Presidential candidate Mike Gravel in advocating that gays be permitted to serve in the military, mistakenly used the Spartan military culture as an example of homosexuality in the military actually being encouraged. Victor Davis Hanson corrects him.
Hmm, I wonder what gave Mike the idea in the first place?
I've blogged so much about reactions inspired about 300, let's reverse the perspective and see what it was that inspired 300 in the first place.
Dorothea Cantero at Sequential Tart writes about the history of the Battle of Thermopylae, and Spartan culture.
Was this really the harsh reality that was Sparta? What of Xerxes' army? Could his archers really “blot out the sun”? What of Spartan women; how did they live?
You'd think that this would have been played out by now.
Apparently not.
Instapundit links to a Victor Davis Hanson post on 300 critics at NRO Online.
There were some arguments out there that 300 was homophobic. Key to that argument was the idea that Xerxes' dress and incredible jewelry was somehow suggesting a certain bent to his sexual tastes.
I don't think so, his dress and manners show that he's vain and narcissistic (required traits to believe himself a god).
This video clip may suggest that instead of homophobic, the film is... um... is “homo-fantastic” a word?
Either way, it's funny.
That's the point of an article by Victor Davis Hanson, “History and the Movie 300”:
If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others.
More of the 300 Rorschach Test:
Fred Dalton Thompson, the actor who plays Manhattan D.A. Arthur Branch in Law & Order responds to an Iranian complaint about 300
Mr. Thompson is also a former U.S. Senator, and a possible candidate for the 2008 run for President of the U.S.
(The Iranian statement in question is referenced in an earlier post)
(found via Instapundit)
Today's contestants, an Iranian government culture official, and some US Marines
Interesting that cultural advisor to Iran's president believes that “American cultural officials” are behind 300. Leave it to a functionary in an authoritarian system to assume all the world's culture gets filtered through government agencies.
Not surprising to find the Marines identifying with the Spartan military in some of the statements on how physical training impacts on survival in combat, and how soldiers should be focused on protecting each other. Unit cohesion and preparation have always been critical for militaries throughout history.
Over at ComicMix, Mike Gold finds respect for comics in a movie review:
(Roeper) commented at length about the evolution of the graphic novel-based movie without once referring to costumes and capes (oddly, 300 had both – but you get my drift) and Frank Miller’s influence on comics, film, and our culture in general. He spoke of Miller’s work the way arts critics speak of Martin Scorsese, John Lennon and Philip Roth. Not a single word was condescending. Not one.Also at ComicMix, Elayne Riggs notes the phenomenon of commentary about 300:
It's not very often that a movie comes along with something for just about everyone -- it even serves as a great discussion topic for those who've seen it and don't particularly care for it!
A mini roundup of 300 reviews over at Instapundit by guest blogger, Tom Maguire.
Armed Liberal acknowledges the historical source and sees no modern references, while noting the Rorschach test nature of the criticism. He also notes the historical ignorance of many reviews…
Kenneth Turan of the LA Times was the only one who 'got' the historical context of Thermopylae (even though he didn't like the movie). Sheesh. You'd think that people who write about culture for a living would know something about it, wouldn't you?Dana Stevens at Slate criticizes the movie for not being anti-war.
But to cast 300 as a purely apolitical romp of an action film smacks of either disingenuousness or complete obliviousness. One of the few war movies I've seen in the past two decades that doesn't include at least some nod in the direction of antiwar sentiment, 300 is a mythic ode to righteous bellicosity.Wretchard, at the Belmont Club, mocks the Slate.com review of 300.
I have no idea whether 300 is a good movie, but Steven's review is an entertaining example of how all events, including those which happened nearly 500 years BC, must be judged according to prisms of contemporary political correctness. Miller had to remember, for example, “that we're in the middle of an actual war”. Did he not realize his duty to denounce it? But what if Miller had made a movie about the fight against Hitler? Would it have been necessary to remind the audience that Hitler was a nonsmoking, animal-loving, vegetarian artist?But it isn't all such detailed meta analysis. Sometimes it's just a fart joke.
Ragnell at Written World: I've heard he says he writes strong women too...:
The idea that is so strange that I know it will probably make the entire internet sit up, blink, and ask when I went so insane.
I won't watch The 300 (sic) because the trailer makes it look like Anti-American propaganda.Okay, hear me out here. Yes, I know what Frank Miller has said about his patriotism and that, in all likelihood, this movie was meant as war propaganda in the USA's favor, but every time I see the trailer I get this little creeping feeling in my stomach that its not going to show that way.
What makes me think this?
When I see the trailers for 300, I don't see a pro or anti stance as to current politics. I see a movie thats incredibly faithfull to the look feel and spirit of the comic.
I see more of a hyperbolized version of Greek history. The only American parallel I can find is the Alamo.
The movie version of V for Vendetta was twisted around to be a commentary on conservatism, with an eye toward present day politics, as opposed to the book's more timeless theme of anarchism vs. authoritarianism. To criticize that film for being too swayed by present politics is fair. So there is precident for these fears of politically motivated storytelling.
It looks like 300 is not going to commit the same sins. This may be less motivated by a fear of politics, than it is by the success of the prior film adaptation, Sin City, which was extremely faithful to the source material. That films success set the formula to be slavishly dedicated to reproducing an exact retelling of the comic.
I think that any political analysis of 300 would tell you more about the person analyzing the film than about the film itself.
Sometimes a comic book movie is just a comic book movie.
Shawn Levasseur
Posts
