Being a cartoon is no excuse

Rating: Null/10 (4 September 2007)

I enjoyed this movie a little bit. My kids (boys) loved it. The story is OK, but predicated on the audiences willingness to see stupidity as heroic (never retreat, never surrender). Much of the story and the dialog were stolen from the 1962 film The Spartan 300. Much of the acting is massively overdone -- worthy of early episodes of Star Trek. The film is all done in dim colors to hide the poor quality of the set design. The costuming is ridiculous. It was mostly Spartan armor and strategy that gave them an edge over the Persians. Why are they depicted nearly naked? My main problem with the film is related to the gross historical inaccuracies. Yes its based on a graphic novel. But the fact that it is a live action version of a cartoon, sorry, graphic novel, is no excuse for being so historically wrong or for promoting racist attitudes towards the Persians.
Spartan's as freedom fighters! Gag. They were slave masters. They ruled with an iron fist. They practice eugenic selection on their own people in order to breed perfectly stupid warriors.
Persians on the other hand, freed slaves, allowed all ethnics groups to return to their place of origin (e.g., the Jewish people were allowed to go home to Isreal). In fact Persians are believed by some to have created the world first declaration of human right. In addition, they promoted the idea that all of the nations that came under the umbrella of the Persian empire, were equals... an idea that did not occur to anyone again until the 20th century.
Yes the Persians invaded Greece, but it was because the Athens was interfering in the Persian owned Greece states in Anatolia.
I wouldn't say the Persians were right to invade. I think the Spartans stand of the 300 was truly heroic, and saved Greece so that Macedonia and then Rome could take it over instead. The Romans incidentally greatly admired the Spartans for their discipline. The British also admired the Spartan coldness towards their children. Nonetheless it is instructive to recall that Sparta no longer exists in part because their harsh treatment of their children, their stupidity on the battle field (e.g., never retreat! what idiots), and the harsh treatment of their slaves the helots who revolted.
The thing I don't like about this movie is that it presents a complex historical event as a very simple conflict of good vs. evil and it has such a strong anti-Persian view. Most films have some underlying political content. In the original 1962 film The 300 Spartans the message was "we Brits stood up to the Natzi, just like the Spartans stood up to the Persians, and we'll do it again if the Russians attack." At the time the West was facing a real threat so creating a shield thumping rah rah film is excusable. But in the current context with the US as the preeminent superpower -- and the only real threat is terrorism (defined by military experts as a desperate war by the powerless against the powerful). The whole vilification of the Persians is inexcusable. It certainly does nothing to promote understanding of international politics or history -- indeed it does the very opposite.
That final speech about an age free of tyranny and mysticism really annoys me given the complete lack of freedom in the Spartan world and their adherence to a mystical ideal of the warrior.
They couldn't even get the skin color of the Persian right (they should be white or at most lightly tanned -- the Persian were Caucasian and speak a language's that shares many words with European languages such as Greek, German, French, etc.).