More Modern Democratic Ideals Read Back into Greek History

Rating: 1/10 (12 July 2007)

Recreations of historical periods raise some ethical questions despite disclaimers that films are only pure entertainment (how many people actually think of Brad Pitt in Troy when the name Homer or the Iliad is mentioned? How many question whether or not it was even accurately portrayed?). The modern confusion of reading the modern democratic ideal of freedom into ancient Greek and Medieval history (e.g., Kingdom of Heaven) are severely anachronistic--as if individual or collective freedom was a universal ideal.
In 300, the notion of freedom versus slavery is what motivates the Spartan polis and its citizens to stand against Xerxes (oddly Persians are portrayed by Africans). While self-sufficiency is a key idea in much of ancient Greece, freedom (in the modern sense) is not a part of this. Freedom was seen as a bi-product of self-sufficiency, not an ideal.
In any case, the glaring inconsideration to narrative and historical detail is obvious in view of the cinematic effects this film wishes to achieve. For one, the phalanx which Leonides cites as the key to Spartan military superiority was something not invented until Hellenistic times. Not to mention, the 300 don't really use the formation in practice (they use it for the first skirmish but then break into one-on-one combat). Leonides makes reference to Athens as a polis made up of philosophers (seen retrospectively by the writers in relation to the predominance of Plato and Aristotle today). But philosophy was not something held in high regard (e.g. the execution of Socrates and many others). And no doubt, the Athenian hoplite was very effective (Socrates was also a hoplite).
Fight choreography, while amazing from a CG point of view, is rather boring like much contemporary film that has no sense of movement throughout a scene and instead relies on cutting and editing to suggest the flow of action. And I never understood why the 300 charge out of the pass (in which they are supposed to lure the Persians) rather than remain in it as it was originally suggested.
So while this reviewer seems like an overly academic critic, it is interesting to see what things are held to be worthy of entertainment and enjoyment when contrasting modern renditions with the actual historical sources and the philosophical and religious ideas innate to them.