'300' - the Spartans open in Central Asia!

Yesterday I watched the old epic "300 Spartans", the movie that inspired Frank Miller to do his comic novel '300.' For those of you with sharp eyes and a good memory you may have noticed some visual cues from the movie in Miller's artwork, e.g. the helmet worn by the Persian herald in the comic, and worn by the deformed traitor in the movie. It got me thinking that, despite some very real qualms I have about '300' - e.g. its use of dark skin and physical deformities as emblems of evil - , it is an exciting, high energy romp that gets close to what the ancient Greeks might have appreciated.

Yet not everyone is happy. The Iranian government for example, which points out that it is insulting to the greater Iranian nation. In fact, it is insulting to all Central Asians (I can't say they don't have a point) since the Iranian Empire used to rule Central Asia. So much so that they are trying to get countries like Uzbekistan (and probably Tajikistan and all the other Stans) to ban it.

So far the Uzbeks, who don't like Iranians very much any way, are holding firm to their new found freedom to watch any damn piece of Western trash they want!

Good for them.

[though the Iranians DO have a point]

Clemens' Comedy Corner

For you '300' fans and non-fans alike: you may be aware that there is a great deal of discussion out there in blogland about the homoeroticism of the movie. I think that Andrew Sullivan has discovered the ultimate answer to this important question over on YouTube. Almost makes me want to see the movie again.

Carmen* thought the clip was great so check it out!



*in the Clemens' household, the final arbiter of all things relating to taste (or maybe just all things). And you should read the comic version of '300' by the way.

An Update on Salamis and the Spartans

Jack's comment about the Athenians had Spartan help at the battle is more accurate than my account that they were all alone. That'll teach me for relying on memory!

The Wikipedia article he cites seems to be accurate. In my defense I will say that the basic point is still clear - the ancient Greeks, or at least the Athenians and their pals, thought of it as an Athenian victory because the action took place partly to protect the evacuated population of Athens, the general in command was Athenian, and about half the navy was Athenian (180 by Herodotus' account). When you consider that the next largest contingent was 40 ships (from Corinth), and most sent fewer than 10, you can see how vital Athens was to the project.

Most of the states sending ships were either Athenian allies or from the Peloponnese, i.e. south of the Isthmus of Corinth. Most of Greece north of the Isthmus went over to the Persians. You will also notice that the Athenian commander and the Spartan commander almost came to blows over strategy, with the Athenian finally resorting to trickery to get the battle started. I have to admit that this last detail seems likely to be Athenian propaganda, but who knows?

Here's a paragraph from Victor Davis Hanson's article on the battle in the Reader's Companion to Military History (since I wrote about five short articles for the same book you could say that we are co-authors, along with about 160 others):

... Greeks rightly saw the victorious rowers of Salamis as proof of the skill and courage inherent within the nascent democratic citizenry of Athens. But in the years subsequent, reactionary philosophers took a dimmer view. Plato and Aristotle traced radical democracy, Athenian maritime imperialism, and the collapse of the traditional Greek values back to Salamis -- a victory that had given enormous prestige to the poor and ill-bred of the fleet, and therefore in their eyes had made the Greeks "worse as a people." Few Greeks, however, shared their jaded appraisal, and instead
rightly commemorated Salamis as the battle that had saved the West.

Which also happens to be Hanson's view oddly enough.

Thanks Jack!

"300" - and the Hard Right

Perhaps I should have phrased that a little differently, considering how some of Andrew Sullivan's readers have interpreted '300'. [and btw, thanks Elliot, and Anactoria!] But have you begun to wonder what real men, the burly men of the Right Wing would make of this flick? I mean the John Wayne/Gary Cooper type?

Well, just check out this sharply observant review by a Hollywood writer writing under the name David Kahane on National Review Online. It even mentions Wayne and Cooper, pining for a simpler time when you knew who your enemies were. First notice that the first three paragraphs make no sense at all unless you assume, like, say, Dan Simmons, that our enemies consist of the entire Muslim population of the planet, plain and simple. Here is an example of
the prose of this review:

The Spartans mock the god-king Xerxes (whose traveling throne resembles a particularly louche Brazilian gay-pride carnival float), mow down his armored “immortal” holy warriors clad is nothing but red cloaks, loincloths, and sandals, and generally give their last full measure to defend Greek civilization against superstition and tyranny. Where are the liberal Spartan voices raised in protest against this blatant homophobia, xenophobia, and racism?

You might note from that last line that Mr Kahane has no idea about the homoerotic appeal of the Spartans, nor that gay men aren't all queens. But, let that pass. Just read the review and see what you think.

All I'll say about it is that Kahane is certainly no poseur.

"300" - the movie review

Here's a pop quiz for all you apparently ill informed Christians out there in America (at least according to Claw of the Conciliator): who in the Bible is referred to as God's messiah, other than Jesus?

Answer is: Cyrus, Great King, King of King, King of all the lands, etc etc. And the Lord's Anointed. (By the by, that is the EVIL PERSIAN EMPIRE of the new movie "300" we are talking about here. And boy, is it EVIL!)

What did he do to deserve such a rave from the Children of Israel and their God? He united civilization under an enlightened and fair rule, one that revered law and attempted to right the wrongs done to down trodden minorities like the Babylonian Jews, who were given Persian funds and a military escort to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple. Cyrus and his putative descendant, Darius (he of the Battle of Marathon), who begot Xerxes (the seven foot body pierced queen with the dreamy eyes and dreamier voice in "300") also get rave reviews from some modern historians, me among them. And rather than a meglomaniacal God-Emperor as shown in the movie, Xerxes, like his father before him, was a Zoroastrian. (Zoroastrianism -a warm close monotheistic friend of Judaism and Christianity)

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention so you are aware that "300" follows the pagan Greek view of the Persian Wars. It has little to do with what may have happened at the battle of Thermopylae, and even less about what it really meant to the Greek war effort, but it boils down the patriotic myth to its pure testosterone poisoned essence. The Persians are not merely evil, they are physically and morally warped, as well as sexual degenerates. I haven't seen such disgusting bad guys since the Baron Harkonnen in the move "Dune." And that is where the fun begins.

Because for a certain type of person, me, for example, plus the other four males who watched it with me last night, it is an exciting experience. It is great over the top, bombastic, but not quite mindless fun. The graphics of the movie are stunning, as stylized and thus as unreal as any Greek vase painting of the Trojan War.

Gerard Butler is riveting as Leonidas. When he is on screen the movie has weight and interest, when he is off screen, you begin to recover your wits and notice what a crock it all is. And yet, for all that, I was thoroughly entertained by it.

As one reviewer said, it is just about as violent as "Apocolypto" and twice as stupid. Yep - that about covers the down side. This ignores, however, the sere beauty of the ancient Greek landscape presented, the awesome scale of the battle scenes, and the brief but effective recreation of what hoplite warfare in the front ranks of a phalanx might have been like. No wonder Victor Davis Hanson likes it - he literally wrote the book on phalanx warfare!

The history is bunk and it hits you with the message right between the eyes, and then hits you with it again a little louder on the back of the head just in case you missed it. Subtle it is not.

And it is grossly unfair to the Persians. And the Athenians. And the Persian navy (half of which was made up of Greeks!). But the history side of this I will save for another day. As it is, some people with a tolerance for comic book blood letting and comic book moralizing will love this movie. Both the teenagers with us, Clovis and his friend Nate, loved it. They thought it was almost as good as "Sin City."

And a reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog insists it is will appeal even more to a different type of audience. Can't say I don't see his point! Wait til he hears about the Theban Sacred Band. In fact, in this movie the Spartans personify the "warrior ethos" of the Sacred Band. They fought to the last man too.

BTW, if anyone attempts to tell you this movie is making a statement about the War in Iraq, or anything else that has the remotest baring on current events, shun them! They are either a poseur or a complete idiot.