Some comments on 300

[dianahsieh]

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul and I saw 300 tonight. I was seriously disappointed.

I was most disappointed aesthetically. The movie failed to connect its loudly-proclaimed broad abstractions to its concretes, mostly notably in the case of the ideas of reason and freedom. Consider a few examples.

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

First, Leonidas was supposed to be uncompromising. He wasn't swayed by the appeals of Xerxes (and the deformed Ephialtes) to be reasonable by submitting to Persian rule. Yet he compromised from the very start, not just by submitting to the mystical demands of the Ephors, but then by circumventing their demands without directly challenging them. The fact that he did so begrudgingly, as a necessity of Spartan political life, shows him to be open to compromise in the name of necessity. So why not compromise with the Persians too? Just because, I guess.

Second, the Spartans were repeatedly said to be superb warriors, not just for their strength, courage and skills, but also for their use of reason. However, the training of the youth was not just purely physical, but also mostly the endurance of pains like freezing cold human brutality. Even worse, the training was positively irrational, e.g. the young men had to steal food to live, then would be brutally punished if caught. Unsurprisingly then, the Spartans showed basically no ingenuity in battle in the movie. They relied solely on their strength, skill, discipline, courage, and even indifference to life -- not on any clever tactics. In contrast, Herodotus recounts that the Spartans would often fake retreats, then turn back en masse to slaughter unwary Persians. It's significant that that bit of actual history was omitted from the movie, I think.

Third, Sparta was clearly portrayed in the movie as a fundamentally totalitarian society. (That's certainly accurate.) Yet those concrete facts were never reconciled with all the Spartan talk about the value of freedom. So really, what made life under Persian rule so much worse than life under Spartan rule? That totalitarianism was also grossly inconsistent with Sparta's supposed ideal of reason. Unsurprisingly, no rationale was ever offered for Sparta's overwhelmingly militaristic culture: it was just supposed to be obviously superior to a city in which the army is composed of reservist potters and sculptors.

Fourth, and perhaps most galling of all, the final heroism of the Spartans was portrayed as nothing short of senseless adherence to duty. The Spartans were forbidden from retreating in battle. They could only stay, fight, and die -- and that's what they did. To retreat was portrayed as obvious cowardice -- yet the movie Spartans had absolutely no rational reason to stand their ground. As recounted by Herodotus, the Spartans stayed for a very rational reason: the unprepared Greek city-states to the south desperately needed time to muster their forces. The Spartans fought at the pass after the betrayal to hold off the Persians for a bit longer. Unlike in the movie, where all were slaughtered immediately, the real Spartans achieved that purpose with their deaths.

These failures to connect the abstract ideals of the movie with its concretes was the reason why, I think, the dialogue of the movie often seemed like a disconnected series of stirring but empty one-liners. It was, to put it in terms of Leonard Peikoff's "DIM Hypothesis," very much M1. It aspired to be more than the writers could muster, I think.

That's not to say that I didn't like some of the elements of the movie. I very much enjoyed the characters of Leonidas and Gorgo. Plus, those nearly-naked Spartan soldiers were mighty easy on the eyes. I decided not to focus on those better elements of the movie not just because I regard them as inessential, but also because I've already seen much praise for the movie, including from Objectivists.

Overall, I thought the movie a serious failure. That was disappointing.

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002347.html

[aequalsa]

I must respectfully disagree with your evaluation of the film.

I too would liked to have seen a 4 hour film with more of the politics, philosophy and bold tactics made explicit, but realistically, movies that long are difficult to market. Movies are usually 2-2.5 hours with rare exceptions. Inside of that time frame it is difficult to tell more then one story. The story they chose to tell was about the heroism of those 300 men which I thought they did extraordinarily well. They left out many things from the actual event as they usually do, but I think they captured the essentials of their unapologetic heroism which takes it far from being a serious failure, in my book.

I took Leonidas' circumvention of the politicians to amount to "but I don't think of you." He did what he knew to be right, and did not waste time or energy fighting a political war at home and focused his time and energy on the actual crisis at hand. He wasn't presented as a politician or orator, which was made obvious by his sending the one-eyed fellow who was good at speaking back. He was a man of action and he acted. Not without thought, but without the need for explanation to others.

So few movies present men as efficacious heroes that I am utterly moved by it. Heroes that advocate reason and freedom and oppose mysticism by name? Wow! Maybe their full understanding of those terms was not displayed by dialogue but the very fact that they were mentioned signals a great step forward. Even more uplifting to me was the fact that I arrived at the theatre 30 minutes before they opened, on the third day the movie was out, and still had hundreds in line in front of me. The positive response by the rest of the population for a movie like that makes me think much more highly and optimistically about the American sense of life.

Edited March 13, 2007 by softwareNerd
Removed quote of previous post

[KendallJ]

aqualasa. They are disagreeing with her on the comments of her own board as well. Including one I just posted.

[aequalsa]

aqualasa. They are disagreeing with her on the comments of her own board as well. Including one I just posted.

Thanks Kendell. Great post and review, BTW.

[dianahsieh]

*** Merged with earlier topic ***

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul and I just finished watching the movie 300 again. I disliked it as much as ever, if not more. I stand by my original objection that the loudly proclaimed ideals of reason, justice, and freedom were blatantly contradicted by the concretes of Spartan life. To that, I would add that the movie portrays the Spartans as much worse than they were -- for example, in their political system of hereditary kingship, in their ideals of blind duty and obedience, in their law against retreat, and most of all in their explicit worship of utterly pointless "glorious" death in battle. That's bad enough, but what's so much worse is that the film deeply admires the Spartans for those vicious qualities -- and expects us to do the same. Toward the end of the battle, the death-worship is so perfect and complete in both word and deed that I can't even enjoy it as an action film.

Phooey!

Edited December 28, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added "topic merged" annotation

[dan_edge]

Well, Bah Humbug, Diana! While I didn't fawn over the movie like some, I still enjoyed it. I did like the fact that Leonidas tells the religious nuts to go screw themselves while he saved his people. Never give up, never surrender! Oh wait, that's the Galaxy Quest anthem...

--Dan Edge

[aequalsa]

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul and I just finished watching the movie 300 again. I disliked it

...

Phooey!

While I understand the problems you have with the movie, I still very much enjoy it. This may have to do with which aspects of the film I focus on(the queens character and the anti religious nature of the film,etc) and what I excuse. For example, the "death worship," I think is partially a very necessary aspect of war. To get men to kill others or put themselves in great jeopardy is no simple task. Consider the abysmally low fire and hit rates of all wars prior to Vietnam. While the reasons for fighting and the planning of strategy and tactic require great rationality, the actual doing of the act is often irrational...or more accurately a-rational. In extreme stress, the mid-brain takes over and is unfortunately not especially amenable to reason. What causes men to continue to act is habituation and and strong emotions, likely attached to strongly held ideals, previously accepted.

So, while ideally, I agree that it would be preferable to have every soldier on the field be acutely aware of his values with them fully integrated in an emotional way, the actuality is that most men are not, and will not be. So motivation through fear(killing of deserters, social ostracization,etc) and "glory" (increased social standing here or in the after life) combined with heavy drilling of the particular act you want them to accomplish(killing other humans) is mainly what seems to work.

I also excuse any dissimilarities it has to actual events and circumstances. Because it is a movie, based on a comic book, based on incomplete 2500 year old reports, mostly by people not there to witness it, of an actual event.

Edited December 28, 2007 by softwareNerd
Fixed quote tag

[Thales]

I disagree with so much of that.

They said they were fighting for freedom and reason against tyranny and mysticism, and that's something you can't just dismiss as if it were irrelevant. It was explicitly in the movie, so I think they deserve credit for endorsing those values.

Leonidas decided, by his own rational mind, against the “wisdom” of the mystics, that they must fight and he had a smart, non-suicidal way to fight. He went against his “duty” as king.

As to fighting for “pointless “glorious” death in battle”, I don't agree at all. They were fighting not to die, but to win against an on coming legion that was trying to take their lives and liberty. The battle came to them and they were the few who were willing to fight. They wanted and expected to win the battle and they likely would have if it had not been for a traitor. Leonidas even said something to the effect "It was great to have lived by your side" to one of his fellow soldiers in battle, to counter the soldier’s statement "It is an honor to die by your side".

There is great honor in fighting to the death for that which you value, if it is a positive value. When you are willing to strain every fiber of your being to defend that which you value, and the values are good, then that is honorable. If they were just going out there to die in some glorious battle, the movie would have made no sense. They had a clear objective, to win. They were going out there to win against an enemy, not to die. In fact, the saying was “Come back with your shield or on it”, which tells me there were two options, one of which was life, and life was the option they would have greatly preferred.

What was outstanding about the movie was the uncompromising willingness to defend ones life and values against ones enemies. Something which stands in stark contrast to today's world of appeasement. It concretizes that much and the fact that it is based on a real historical battle, however poorly, gives it all the more merit.

[Moebius]

I agree with all of Diana's points. It is very similar to how I felt about the movie.

They said they were fighting for freedom and reason against tyranny and mysticism, and that's something you can't just dismiss as if it were irrelevant. It was explicitly in the movie, so I think they deserve credit for endorsing those values.

They say that, but they live and act differently. They are against PERSIAN tyranny, but they are okay with Spartan tyranny. They are religious, they just don't want the PERSIAN religion. They FORCE every able-bodied child to fight, they KILL all the lame ones, they sustain their society of fighters and "heros" by enslaving their neighbors. They say the hunchback can not fight because he could not hold the phalanx, then spent 95% of their battles doing 1 on 1 fighting.

Sometimes instead of projecting your own feelings on the lines they spout, you need to consider the context and think about what they actually meant and how they actually act.

[Thales]

I agree with all of Diana's points. It is very similar to how I felt about the movie.

You mean they were on a suicide mission going out to die, and not to defend their way of life? You missed so very much of the movie. One big part of the movie was the Leonida's love for his wife. This was perhaps his biggest reason for fighting. This came through for me.

They say that, but they live and act differently. They are against PERSIAN tyranny, but they are okay with Spartan tyranny. They are religious, they just don't want the PERSIAN religion. They FORCE every able-bodied child to fight, they KILL all the lame ones, they sustain their society of fighters and "heros" by enslaving their neighbors. They say the hunchback can not fight because he could not hold the phalanx, then spent 95% of their battles doing 1 on 1 fighting.

First, I don't remember them "enslaving their neighbors", but they did get help from them to do battle. Second, the way I viewed the movie is that it was from the distant past, when rights theory had not yet been developed. It was somewhat historical in that regard. It would not have been reasonable to expect a full rights respecting society 100 years before Aristotle, and 2000 years before John Locke. Finally, the Spartans, by all observation, had a superior society to the Persians, in which they questioned mysticism, and where they had a governing body of delegates who argued points of law.

Yes, what they did to kids was horrible, but there is a real world oriented logic to it. Healthier people survive better and are less of a burden. It's not mindless brutality. Today we are far wiser about such things, but show some appreciation for what it takes to get from point A to point B. Mankind has been on earth for circa 90,000 years, and it's only the last 4,000 or so that we were able to get a tenuous foot hold, and a mere 2000 years since the Greeks.

As to your point about the hunchback, I don't get it. Do you think that Frank Miller wrote the part so that Leonidas was a liar? Or, do you, rather, believe it was supposed to be an honest and sincere moment showing his fairness? I think the later. And, anyway, the way they fought is that they held their shields together against an initial on coming charge, and then they fought through it. Once the enemy was thrown back and dispersed the fighting was more individualized.

In fact, the whole point of the fighting method was to keep the surface area such that the Persians could not effectively use their far superior numbers to overwhelm the Spartans, which is why they fought close together in a tight corridor.

Sometimes instead of projecting your own feelings on the lines they spout, you need to consider the context and think about what they actually meant and how they actually act.

Look at it as the nascent beginnings of Greek civilization, in which reason is just starting to be emphasized, and the results of its application have yet to be fully realized. This was the beginning of better things, even if modern Western societies are far superior thanks to those beginnings.

The lines they spouted had meaning, and they did act on them: they spurned mysticism, they followed reason, they fought for a freer society as against a less free society. And, btw, one clear example of that freedom was the Queen Gorgo’s ability to speak her mind, which rankled the Persian messenger.

[Moebius]

You mean they were on a suicide mission going out to die, and not to defend their way of life? You missed so very much of the movie. One big part of the movie was the Leonida's love for his wife. This was perhaps his biggest reason for fighting. This came through for me.

Personally I think Leonidas, being the King of Sparta, would have fought the Persian regardless of whether or not he loved his wife. How you want to read his motives though is up to you.

First, I don't remember them "enslaving their neighbors", but they did get help from them to do battle. Second, the way I viewed the movie is that it was from the distant past, when rights theory had not yet been developed. It was somewhat historical in that regard. It would not have been reasonable to expect a full rights respecting society 100 years before Aristotle, and 2000 years before John Locke. Finally, the Spartans, by all observation, had a superior society to the Persians, in which they questioned mysticism, and where they had a governing body of delegates who argued points of law.

Sparta existed on the back of slaves. It is simply a historical fact. How else do you think a warrior society where every single man lived for violence raise their crops or build ANYTHING? Sure, the movie is set in the past. Yet you can still compare the Spartan society with other cultures from the same era. Sparta's was a barbaric culture based on force and violence, whether historically or as presented in the film. And finally, as far as I can tell Leonidas was the only man in the film that questioned mysticism, and only when the Ephors did not comply with his wishes. The fact that the Spartans were required to consult the Ephors in the first place (along with sacrificing virgins to them and what not) should tell you how steeped in mysticism Sparta was. So I will say again that when Leonidas proclaims to fight against mysticism, when he really meant was only PERSIAN mysticism, and religion -particularly Greek religion- in general.

If your only defense for the brutalities and moral corruptness of Spartan culture is "well they existed back in the days", then the same thing would apply to the Persians.

Yes, what they did to kids was horrible, but there is a real world oriented logic to it. Healthier people survive better and are less of a burden. It's not mindless brutality. Today we are far wiser about such things, but show some appreciation for what it takes to get from point A to point B. Mankind has been on earth for circa 90,000 years, and it's only the last 4,000 or so that we were able to get a tenuous foot hold, and a mere 2000 years since the Greeks.

I did not say that Sparta's practice of infanticide was pointless. They killed them because they would not be able to fight as well, period. Face it -- the Spartans did not kill those kids because "the healthier people survive better". They killed them because they couldn't fight as well. I do not see how the length of time that humans has existed is relevant when passing moral judgment. Note that historically other societies, be it fellow Greeks or the Persians, did not need to resort to these practices to prosper.

As to your point about the hunchback, I don't get it. Do you think that Frank Miller wrote the part so that Leonidas was a liar? Or, do you, rather, believe it was supposed to be an honest and sincere moment showing his fairness? I think the later. And, anyway, the way they fought is that they held their shields together against an initial on coming charge, and then they fought through it. Once the enemy was thrown back and dispersed the fighting was more individualized.

In fact, the whole point of the fighting method was to keep the surface area such that the Persians could not effectively use their far superior numbers to overwhelm the Spartans, which is why they fought close together in a tight corridor.

I think Frank Miller is a mediocre writer of limited scope. And yeah, they fought in phalanx formation for about five minutes during the first battle -- which accounts for the 5% of running time that I talked about. And yes, I am aware of what the Spartan plan is supposed to be. They utilized it to great effect for that whole of five minutes that I was talking about.

Look at it as the nascent beginnings of Greek civilization, in which reason is just starting to be emphasized, and the results of its application have yet to be fully realized. This was the beginning of better things, even if modern Western societies are far superior thanks to those beginnings.

Reason existed before, after, and regardless of the Greeks. It is simply the nature of human beings to utilize reason to survive. To give credit where it is due however, the Greeks began the systemic study of reason based philosophy which proved to be the foundation of modern society, and I give them major props. I do not see the greatness of Greek culture as being relevant to a review of the film however, unless you mean to say that any film regarding the Greeks automatically gets extra points for the time period it depicts.

The lines they spouted had meaning, and they did act on them: they spurned mysticism, they followed reason, they fought for a freer society as against a less free society. And, btw, one clear example of that freedom was the Queen Gorgo’s ability to speak her mind, which rankled the Persian messenger.

The ONLY instance in the film where the Spartans spurned mysticism was when Leonidas defied the Ephors. And like I said, it was only because the Ephors disagreed with his (certainly reasonable) decision. Had the Ephors said "sure Leonidas, fight the Persians", there would have been no spurning to speak of. So as I see it, it is an individual act by Leonidas that does not represent the Spartans as a whole, and Leonidas did it not because he was anti-religious in general but because he believed (correctly) the Ephors to be corrupt. As for reason, I suppose the fact that Leonidas recognized the threat and acted on it counts as one instance. Otherwise there was scant little to speak of in terms of battle tactics, what with wearing thongs into battle and all that one on one scattered fighting -- which to be fair I did not expect there to be. I mean, the film is what it is. It is supposed to be a glorious, comic based, adrenaline-filled violence fest meant to appeal to teenage boys. For a better example of a film that portrayed a hero that uses reason, look at a movie like Braveheart, where the protagonist was taught that a warrior uses his head, and then applied that lesson over and over again throughout the film.

As for the queen, I agree that in the film and historically Spartan women enjoyed more relative freedom than their average Greek counterparts. Although frankly that is pretty minor. Yeah I liked both Leonidas' and the Queen's characters, but a technical standpoint they were very one dimensional and under-developed. Leonidas' lines consisted pretty much entirely of yelling empty one-liners at the top of his lung.

I do not doubt that Frank Miller might have a message somewhere in the film, but it certainly was not very clear and is perhaps limited by his capacities as a writer. Yeah, I guess Leonidas was supposed to represent reason and freedom, but sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.