linked battles, and a withdrawal on land would put the fleet at great risk.
quote:I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but disagree with much too. I guess a lot of this comes down to which historian you trust, and whose version of history you trust, and how much you've actually read on the subject. You sound fairly well read on it, and I know I am, so I guess we just have to settle on a general disagreement and let that be.
I can not tell you how annoying this is, but after going through my books again I think I may have to reverse myself on the point of Thermopylae. I still think that the effect of the helot threat on Spartan policy is underestimated, but my mistake about the timing of the wall is a rather grave one. What I think I've done, is transferred my Peloponnesian War ideas on Sparta and applied them to the Persian Wars. So, I concede Thermopylae was probably more than just a token gesture with the ulterior motive of delaying the Persians until they got to the isthmus (though they were leaving that option open, for sure).
Anyhow, in case you were wondering where I got the passage on the wall (as opposed to a camp), it's at the beginning of Book 9, where Herodotus talks about the Athenian delegation threatening Sparta to put troops in the field.
quote:Just then it was the time of the Hyacinthia in Sparta; the people thought it most important to give the god his due. It also happened that the wall they were building across the Isthmus was almost finished and about to have the battlements put on.
9.7
If you still want to discuss the helot threat/Spartan image I'd be willing. I do still believe that Sparta was very protective of its small number of hoplites.
Edit: If so, perhaps in another thread.
[ December 08, 2006, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I coach a high School Wrestling team and our mascot is the spartans. On my wall I have a plaque telling to story of Leonidas. IN fact one of the honors our kids recieve at the end of the year is induction into the Society of Leonidas. So i think this movie looks pretty cool. I only wish it was a PG13 so I could take my kids to go see it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Euripides -
I agree with you about the Spartan image, certainly.
I don't necessarily disagree about the helot threat, I think our disagreement is a grey area, and more a matter of degrees than outright disagreement.
No worries on your sources, we all make mistakes when it comes to this stuff, I've done it myself time and again while writing papers on these subject, and I admit I haven't read as much Xenophon as I would've liked. I didn't have time to finish the Anabasis, and it remains half read in my room somewhere under a pile of history books.
I think we did the debate credit, and maybe after finals this week we could continue the debate in some way, but I think we good and settled it, both of us right and wrong. Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I love Hatrack.
I thought I knew a lot about ancient Greek conflicts from Marathon to the Peloponnesian war to ATG, but to see two people go at it like that over Xerxes’ invasion, and then through the debate arrive at a better understanding of the issue, it just warms my heart.
Thanks.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Yep, it seems we gave it a fair go. Do let me know when your finals are over; maybe you can start a thread about a specific aspect/point of contention on Sparta.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: And who hasn't heard of the Battle of Thermopylae?
Me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eurip -
Next Wednesday. Post anything you want, I'll be there
I had to write a paper last semester on Plutarch's take on Sparta, the narrow minded revisionist. I'm game for anything you want to talk about. Though I think before we begin any discussion we should define the focus of the discussion, it's not as pronounced as in Athens, but as time goes on, Sparta changes drastically, making discussions about what Sparta was like relative to the time period, unless we talk about Sparta as a whole, over time, how they changed, why they collapsed (greed!), etc etc. But feel free to post whatever you want next week.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
That sounds good. Definitely true that we should focus the discussion. Let's say that at any moment, there should be one key point on the table, defined within a certain time frame.
Since we can't have a meaningful debate without disagreeing on something, shall we discuss the effect of the helot threat on Spartan foreign policy in the 5th century BC? Obviously there was a lot of change in that period, but the gist of my argument will be that Sparta had a unique vulnerability which forced it to use propaganda and xenophobic isolation as tools to help keep the helots under control. I believe it was a built-in shortcoming of the Spartan system; the Spartans were the greatest fighters in Greece because they were full time soldiers, thanks to the helots. The helots could be kept under control by a small warrior population only if those warriors were very experienced. A catch-22, you might say.
If you don't disagree with that, then I guess we have to talk about something else.
I'm also interested in the following topics, which also tend to be controversial: - Spartan land distribution (the kleroi) - The role of women - The role of the agoge
Let me know which (or if you have another topic in mind), and I'll make a thread on Wednesday your time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, xenophobic isolation wasn't unique to Sparta. Athens was the same, if not worse. The only time I can remember them opening their citizenry rolls to new people was during the short lived reign of Solon, and never again.
I don't disagree that the helots were probably the main reason Lycurgan reform was so heavily militarily based. I think the foreign policy argument could go either way. You have to try and pin down some sort of ethos to their line of thinking, to direct their foreign policy. Athens desired wealth and power, Sparta just wanted to control the peninsula and then to be left alone. Now that greatly changed as wealth started to flow into Sparta, but to start that was their goal.
Now, theoretically they never really had to go out to battle at all. Their life was almost entirely defined by military training, giving them more experience and skill than most other city states, and without fighting, at that. Fighting the helots once a generation or so, especially the big revolts, constantly honed their fighting skills, to say nothing of the skirmishes they got in close to home.
But they still went to fight in Aetolian Asia Minor, in northern Greece, in Attica, much of which wasn't directly necessary to their survival. Plus they sent men away to form colonies in Italy, Sicily, Asia Minor, mainland Greece, Illyria, and elsewhere. Those were lost resources. Helots were constantly being culled and kept in line to prevent anything close to the great messinian revolt, and by and large it worked. Despite the major wars they fought, like the Peloponnesian, and the battles they horribly lost, they still came out on top until the very end. It might have kept them at home more than they otherwise would have, but without the system they had, they probably wouldn't have been so uniquely equipped to go anywhere at all.
Go with the role of women for next wednesday, that's a fun topic, and some people reading might be surprised over the role women played in a Spartan society, and how they totally ruined it.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Ok, women it is.
When I said xenophobia, I didn't mean not admitting new people into the citizenry, but things like keeping the total population of Sparta a secret, deliberately spreading misinformation, in cases not even admitting strangers, etc.
I disagree that Sparta was "uniquely equipped" to campaign outside of the Peloponnese. The only thing in their favour was the quality of their troops. Athens or any other polis didn't have the same pressing need for a standing army to be ready to quell rebellion, and had a greater proportion of fighting men. And Athens of course had a fleet to speak of, while Sparta had to rely on Corinth most of the time.
I think that the campaigns and colonies you mention are evidence that Sparta did have ambitions for more power and yes, even wealth. They just weren't in a position to hold down an empire, and conditions at home (not everyone on the Peloponnese favoured Sparta - Argos being a noteworthy exception) required a degree of conservatism. Sparta needed to avoid as much as possible the possibility of outside attack, and keeping a hold of the Peloponnese kept Sparta's hands full for most of its history. When Sparta could afford to, she reinforced the hegemony by campaigning.
No doubt Sparta's population fluctuated, and the methods used to control the helots (fear, selective culling as you say, dispersal) varied in effectiveness over time. But for much of the city's history in the 5th century, the helot threat forced Sparta's foreign policy to be relatively conservative.
We can talk about individual events, but I think you'll find that with most of Sparta's campaigns overseas, there was the city's status at stake, or an economic/military advantage to be had. In other cases there is the leadership of kings/generals (Spartan government had a democratic element too, as you know) and matters of religion. So what I'm saying is, while there are exceptions, the general rule is; Sparta's ostensible apathy for what goes on outside the Peloponnese was actually the Spartans' reluctance to overstep their bounds.
It's something Sparta had to consciously hide, to maintain its reputation among the Greeks.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Just an update: There's a new trailer up for the film, featuring more of the decidedly evil looking Persian Immortals, war elephants and umm... orcs.
If you are blessed with a good Internet connection, check out the high definition clips from Apple.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
the original 300 trailer was probably one of the coolest trailers i've ever seen.
this new one managed to equal that one in quality.
<--is super excited for this movie.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Is it just me or does the narrator on the second trailer have a South African accent?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A rehashing with the most famous line of the story thrown in. I'm glad they at least called it 1B and not 2.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Here are some stills from the movie. A couple of them aren't from the trailers, IIRC.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmm This topic seems the most interesting. I'll bump it so I can read it when I get home. I just hope this movie does not suck.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This movie looks to be made of more awesome than I can stand.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It has swords... Weapons... and other stuff I liket hat I will not type on a family site.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
When will people stop making movies out of Frank Miller tripe? Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I hear its going to be beast.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Sin City was cool, man. Great dialogue. I say keep making movies of it...
And less Disney sequels and girly love stories about middle aged women and no ninjas. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
eros -
Sin City (and the sequel) and this are the only three that come to mind, and Sin City was awesome I thought.
What else has been made?
Posted by TimeTim (Member # 2768) on :
Sin City definitely rocked my world. You know the Irish dude in that movie? The one with the two huge scars on his cheeks? I heard a story that he's actually from Glasgow and for some reason a bunch of guys beat him up one night and then made these tiny cuts at the edges of his lips, and then tortured him until he screamed which just tore his cheeks comepletely in two. Supposedly its called "The Glasgow Smile."
this movie'll be pretty darn good if I have anything to say about it.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I don't think the dialogue in 300 will be very good. Just from the trailer:
TODAY, WE DIED IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!!
What? You won't accept the Great King's offer? This is blasphemy! THIS. IS. SPARTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is that what the trailer says?
I thought it was "Tonight, we dine in hell!"
and
"This is madness." "This. Is. Sparta!"
My best friend's boyfriend lives in Sparta (Michigan), and I make jokes to her all the time about the movie. Apparently everyone in Sparta is really excited about the film. I told her I work in Troy (Michigan) and they didn't much seem to care when their movie came out. Spartans are just cooler I guess.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I didn't know there was a Troy in Michigan.
I loosely paraphrased the quotes from memory; I think you're right about the second one.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Okay, so I had to check.
SPARTANS/SPARTIATES! TONIGHT. WE DIED. IN HEEEEELLL!!!!
and
You threaten my people with slavery and death. This is madness! Madness? THIS. IS. SPAH TA!!!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I still think it's "tonight we dine in hell."
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
It is "Tonight we dine in hell."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A HAH!
Two to one Sean Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The complete line is: "Spartans! Enjoy your breakfast, for tonight we dine in hell!"
*shudder*
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Oh, I thought you were joking; yeah, now that I listen to it again I think you're right. I had always assumed that hell was the sort of place where you'd get sent to bed without dinner.
It's actually more poetic, no?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
The complete line is actually something like: "Spartans! Make ready your breakfast and eat hearty, for tonight! We dine! IN HELL!"
Something like that.
I know this because I saw the movie tonight, just now. Not much of a history lesson -- but it's not really being marketed as such. It's being marketed as a bunch of hyper-stylized, gloriously violent insanity, full of bearded men screaming impossibly macho-sounding things at each other in the heat of battle....
So if that's what you're expecting to see, get your tickets now, because this thing delivers all the insane, violent, bearded, macho impossibilities you can handle.
I loved it. I kept laughing out loud because the violence was so thrilling. I think my recommendation on this would be: If you're the kind of person who has ever laughed out loud like a little kid in a movie theater because you were being thrilled by violence, go see this.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
That also counts as a recommendation not to see this if you don't like violence (in movies).
(Cause who likes violence in real life?)
(Nobody, that's who.)
('Cept serial killers and other scary types.)
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
*jealous*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd be jealous but it opens here on Friday, so I don't have long to wait.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I am going to see the movie, love it, and then I am going to be treated to a million people complaining about it on Hatrack because it wasn't historically accurate.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I am SO excited. There's a free showing on campus tonight (Tuesday's got canceled due to "technical difficulties"), so I'll be there. We're also planning on seeing it on the IMAX screen this weekend.
Glorious, glorious violence EIGHT STORIES HIGH.
Love it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am excited to see it, and I HATE violent movies. I am actually not sure I'll enjoy this, but I think the capes and the armor and all of that make it less real and more cartoonish for me. I hide more from guns than from, say, ninjas.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I am going to see the movie, love it, and then I am going to be treated to a million people complaining about it on Hatrack because it wasn't historically accurate.
::gets in line to complain about historical inaccuracies::
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am excited to see it, and I HATE violent movies. I am actually not sure I'll enjoy this, but I think the capes and the armor and all of that make it less real and more cartoonish for me. I hide more from guns than from, say, ninjas.
And on the note of historical inaccuracies, THE SPARTANS AREN'T WEARING ANY ARMOR! GYAH!!! They did wear capes though.
Oh well, I won't complain about it when I get home afterwards. I already know that this isn't meant to be realistic in even the slightest degree, and that it's just another movie that rapes and pillages history for the kernel of good stuff so they can totally warp it and Hollywoodize it.
I expect a popcorn flick with tons of sweet action that uses the most memorable lines and scenes from Herodotus and makes up the rest. Knowing that, I won't have much to complain about.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
*grabs stick to beat people when they complain about "historical inaccuracy"*
*growls and looks around threateningly*
Any takers? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::raises hand...with a stick in it::
What's wrong with being historically accurate?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: I am SO excited. There's a free showing on campus tonight (Tuesday's got canceled due to "technical difficulties"), so I'll be there. We're also planning on seeing it on the IMAX screen this weekend.
Glorious, glorious violence EIGHT STORIES HIGH.
Love it.
I want to have your babies.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
In a totally nonthreatening, platonic way, of course.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I hide more from guns than from, say, ninjas.
That's because the dealiness of guns increases as you add more of them. On the other hand, the law of inverse ninjas states that the danger presented by ninjas is inversely proportional to the number of ninjas.
One ninja could take out an entire army. A hundred could be beaten by my grandmom.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I already snagged my ticket off Fandago. It better be good. Violence makes me dizzy and yet I love Sin City and Kill Bill.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I hide more from guns than from, say, ninjas.
That's because the dealiness of guns increases as you add more of them. On the other hand, the law of inverse ninjas states that the danger presented by ninjas is inversely proportional to the number of ninjas.
One ninja could take out an entire army. A hundred could be beaten by my grandmom.
By Joe, I do believe this man speaks the truth!
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: I am SO excited. There's a free showing on campus tonight (Tuesday's got canceled due to "technical difficulties"), so I'll be there. We're also planning on seeing it on the IMAX screen this weekend.
Glorious, glorious violence EIGHT STORIES HIGH.
Love it.
I want to have your babies.
If you can figure the mechanics out, I will permit this.
Saw it. LOVED it. If you get squeamish by the thought of limbs lopped off, blood spurting everywhere and amazingly choreographed stylized violence - or if you don't want to come out of a movie cussing like a sailor and hoping to seriously lay some smack down on a Persian - this movie is not for you.
If, however, you're down with some hardcore butt-kicking with some seriously smoking hot men... sign up. Now.
This will be SO much better on the IMAX.
I think my problem with people who cry "This is historically inaccurate!" is that this battlecry overshadows the intention of the movie, most of the time. And seriously - Herodotus is your primary "historical" source? Give me a break. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You are an awesome, awesome woman, Carrie.
quote: If you can figure the mechanics out, I will permit this.
To the lab!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Storm Saxon: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Carrie: [qb]
I think my problem with people who cry "This is historically inaccurate!" is that this battlecry overshadows the intention of the movie, most of the time. And seriously - Herodotus is your primary "historical" source? Give me a break.
Well, the movie makers certainly didn't have a problem taking the most movie makable lines and action from Herodotus and leaving the rest in the dust, and making the rest up. But there's a lot of other information on the Spartans we get from others like Plutarch. For example, one could learn that Spartans were heavily armored, and did not in fact go into battle mostly naked, which is probably my biggest personal pet peeve about the trailers, to say nothing of the weird mutants and such.
But it doesn't really bother me a lot, because I know this isn't supposed to be anywhere near the realm that's next to the neighborhood inside the land known as realistic. It's the movies that pretend to be realistic but ignore even the easy stuff that annoy the hell out of me. At least make the effort.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But it doesn't really bother me a lot, because I know this isn't supposed to be anywhere near the realm that's next to the neighborhood inside the land known as realistic. It's the movies that pretend to be realistic but ignore even the easy stuff that annoy the hell out of me. At least make the effort.
As long as you know it's not meant to be realistic, I won't hit you too much.
As Roeper said...
quote:Snyder directs "300" as the tallest of tall tales -- a vivid dream. You want realism and devotion to the hard facts, watch the History Channel. You want to experience the Battle of Thermopylae as a nonstop thrill ride, here's your ticket.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I almost dread looking at Rotten Tomatoes. A low rating will screw with my enjoyment of the movie.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Interesting (and scathing) Slate review. Brings up many of the issues we were worried about (at least Adam was, IIRC) when watching the trailers.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They just want women to admire the men's tight taunt abs...
It works.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
That Slate review was ridiculous. So no one is allowed to make a movie about war without protesting the current one?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, well first of all, from a Western perspective*, the Persians were the bad guys in that particular conflict.
Second, that review seemed pretty darned silly to me for that very reason. They were making an epic battle movie in which the good* guys face off against an overwhelming force of the bad* guys, and the story is written by a comic book author. Naturally it is going to include some mystical elements, and naturally in such a story, the bad* guys are going to get some of the monsterizing treatment.
Third, we're not at war with Persians. That's as stupid as saying that, in the Revolutionary War, we were at war with Northwestern European white people.
That review smacked of someone flexing their political and social sensitivity muscles to me.
*In every treatment of the Spartans vs. Persians I've ever read, it was either a mostly neutral recounting of the battle, or the Spartans were the good guys, or at least the better-than-those guys.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I particularly enjoyed the New York Post's review:
quote:Keeping in mind Slate's Mickey Kaus' Hitler Rule -- never compare anything to Hitler -- it isn't a stretch to imagine Adolf's boys at a 300 screening, heil-fiving each other throughout and then lining up to see it again.
There's a huge discrepancy between the critic & user reviews on RT; 61% from critics, 91% from users.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Moral of the story is that if your society practices eugenics, you inevitably become so badass that wars with you are like fighting every heavy metal video from the past 30 years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On the Slate article -
Technically he's wrong. Ethnically, the only Persians we're potentially fighting would be Iranians. Just because the people who ruled over all of Arabia and beyond were Persian and it was called the Persian Empire doesn't make that the same thing today. It's a good attempt to link them together, but it doesn't really work when you read more about ancient history.
Also the part about the Spartans casting the messengers of Xerxes down the well is true, or at least it's backed up by historical accounts. His messengers were sent to all the poleis of Greece demanding dirt and water, which is basically a sign of capitulation. In response the Athenians mobbed them I think, and the Spartans cast them into a well (which was a waste of a perfectly good well if you ask me). Later the Spartans repented and sent them two men to act as sacrifices, but the Persians refused to kill them. They also refused to sent other envoys, knowing full well that when they got there, both cities would be torched (only ended up battle .500 on that one).
Spartan "eugenics" also only applied to Spartans actually living in Sparta, or at least Laconia. Ephialtes was from the foothills around Thermopylae.
Seems like his only real problems are with the stuff that actually happened (or has historical backing), and the rest he's trying really really hard to paint in a bad light without much substance. Though I think I'll probably end up agreeing with him on the monsters and such. Besides, like Rakeesh said, the Persians really were the bad guys in this one. Spartans were the underdogs (though it wasn't really just 300, they had a little bit of backup).
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
This thing is going to be a monster hit. I was expecting to sell out my 7 o'clock show tonight -- instead we sold out every show all day long.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
I have to admit, I'm a bit more reluctant to see the film after reading this. But then I haven't read the comic either, so maybe I'll just read it instead.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Brings up many of the issues we were worried about (at least Adam was, IIRC) when watching the trailers.
Those issues I was referring to were the inevitable inaccuracies of the film (which can be given substantial leeway considering it's a comic adaptation), the possibility that the action-packed pacing would walk all over the plot or give us a headache, and the over-done but stylistic vilification of the Persians (even in a comic, Persians as orcs...).
I do realise that the Spartans actually cast a messenger down a well. So I'm not going to defend Stevens' background knowledge; especially considering his not-easily-overlooked error of implying that Ephialtes was a Spartan. Mr. Stevens would do well to get acquainted with his basic ancient history (or at least wikipedia).
He did say "or at least denizens of that vast swath of land once occupied by the Persian empire" when he referred to the Persians. But I agree with Adam that he shouldn't have written "with actual Persians" if he was going to contradict himself in parentheses right afterwards.
I didn't bring this article up because I agreed with its political assessment of the film. 300 certainly isn't a deliberate allegory for today's war, but by raping this episode of history once again, it's providing one of the most crudely Orientalist (I'm using the word in the traditional sense) depictions of the Battle of Thermopylae to date. Stevens is also correct that the movie is a "mythic ode to righteous bellicosity"; so it's not just "a movie about war," it's a belligerent pro-war movie (judging by other reviews; its not out in Australia yet) which has some not-altogether-superficial parallels with the war in Iraq.
To be clear: I don't think this is a pro-Iraq War movie, or that it is somehow irresponsible to make a film about the Battle of Thermopylae while there is a war in the Middle East.
I do think that the continued propagation of the Orientalist view of this aspect of history is regrettable, as is any glorification of war.
I'm still going to see it when it comes out. How could this not be fun?
[ March 10, 2007, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Definitely saner (and better informed). I liked these bits especially:
quote:A shameless recruiter would spend this weekend trolling the multiplexes.
...
For all that I found repulsive about it I enjoyed it on some lizard-brain level, even if I felt guilty about it even as it unspooled. It looks like nothing else, the action unfolds at a breathless pace, and its clear moral universe is pretty seductive, even if it exists only in the space between when the lights go down and when they come up again.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
There's another thing I don't get about these reviewers' reactions — all of a sudden, a movie that glorifies soldiers == Nazi propaganda? Everyone seems to be saying, "Hitler's boys would have LOVED this film!" Which is very similar to saying, "Child molesters LOVE watching Barney the Dinosaur!" Does that mean that Barney promotes child molestation, or that 300 promotes fascism? No. Neither. Insinuating that "bad people like a certain movie" is a great way to try and shame people into not watching it ... if you're, you know, intellectually dishonest.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
And I think there really ought to be a difference between being "pro-war" (as in advancing the cause of aggressive war and imperialism), versus being "pro-war" (as in not capitulating to an invading force that intends to enslave your people). People who call this movie "pro-war" in a pejorative way ... are they seriously suggesting that Leonidas should have bent the knee to Xerxes, rather than fight back? Or that we shouldn't honor characters who willingly, and without equivocation, march off to fight a terrible enemy, to protect their wives, children, and countrymen? For these critics, was Theron the tragic hero of the story?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
There's another thing I don't get about these reviewers' reactions — all of a sudden, a movie that glorifies soldiers == Nazi propaganda?
I think it has more to do with glorifying Spartiates and their militaristic way of life, rather than soldiers in general. Which would also help to explain the pejorative use of "pro-war."
The movie's reception would also depend on how much the various themes in the movie were played up. If Spartan glorification (or the glorification of militarism in general) is the central theme of the movie, there are grounds for calling it pro-war despite the self-defence justification.
I can't comment in any detail until early April.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
There is also a difference between "anti-war" (as in war is so bad you should always either flee or bend the knee) and "anti-war" (as in war is always a horrible, evil thing, yet sometimes it is a necessary horrible, evil thing). You can honor characters who go to war to protect their countrymen, and portray such a war as a necessary thing without being "pro-war". (For example, I've understood both Flags of Fathers and Letters from Iwo-Jima were anti-war films.)
I got the picture that at least the A.V. Club reviewer did not so much object to the idea of them standing up against the foe, but to the fact that he felt the movie took away all the complexity of war and made it into an easily digestible good versus evil tale. Which is of course something that can be said of most war films, I guess. And again, I haven't seen either the movie or read the graphic novel.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I'd like to point out a couple things.
First, I find the movie decidedly pro-Spartan (and pro-war in the "not capitulating" sense. Puppy said it better, but I entirely agree). If 300 is pro-Spartan, it had better be anti-Persian. And it is. Highly.
Second, the Greeks (and Spartans included) actually saw the Persians as effeminate oddballs bent on domination. For Zeus' sake, they wore pants! And had oily smelly hair (or scalps)!
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Bad, terrible, horrible movie that never should have been made. At least it shouldn't have been made the way it was. This wasn't even good for a comic book movie - it was all around a fine example of how not to make ANY film, EVER.
DO NOT SEE THIS FILM IF YOU ARE EXPECTING AN ACCURATE HISTORICAL PORTRAYAL OF THE BATTLE OF THERMOPYLAE...OR HUMANITY...OR ANYTHING AT ALL. Ten-foot-tall supergay Xerxes who moves about on a silver platform roughly the size of an apartment complex, and which is carried by about fifty dudes...not historically accurate. Lack of all Thespians and Athenians at Thermopylae. Lack of all chest hair. So very not historically accurate.
*SPOILERS BELOW*
Even allowing for the comic book origins, it is just far too much to ask your audience to suspend disbelief and accept that Xerxes has an executioner who's just some really huge fat dude with big blades for arms. That's just stupid. And when you present it with no exposition at all, it's just jarring and weird. What was with the goat-headed guy playing the harp? What the crud was that all about? How did the Ethos get food up on their FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE? Was all of Sparta really just a bunch of rocky, barren precipices? Why was it necessary to cast Ephialtis as the Hunchback of Notre Dame? I know he's all weird and deformed in the comic book, so okay, I'll make that one allowance. But SHEESH!
This movie was also full of military stupidity. To wit: Choose a very narrow canyon where men can stand but four abreast as your point of defense. Sound strategy, and if I recall, that's how Thermopylae was actually fought. Then after one skirmish in the canyon, just run out of it and start throwing your shields at the bad guys. Brilliant. Also, jabbering on and on about how the phalanx is the strength of the Spartan army is great, but then you probably don't want to have all the fight scenes thereafter be A BUNCH OF SPARTANS JUMPING AROUND BY THEMSELVES WITHOUT ANY BUDDIES TO GUARD THEM AND DEFINITELY NOT IN A PHALANX. Duh.
My final gripe with this movie (aside from the goofy Persian orcs): Approximately 75% of it was shot in artsy-fartsy slow-motion. It was sickeningly boring after about the first twenty minutes of it.
Also, you could turn it into a drinking game. Every time somebody says the words "Sparta" or "Spartans," take a drink. You'd be three sheets to the wind in about ten minutes. And it just keeps going like that for the entirety of the movie. It made me want to throw a spear at the screen.
Bad, terrible, horrible, awful movie. I love bad movies, but this one needs some time to find a little place in my heart next to Ultraviolet and Rock And Roll Nightmare. This was beyond bad - this was actively loathesome.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I am going to see the movie, love it, and then I am going to be treated to a million people complaining about it on Hatrack because it wasn't historically accurate.
In fairness, most of my complaints were because the characters just did incredibly dumb things.
*MORE SPOILERS BELOW*
Edit for more clarity about my complaints: I really don't care that the movie was historically accurate. You don't expect historical accuracy to come from most comic-book sources. It's just that it was filmed so poorly (in my opinion) and all the characters with whom we were supposed to identify and root for just *insisted* on doing *the stupidest possible thing they could choose to do* at every given opportunity.
The only thing anybody did that made any sense was when Gorgo stabbed Theron (did you know that was the Queen's name? I had to watch the credits to find out what her name was). THAT actually was a choice I could see a character in that situation making, especially after almost two straight hours of nonstop reminders that ***We're Spartans! We're warriors who don't take crap from anybody! Don't mess with us, or we'll STAB YA!*** Abandoning the phalanx and ditching the awesome canyon - not so much. That was nothing short of the dumbest thing they could have done EVER.
[ March 10, 2007, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Libbie ]
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Then after one skirmish in the canyon, just run out of it and start throwing your shields at the bad guys.
... But that's how they actually died. They let go the phalanx once they realized they were surrounded and tore through whatever small part of the Persian army they could and died not in the canyon. As regards the first foray out of the canyon, well, I attribute that to the "heat of battle." No, it's not the smartest idea ever; it's also absurd to think that even the most trained warrior can hold back forever.
quote:Was all of Sparta really just a bunch of rocky, barren precipices?
Have you ever been to Sparta? It is fairly rocky and mountainous. There were cults to tree/forest deities (Helen notably springs to mind, but since she's the topic of my thesis that's not particularly surprising), but Sparta isn't exactly the most welcoming environment; even today it's hot, dry, dusty and (quite frankly) miserable.
quote:DO NOT SEE THIS FILM IF YOU ARE EXPECTING AN ACCURATE HISTORICAL PORTRAYAL OF THE BATTLE OF THERMOPYLAE...OR HUMANITY...OR ANYTHING AT ALL.
Honestly, it's not supposed to be a historical movie and anyone who walks into it expecting more than a blood-soaked gorefest is stupid.
---
Still love it. And I'm going to see it in all its IMAX glory in about four and a half hours.
Score.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well Sparta wasn't THAT bad physically. It had forests, and it had large stretches of farmland, though not necessarily in Sparta proper, but in Laconia for sure. Northeast of Sparta where the battle was fought was entirely mountainous and rocky, so that I'd buy.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
What's with all the protests about historical accuracy? Are you joking? Trying to parody your own position? This isn't a movie about the historical battle of Thermopylae. This is a mythical story of Leonidas's stand as told by one of his men — someone who, for instance:
* Has never seen an elephant or a rhinoceros before. * Has known Xerxes only from the tales of an exalted god-king. * Thinks Persians are effeminate and immoral. * Has a strong interest in making his story sound as powerful and epic as possible to its intended audience.
This film is intentionally outlandish and mythological in its presentation. This is a Spartan glorifying one of his greatest heroes, with more Spartans as his audience. It's actually a perfect frame story for the kind of film they wanted to make — I wish more films would be made this way.
Seriously, though, when someone, someday, makes a movie about the historical battle of Thermopylae, I hope you enjoy it. But why in the world did you go to see this one, if that's what you wanted? And when you realized it wasn't historical, why the inability to change gears, and understand its actual intent?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Actually, what I think is hilarious is the fact that I believe a lot of the same people who hated Troy for intentionally creating an "historical" version of the Iliad, with no mythological elements, are also hating on 300 for using a lot of mythological elements, and intentionally straying from the history
The same source culture, the same general subject ... and the same lack of ability to enjoy a film within its own context, rather than imposing your own.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
There was a 2-hour show on the History Channel recently on the battle. It was interesting and informative.
I enjoyed both it and the movie.
Wish I had the movie DVRed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Watched it on IMAX too. Don't care too much about the historical inaccuracies, this movie doesn't even pretend to be historical, so whatever...staying out of that conversation.
The annoying thing is that halfway through the movie, I couldn't stop smiling because Xerxes is a Goa'uld! Seriously, the voice, the "kneel before your god" stuff, the creepy gay vibe (in the sense of "creepy gay", not gay IS creepy), and I could even have sworn that at one point his eyes were glowing.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I just got back from seeing this movie. And I thought it was quite good. Very powerful. I really enjoyed it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I got over the historical inaccuracies, and overall thought it was an average, decent film. I don't agree with the people who are raving about how awesome it is, and I don't agree with the people who say it's the worst thing ever.
The scene where Xerxes tried to give Leonidas a back massage was a bit beyond my ability to not laugh at though. Luckily most of the audience seemed to agree with me.
The slow motion was cool and artsy at first. It quickly became annoying. Slow motion used for dramatic effect should operate on a less is more policy. I feel like I paid for three thirds of a movie but only got two of them. I want a partial refund.
The end was cool. After watching the 300 of them mow down all those Persians, watching them by the thousands was fun. It gave me a bit of the feeling actual Greeks must have had back then, that after seeing such a dramatic retelling of Thermopylae, the idea of them by the thousands is awe inspiring.
I could have lived without everything involving Leonidas' wife and the Spartan politics. I guess it worked as a palatte cleanser in between battle scenes. But that, and the goofy bit with the ephors and the "oracle," were a waste of time to me. This movie was about the flashy battle scenes (which were VERY flashy ), the rest just seemed like filler.
Did anyone else get Gladiator vibes from the two scenes in the wheat fields?
Posted by bluenessuno (Member # 5535) on :
yes to the wheat field. did appreciate the end credits? reminded me of the animated credits for The Incredibles.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:The scene where Xerxes tried to give Leonidas a back massage was a bit beyond my ability to not laugh at though. Luckily most of the audience seemed to agree with me.
It was like Bush trying to give the German chancellor a shoulder rub.
I had fun watching it. This time last year, (right before finals) I watched V for Vendetta. I hope they release another good comic book movie next year.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
It made me want to purchase the book. Is it good too?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
The book is incredible. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Sounds like a birthday present.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I liked that movie. It was cool. It was what I wanted it to be which was a movie with men running around with weapons. it made me want to go out and get a spear... Since I want a spear anyway. But, the Spartans kind of frustrate me, their culture was so *shudder* But I did see a documentary about them ages ago that was interesting.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
Typical Quentin Tarantino movie. Good action scenes, but I think they butchered the story. It's too bad, becasue I love Frank Millers graphic novels.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Typical Quentin Tarantino movie. Good action scenes, but I think they butchered the story. It's too bad, becasue I love Frank Millers graphic novels.
What on earth....? First question: Have you ever seen a Quentin Tarantino movie? Second question: Have you read the graphic novel? Cause it wasn't anything like a Quentin Tarantino movie, and it was largely faithful to the graphic novel. Many of the shots/images were translated right off the page, and most of the dialogue is directly from the book. Sorry for sounding so astonished. I didn't know how else to react.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Unabashadly pro-Sparta movie.
I thought it was interesting in that the Spartans were shown as what most people nowadays would often consider barbarians, while the Persians were usually not.
I think the movie should not be seen by people who don't have an understanding of nuance or reality, who can't see the movie for a... Spartan myth.
As has been mentioned, I, too, think the whole rape of the queen scene does't work within the movie (or the novel, if it was in there the same way). It would have been better if they had kept within the theme of the movie and she had refused to 'kneel'.
On a somewhat peripheral note, I don't think I've ever really wanted to kick someone's ass as much as I did the *two* families who brought their young children to the movie. One family's daughter was ten, the other four.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:Typical Quentin Tarantino movie. Good action scenes, but I think they butchered the story. It's too bad, becasue I love Frank Millers graphic novels.
What on earth....? First question: Have you ever seen a Quentin Tarantino movie? Second question: Have you read the graphic novel? Cause it wasn't anything like a Quentin Tarantino movie, and it was largely faithful to the graphic novel. Many of the shots/images were translated right off the page, and most of the dialogue is directly from the book. Sorry for sounding so astonished. I didn't know how else to react.
1. Yes, I have.
2. I have read the graphic novel. It just seemed to me that they took away some of the deepness of the story. For example, when I read the novel I was legitimately upset when Leonidas knelt before Xerxes. It was such a huge moment on paper, but in the movie it didn't seem like a big deal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It took like five minutes for him to actually kneel. I'd call it a big deal.
(I was going to keep the rhyme going there with something about movie reels and bringing the Spartans to heel, maybe even something about what the scene made me feel. But I figured that was going overboard.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
$70 million
Biggest March opening ever. Set all kinds of records. $22,000 a theatre on a wide release. The critics may have mixed feelings, but this movie is a box office smash.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:1. Yes, I have.
Okay, so -- where's the comparison? How is this at all similar to a QT movie?
quote:2. I have read the graphic novel. It just seemed to me that they took away some of the deepness of the story. For example, when I read the novel I was legitimately upset when Leonidas knelt before Xerxes. It was such a huge moment on paper, but in the movie it didn't seem like a big deal.
Huh. Okay. So that's the example (in a movie where 90% of the dialogue and images are lifted directly from the comic) of unfaithfulness. Not that it was actually unfaithful, but there was this one moment where -- even though it played out exactly the same way and contained exactly the same dialogue and looked exactly the same -- it didn't seem faithful. Well, that makes sense.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Ah, well. Really... Sorry to be such a spoilsport. I just, suffice to day, I disagree with your take. I thought it was extremely faithful, and I really, really liked it.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
This movie was a tad worse than "V is for Vengeance" (Or whatever its title was.)
I actually kind of wanted the Spartans to get slaughtered left and right.
I mean, when they finally fall, I don't see why it isn't treated as a victorious, joyous moment for the invading hordes. Just think how much they went through!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Vendetta.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I saw it and really liked it. I did go in expecting to see a Frank Miller graphic novel turned into a movie so it really fulfilled my expectations. I think a lot of liking it or not liking it depends on what you think you were going to see
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I saw it last night and really enjoyed it. It was exactly what I was expecting: really cool looking violence on a very large scale.
A couple of parts bugged me a little. The wolf at the beginning didn't look very much like a wolf to me. I know it was just a flashback in a flashback, or something, but still the entire thing is a retelling of a story, and everything else tries for a realistic look, so what's with the cartoon wolf?
Also, the whole flashback in a flashback thing confused me. At the beginning and the end it makes it clear that this is all a speech before the troops to rally them for the big battle, but then all of a sudden the story is a recap for the council. So which is it? Is the narrator talking to the council or to the soldiers, or did he tell the same story to all of them? I dunno, it wasn't a bad thing, it was just a little confusing to me.
And finally, the rippling man-flesh seemed a bit overplayed. Are those guys really that buff, or is that a whole buch of makeup and speccial effects? Seriously, every three seconds it's like "Look at this guys fabulous abs!" Meh, I'm probably just jealous.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Really that buff. I know Butler at least went through a very strenuous training program to get his body into that shape.
I'm jealous too.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm jealous too.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Really that buff. I know Butler at least went through a very strenuous training program to get his body into that shape.
Waitaminnit.... Leonidas is the Phantom of the Opera???? Seriously? I never would have figured that out from the posters.
Now I really gotta see this movie!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
"300" = Blood in sepia.
</lighthearted generalizations>
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I thought the movie was excellent. Not the best ever and I probably won't buy it, but I think I am going to see it again in the theater. No, it wasn't completely historically accurate. Big deal. They made a good movie from a good story. I approve.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Have you ever been to Sparta? It is fairly rocky and mountainous.
Why do you think I asked?
quote:Honestly, it's not supposed to be a historical movie and anyone who walks into it expecting more than a blood-soaked gorefest is stupid.
Yeah, no crap. I saw a couple of posts on here saying "I love historical fiction!" and I've seen PLENTY of people getting all excited to see a historical film on other forums as well. I was just trying to make a very clear warning: **NOT HISTORICAL FICTION** The first trailer that came out really, really downplayed the orcs and the way Xerxes is eight feet tall, so many, many people thought this film was something it's not.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: What's with all the protests about historical accuracy? Are you joking? Trying to parody your own position? This isn't a movie about the historical battle of Thermopylae. This is a mythical story of Leonidas's stand as told by one of his men — someone who, for instance:
* Has never seen an elephant or a rhinoceros before. * Has known Xerxes only from the tales of an exalted god-king. * Thinks Persians are effeminate and immoral. * Has a strong interest in making his story sound as powerful and epic as possible to its intended audience.
This film is intentionally outlandish and mythological in its presentation. This is a Spartan glorifying one of his greatest heroes, with more Spartans as his audience. It's actually a perfect frame story for the kind of film they wanted to make — I wish more films would be made this way.
Seriously, though, when someone, someday, makes a movie about the historical battle of Thermopylae, I hope you enjoy it. But why in the world did you go to see this one, if that's what you wanted? And when you realized it wasn't historical, why the inability to change gears, and understand its actual intent?
NO FREAKING KIDDING.
Did I say that I was expecting a this to be historical fiction? Where? I don't recall saying that anywhere. I recall saying how dumb it is that people have been hyping it as historical fiction.
If you want the truth, my usual gang of bad-movie-watching pals called me up and invited me to come to 300 with them specifically because it looked so awful. It delivered, and then some. I found the writing to be too tedious to bear, but at least the orcs and the goatheaded guy and Xerxes were hilarious.
No, I was not expecting a historical movie. And I never, EVER said that I was, so everybody lay off that angle with me, okay? What I was expecting is exactly what I got: A load of hilariously bad film.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It took like five minutes for him to actually kneel. I'd call it a big deal.
Only because the entire film was shot in slow-mo. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I saw it last night and loved it. It was exactly what I thought it'd be, wonderfully thrilling, beautifully choreographed, beautifully filmed endless violence Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
What's so good about "endless violence"? This movie was bereft of a serious story and was a cartoon in almost every aspect. I think this makes its violence all the more repulsive.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh god I forgot about the goat!
That and the Xerxes back massage were the most hilarious parts of the movie.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's interesting how no one at Hatrack is upset about the '-ist' parts of the movie.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Er... the what "ist" parts?
I know I was rolling my eyes at the "freedom vs. mysticism" junk, especially as I understand that those things weren't really much to do with the real events. Certainly not anti-mysticism. The way they portrayed the oracles and everything was utterly, completely wrong.
I think the way it was portrayed in history was more entertaining, actually, with the whole "Sparta will fall or it shall mourn for its king" prophecy, which Leonidas ended up causing to come true (the latter bit, at least.)
They certainly weren't fighting mysticism or superstition. That annoyed me.
The amount of nudity was slightly annoying, and did not make me comfortable. (especially considering I was sitting next to my mother and step dad in the movie theater. Joy.) I kept thinking "come on, get to the damn violence, I didn't come here to see nudity and grotesque erotic dances, damn it!"
The talk of freedom almost made me laugh. Sure. Freedom. Okay, that was what they were fighting for. Right.
Basically, the story was annoying as hell, but I didn't want to see a story, really, I wanted to see awesome action scenes. Which I got. Spartans with hard rock music in the background, what's more awesome than that? Very little, that's what.
On balance, I loved the movie. But if I ever see it again, I'm gonna skip over some parts.
Namely, all the story bits.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Along the lines of the first review linked in this thread, a lot of people are upset about the fact that the Persians are all black, and the women all get raped.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
You mean the fact that the Persians hired one black guy as a messenger? Seriously. The rest of them aren't black. They're orcs.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
The Spartans were fighting for freedom.
Their own freedom, Greece's freedom, their wives and children's freedom, their slaves free- oh wait, not that last one.
I found it kind of ironic that a group of people from a city forced to press its entire male population into soldiery in order to keep the Mycenaeans, who outnumbered them ten to one, in bondage would not shut up about freedom.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't think you can say the queen got raped. She was presented with a choice, and she decided consenting to sex was a better choice for her than not having his support in the counsel. It was a pragmatic decision, certainly, but I can't see how you can call it rape. Sex can be not enjoyable for the woman (or the man, for that matter) without it being rape.
As far as I'm concerned, she was the only female character in the movie. The oracle and the slave dancers were basically set dressing. If you're calling them women in the movie, than you have to call the random women walking around Sparta in the town scenes women in the movie, too, and none of them got raped. So either way you go, it's not an accurate statement.
As far as the role of women in the movie, a movie set in that time about a war is not going to have a lot of women in it. So what? There are movies where men are incidental characters, at best, although not as many because there isn't a part of human culture than makes for interesting movies that excludes men quite as effectively as war excluded women for most of history.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Please keep in mind that I am not invested in the viewpoint that people should be upset about the movie. I'm not really upset about the movie, but I definitely see what others are saying. The movie makes it pretty clear that the Spartans are barbarians and not worthy of emulation, but it also casts everyone who's not white and male as either 'orcs' or victims, if they were female. It does let the Spartans be some kind of heroes.
The problem, Puppy, is that all the Persians were some shade of brown. Yeah, they were orcs. I get it. But why not put any white orcs in there? Seriously. What's it take away from the movie? It's certainly historically accurate. Persians have lots of very 'white' people, and it's not like they couldn't make slaves of some white people on the way to Greece.
As for whether the queen was really raped, I withdraw the statement that she got raped, but I stand by my earlier statement that it makes no sense in the movie. It would've been much more in line with the theme of the movie for the queen to be the match of her king and not given in and then just killed Theron when he was revealed as a traitor. They already had hyped her previously as a Wtrong Spartan Woman With Spirit.
As it is, she submits and loses. Her killing of Theron at the end is just kind of whiny and pathetic and petulant, rather than victorious and strong. She's a loser and the oracle is the plaything for the oracles and all the other women are just incidental.
Women aren't just incidental in the movie, they are potrayed as victims. Brown people aren't just incidental in the movie, they are all potrayed as subhuman.
I enjoyed the movie, and I'm not saying that I think movies have to all be instructional or whatever, but I think that the movie could have succeeded just as well, and have been a little more inclusive by helping other people to revel in 'their own' being heroes so to speak. Why not?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Theron wouldn't have been revealed as a traitor if she hadn't killed him, it was the Persian coins spilling out when she killed him that revealed him. I'm not saying they couldn't have found a different way to reveal him as a traitor, but if it wasn't for him also betraying their deal there's no way she would have been the one to kill him. Not like she has to be, but just saying that your rewrite wouldn't have worked.
I didn't see her killing of him as whiny and pathetic, he betrayed her, and attacked her honor, her recourse was to kill him. *shrug* I don't think it was necessary to the movie, certainly, the movie was about what was going on down at the cliffs, the rest was incidental. And I agree that it would have been more in character for her to turn him down and take her chances with the council. But I don't see another fast way to tie up those loose ends without the accusation & killing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
He comes on to her. She rebuffs. He threatens to crush her in the council. If I remember correctly, she already had her audience, she was just letting him screw her so she had his voice. As he's walking away a Persian coin falls from his robes. Or In council, it's revealed that the other council dude whose name I can't forget has been following him and he makes his big rail against her, then she and the other coucil dude reveal him as a traitor. Or It turns out that she has her own money, being the queen and all, and has gotten the truth out of the oracles by paying them more. Or She learns from the oracle girl the truth of the whole matter, that the oracles are in the pay of the Persians, etc.
Take your pick. If you don't like the ones I've picked, I'm sure if you think hard enough you can come up with some thing that works. As you say, it's incidental. From what I understand, it wasn't even in the comic.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Storm, the orc-looking Persians were white. Or at the very least, they were of indeterminate race. Their skin was pale and ashen, and their faces were deformed enough not to bear the features of any real-world heritage.
I wonder if there is a way to portray an ancient conflict between a European power and a non-European power, take the Europeans' perspective, and not be called racist, no matter what you do.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
She wouldn't be the one to kill him in any of those. I think they did it the way they did to make her more important of a character than she would have been otherwise. This way she's noble for sacrificing her honor to get what she thinks is necessary to save her country and her husband, and then she's strong for killing him when he betrays her.
If she wasn't going to say yes, actually, I'd take the whole scene out. There's no point to it without the denouement, which couldn't happen if she said no. But if you pull it out, there's even less of a role for her in the film, and the producers face even more critisism for making a film without meaningful female characters. This way she kills at least one of the bad guys, which I think they thought they needed.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Storm, the orc-looking Persians were white. Or at the very least, they were of indeterminate race. Their skin was pale and ashen, and their faces were deformed enough not to bear the features of any real-world heritage.
I wonder if there is a way to portray an ancient conflict between a European power and a non-European power, take the Europeans' perspective, and not be called racist, no matter what you do.
You can still take the European perspective and still throw some white guys in the mix with the Persians. Stop playing the victim.
The way I understood what you were saying was that the Persians were orcs, as in just evil cannon fodder.
If you're only referring to those dudes who, when their masks were ripped off looked like orcs, I didn't see that they looked 'white'. You kind of do acknowledge this. If you're going to go that far, you might as well say Xerxes was 'white'. I mean, he's pretty pale. He's not really 'brown', right? More of a golden color.
For the sake of argument let's say that the orc guys were of indeterminate race, that still leaves all the for sure bad guys as not-white. I think my question of why they couldn't include some for-real white dudes in the movie still stands. Make a few of the nameless drones white. Big deal. It's factual, it's historical. It doesn't take away from the movie.
************************************
Eljay,
I forgot to add that the conclusion to all of those was the big stab. Sorry, I kind of thought it was implied. I think it would be perfectly acceptable for her to kill him when he's revealed as a traitor, rather than as revenge for getting screwed.
I think, too, it works better in that aspect is because one of the nicer bits of the movie was the love between Leonidas and his queen. Why sully the queen's virtue by throwing the edit: screwing bit in? By not screwing Theron, she keeps her honor, doesn't kneel, is on par with Leonidas, and gets her revenge. A good ending, I'd say.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh, I figured you were implying the big stab. My arguement is that in that society, the only way the woman standing in a huge crowd of men is the one to make the stab is if the man in question offended her personal honor and no one else thinks he's a bad guy. If he was revealed as a traitor first, through the coin drop or the other guy following him or bribing the old gross dudes on on the mountian, it would be an execution (by a man) or a duel (with a man.) She wouldn't get to be the one to kill him in any other scenario, I don't think.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What about if the honor of Spartan society is besmirched and she is acting in her queen capacity?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I still don't think it would fly. From the conversation with the first emissary from Xerxes, Spartan men rank first, and then Spartan women, because they give birth to Spartan men. Any man there would be seen as being more suited and having more right to the role. I don't think Queen has a capacity, beyond what the king indulges her. . . you saw how shocking it was for her to speak in the council at all.
Even if it did go down that way, though, it wouldn't be her being strong. . . she would be filling a symbolic role given to her by the men. Unless she does it by herself, unexpectedly, she's just being a puppet.
What she should have done was pretended to acquiesce when he propositioned her, and then killed him then, in her chambers. She'd get away with it, 'cause what honorable thing would he be doing in the King's chambers at night? And, of course, they'd find the Persian gold, too, which would clinch that he was scum.
Why the heck was he carrying it around with him, anyway? Seems dumb.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Eh, I think the movie could easily make her not have to have sex with Theron out of some benighted desired to get help. To me, Leonidas sleeping with Xerxes out of some desire to make the Persian army go away makes as much sense as Gorgo sleeping with Theron. Neither one is heroic.
It wouldn't be out of place for her to just lay the smack down on Theron then and there in the council chambers in queenly rage and get away with it any more than it does for her to kill him because of her besmirched honor being given away for nothing.
I guess the whole thing with her sleeping with him works for you. I don't buy at all that there isn't a place for her to be as heroic as the king in the movie--and I just don't buy her letting Theron have his way with her as being heroic. Sorry. edit: After getting the bit I missed, I see that it's really more that you want the a workable Theron death. Pardon for misreading.
I mean, which is more heroic, you are in a desperate spot and through guile, cunning, or strength you achieve your ends, or you let your adversary screw you up the butt, get deceived by him, and still not get what you want except for the fact that, as you say, he's so stupid he carries the Persian coins around with him? I mean, she didn't even really win over him, Eljay, except by getting lucky. How lame is that?
Come on, Eljay. There's got to be a better way.
quote: What she should have done was pretended to acquiesce when he propositioned her, and then killed him then, in her chambers. She'd get away with it, 'cause what honorable thing would he be doing in the King's chambers at night? And, of course, they'd find the Persian gold, too, which would clinch that he was scum.
edit: I seem to have glazed over this. Sorry. I agree that that might work. I like it better than the current way Theron's death is handled, anyway. I do think it would be better that she just outright kill his ass on the way to the bed chamber, rather than even let him insider her ceremonial holy of holies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Historically, it wouldn't have mattered if the gold was Persian or not, a Spartan having that kind of wealth, or really any wealth at all would have caused incredible scorn. Wealth was abhorred in Sparta during that time, in fact, Sparta was the first in Greece (I think they were the second after Lydia) to use money in the sense that we think of it today, and their money was iron rods, intentionally meant to be so cumbersome that no one would be able to easily acquire wealth. Which, if you're looking for historical accuracy, makes the scene with Leonidas bribing the Ephors look that much more ridiculous, to say nothing of the "oracle."
As I think it's been said elsewhere on here, I was under the impression that this movie is supposed to be a mythic tale as told by David Wenham's character. Surely, as the Persian empire included the middle east, into Pakistan, north into the -stans and into Egypt, there would probably have been a great many "brown" people in their army, though not 100%. But if this is an exaggerated tale as told by the one Spartan to survive the battle, you have to take everything with a healthy dose of salt.
As far as the plot with the Queen and Theron, the Ephors and their "oracle" and basically everything not involving the killing, does anyone even care about that part? That, and the "freedom" speeches all seemed like goofy stuff tacked on afterwards to try and turn it into a decent movie, but I honestly didn't care about any of it. I just wanted to see me some fightin. I guess it served it's purpose as a pallatte cleanser inbetween slaughters, but I found the non-fight stuff rather weak.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No one, I think, is arguing for historical accuracy. Certainly not me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It's not that it works for me, or that I want a workable Theron death. I really couldn't care less. What I'm arguing is that the writers/directors did it the way they did it to try to give the movie a strong female character, and that without her killing Theron they wouldn't have it, and there are very, very few plausible scenarios to get to that killing. So, you were saying that her having sex with him made her a weaker character, and I think they put it in in order to make her a stronger one.
I'm not even saying I think they succeeded. . . I'm kinda taking an apologist for the filmmakers role. I can't come up with another way to make it work, except the killing in the bedchambers thing, but I also don't think they needed to do it at all. Like I said a couple of posts ago, a movie about war in that era, I think it's perfectly reasonable for there not to be any strong female characters. Because honestly, women probably didn't play much of a role in anything interesting that happened related to the war.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K., I got ya. That's cool. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I liked the movie. And I liked that neither the oracle or Gorgo had large breasts. Just because usually when you see a naked breast in a movie, it's going to be big, ya know? So a little diversity in size is refreshing. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: No one, I think, is arguing for historical accuracy. Certainly not me.
Sorry, that first paragraph was just for some fun background info. I wasn't criticizing the movie based on it.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:1. Yes, I have.
Okay, so -- where's the comparison? How is this at all similar to a QT movie?
quote:2. I have read the graphic novel. It just seemed to me that they took away some of the deepness of the story. For example, when I read the novel I was legitimately upset when Leonidas knelt before Xerxes. It was such a huge moment on paper, but in the movie it didn't seem like a big deal.
Huh. Okay. So that's the example (in a movie where 90% of the dialogue and images are lifted directly from the comic) of unfaithfulness. Not that it was actually unfaithful, but there was this one moment where -- even though it played out exactly the same way and contained exactly the same dialogue and looked exactly the same -- it didn't seem faithful. Well, that makes sense.
1. I didn't offer a comparison. To me all Quentin Tarantino movies have great actions scenes and decent, if not poor acting.
2. Whats the problem here? Because I didn't feel the same attachment to characters and didn't feel the emotion of the story as much when I watched the movie, I don't make sense? Faithful to the story must mean two different things to you and I. Some books (or graphic novels in this case) are just meant to be read. Sort of how some things will have to be changed in the Ender's Game movie in order to make it a winner. If they used the book itself as their screenplay it wouldn't work too well.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: No one, I think, is arguing for historical accuracy. Certainly not me.
Sorry, that first paragraph was just for some fun background info. I wasn't criticizing the movie based on it.
Ah, I see.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
I liked the movie. And I liked that neither the oracle or Gorgo had large breasts. Just because usually when you see a naked breast in a movie, it's going to be big, ya know? So a little diversity in size is refreshing.
*whispers* I liked the fact that they had an older chick that looked good doing naked scenes. Gives me hope.
And, uh, it also gave me hope that they had a buff older dude. But in a different, completely non-gay way. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
. . . I'm older than she is.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
See, you are not focusing on the bit about looking good doing naked scenes. That's the the important part. Not the age. See. Or Mr. Saxon's apparently not so good age detector. Yep.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*grin*
Posted by bluenessuno (Member # 5535) on :
Leonidas showed a sureness in all his actions. Gorgo's surprise at Theron's betrayal, after her speech, leaves her looking desperate. Her unnecessary and perhaps obligatory submission is a misstep as Theron makes his points stronger to the council. In contrast, when Leonidas kneels, the narration begins and it all is a calculated effort, a last hurrah. Gorgo becomes panicked. There is no coins jingling to clue her and there should've been something to prove her composure. I just watched Out of the Past and believed Kathie Moffat's love for Jeff Markham. Her spin controls all the men about her. Is Jeff somewhat more her 'true' love than chump? As a femme fatale, she looses her composure at the end. Panicked, she snarls, “You rat!” I see Gorgo similarly. Instead of the attempted slap and the guards restraining her, show her command of the situation, her perception to the weight of gold on Theron's waist and then precede with the short sword stab. Her retribution is solid without the falter under Theron's accusations. Someone here or at IMDb felt the slow-mo lost impact with its overuse. And now I think the final spear toss needed the frame rate quickened. Then the jump/cut of the spear's point, through the dais backboard, and the reveal of Xerxes horrified face has the surprise that the slow-mo built toward. Xerxes kept the grotesques in his circle and now this scar makes him imperfect. The music, the guitar riffs, improved this movie and the fighting on screen.
Would this have been a good opportunity to spotlight actors from Greece?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: *grin*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Good grief, bluenessuno. You've been registered here since 2003 and only 23 posts. That's got to be some kind of record or something (he said, baiting the other lurkers).
I am about 300ed out for today, but I just wanted to tell you that I found your post interesting.
And just to be clear, I want to make sure it's clear, I really enjoyed the movie, too.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Anybody else love the ejaculating spears?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So apparently Iran hates this movie, and is going to cause an international rucus over it.
Apparently Frank Miller and Hollywood speak for America and the West.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Amazing movie.
and the Iranian govt. can go and screw itself, in my opinion, because I believe in free speech.
And although it is rather steeped in apparent symbolism... That is their right.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Here's the BBC article about this. Iran thinks "American Cultural Officials" researched how to attack Iranian culture. Which to us, of course, is ridiculous, but since that's the way things work there, I'm sure they believe it's the way they work here, too.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
In the process of looking for a TIME magazine article written from the Iranian perspective about 300, I came across this, which is also from the Iranian perspective.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Wow.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I'm amazed that, according to this guy at least, Hollywood has now decided to depict Pres Bush as the great war hero!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I do not endorse that guy's viewpoint. I just provide it for contrast.
For instance, he wants to make the Spartans the equivalent of modern Americans, but then goes on for several paragraphs about how the Persians aren't representative of real classical Persians.
Maybe, you know, the movie Persians are a kind of symbol for the modern Persians.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think anyone in the movie is a symbol of anything. All politics are being placed on it.
That's fine - that's part of what art is for. However, as far as I can tell, the filmmakers just wanted to make a bloody, fighting, awesome comic book movie.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
BBC article
quote:One paper said Iranians' ancestors were shown as "dumb savages"
<shrug> That's Hollywood, I guess. They're not the first, they won't be the last, and they're probably in good company. I don't think symbolism [as in, hawkery] is the goal.
Storm: Is this the TIME article you were looking for? This one is more about the reaction from the Iranian population than from the government.
--j_k
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah. I wasn't trying to say it was from the perspective of the government, but, yeah. Thanks. Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Ack, that's not what I meant to imply that you said, though reading my post I can see where it came from. Sorry.
--j_k
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't think anyone in the movie is a symbol of anything. All politics are being placed on it.
That's fine - that's part of what art is for. However, as far as I can tell, the filmmakers just wanted to make a bloody, fighting, awesome comic book movie.
It doesn't have to be, that's true, but considering that the author of the graphic novel that the movie is heavily based upon doesn't see it that way, I'd say there is room for the other interpretation, too.
I can't find the full transcript of the interview, but here are some relevant bits posted on another site:
quote: our country is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants, and we’re behaving like a collapsing empire. All collapsing empires collapse from within. … Ok, let’s talk about who we’re up against, because for some reason nobody ever talks about them or the sixth century barbarism they represent. … Where I would fault President Bush the most is that in the wake of 9/11 he didn’t mobilise our military … against our common foe. … [I explain my thoughts on this] mainly in historical terms… The country that fought Okinawa and Iwo Jima is now spilling precious blood but so little in comparison, it’s almost ridiculous, ant the stakes are almost as high as they were then. Mostly, a lot of people say, why did we attack Iraq, then?
Well, we’re taking on an idea. In the same way that nobody questioned it when we took on Japan after Pearl Harbour.
Q: But [Japan] did declare war on us, right?
MILLER: Yeah, well so did Iraq.
Note, I am right in line with Islamicism, Islamofascism, whatever you want to call it being a threat. It's not clear to me that the best way to deal with it is the military, but then again, it's not clear to me that it's not. So, I'm not against being militant against the 'barbarian hordes'.
On the other hand, this doesn't excuse propaganda and lying, or at least listening to what all sides have to say regarding what is true or false in how a film depicts a group.
Sometimes a cigar really isn't just a cigar in a film.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Ack, that's not what I meant to imply that you said, though reading my post I can see where it came from. Sorry.
--j_k
No problem. I'm sure it's my fault I didn't read what you said more perceptively.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I'm alittle late on this, but I finally got to see "300" today. This is after months and months of my brother eagerly anticipating and talking about this film.
I was seriously disappointed.
I could complain about the goat or the sword-arms guy. I could point out that my favorite part of the movie was simply the half-naked men.
But more than anything, I just want to smack whoever A) made the decision to have a narrator and B) wrote his dialogue.
So many times the narrator was describing in words what I could see on the screen with my own two eyes. I see the Greek men leaving the battlefield with Sparta's messenger following reluctantly. But I'm so having to listen to some guy SAY "a hundred men left and only one looked back." I kept wanting to scream, "I KNOW." I know because you're showing me. I can SEE. He kept describing the action or telling me what the characters felt, which was a shame since the cast was excellent and I could read their emotions in their eyes. I kept wanting to put the movie on mute.
My roommate and I decided it suffers from "George Lucas Syndrome." The oversized elephants and mutant humans were so unbelievable that it completely took me out of the movie experience. I wasn't looking at the ephrons or the hunchback and seeing scarred, diseased, deformed men. I was seeing alot of latex makeup and it ruined it for me. The CGI rhino and elephants were a nightmare. Add in some unnecessary, ridiculous attempts at dramatic dialogue and you have stylish George Lucas film. I felt like there needed to be someone on the set or in the editting room playing Devil's Advocate and pulling in the reins on the "creative department."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The narrator is integral to the movie. It's the reason why, within the movie, so many on the Persian side look monstrous, that, for instance, Xerxes is ten feet tall and speaks with a kind of cosmic voice.
These things are not just the director being goofy.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
If the narrator is so integral, he should say something other than a description of the onscreen action. But by repeating the obvious, he became redundant rather than adding anything to the storytelling.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, didn't mean to argue with your interpretation of the narrator. Pardon.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Cool movie, very much in keeping with the over the top comic book style of Sin City. I thought it was worth the price of admission. Plus it put me in the mood to kill Persians, which could prove useful in the near future...
I actually did not care or particularly concern myself with the Persians, I wondered if, like Braveheart for the Scot's this movie would be received with pride by the modern day Greek's. It is nice that they have something (besides that gay porn flick Alexander), Hollywood has done the Chinese, Scots, Romans, Irish, British and Jews. I am glad the Greeks get a turn.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::sigh::
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
The narrator was completely necessary. The entire structure of the film is based upon there being the narrator, as the movie is nothing more than the narrator's mythical retelling of events. That's how the sto--
nevermind. I guess you know this, just didn't like it anyway.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I understood what it was trying to do, and I appreciated the narrator-myth thing going on, I was just bored. The fights weren't that cool, I didn't give a rat's about any of the characters so I didn't really care what their eventual fate was and... yeah. Very meh.
Sometimes I wonder if, like Shakespeare was meant to be witnessed and not read, graphic novels were meant to be read and not witnessed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't mind the narrator for some of the scenes. The scene Shanna mentions where David Wenham is the only one leaving while the others remain, that I think would have been much cooler in silence. Other than that, he went back and forth from cool to superflous.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Saw this movie last night. I wasn't going to see it because I really didn't like Sin City, so I figured I'd give Frank Miller a pass. Other than the Frank Miller thing, I went into it with a pretty open mind, saw no previews, and didn't know anything about the hype or politicizing that has happened. It was incredible. I'll definitely buy it, and very possibly see it in the theater again.
Plus, anything that makes the Iranians start ranting about American cultural officials has entertainment value beyond the theater.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Kinda funny. But yeah, as you can tell, I'm really looking forward to this movie.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)