h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

At one point the capes of the spartans were hit by arrows while they were crouching behind their shields. Would have been funny if they had then proceeded to charge, only to be yanked back by their capes being tethered to the ground.

Yeah - he mentioned fighting with his gallant 300 men at one stage when half of them had already been polished off.

Obviously arithmetic wasn't his strong point.

I think I've posted this a couple of times, but I'll say it again - I though '300' was great entertainment. Not the greatest or most thought-provoking movie ever, but a 'does what it says on the tin'-type movie. '300' is a movie about a big David and Goliath-style battle where, alas, 'David' ends up rather like a pin cushion... but he makes his point and Xerxes (sp?) ultimately suffers for it. I'd happily watch it again...



"Ouch, that arrows smarts!" - Unknown Spartan soldier

The Apprentice

Fairly good film, but I'm pretty sure I spotted a historical inaccuracy half-way through.

Dialogue was awful: "Our arrows will blot out the sun!"; "Then we will fight in the shade!" (Oh, hang on, that bit was from Herodotus!)

If you want to see a real fantasy movie with no historical content, go see Amazing Grace...

Gif

-At one point the capes of the spartans were hit by arrows while they were crouching behind their shields. Would have been funny if they had then proceeded to charge, only to be yanked back by their capes being tethered to the ground -


You spotted that too! the chap I went to see it with was looking at me funny for sniggering... I was thinking the exact same thing you were! Well, except that in my head they tried to get up but were pinned in a crouching position by the neat ring of arrows...

I have only seen the trailer for this film. I thought the Spartans wore armour in battle and not go bare chested as in the film.

Essentially, lambasting a movie (based on a comic book of an interpretation of the legends around an actual battle with added artistic licence, so not exactly TRYING for accuracy or realism) for not being historically accurate is missing the point AND causing yourself unnecessary worry over something which, when you think about it, doesnt really matter.

To be offended by it means you didnt get it's intention... Gore! Testosterone! a very one-sided glorified view of Sparta (even I got uncomfortable about the child-soldier culture... But I dont blame the film for that, they were hard bu99ers! Cultures WERE very disparate and often extreme, at least we werent told it was GOOD merely RIGHT for that culture) Bad language! Worse one-liners! Swords! Underdogs! Great visuals! Exotic and debauched enemies! We all love the enemy to be more debauched and lacking in moral fiber than the guys we're rooting for! It's propaganda!

So if that is wrong, if taking an idea, maybe some hearsay and rumour and making a fantastically silly film about it to entertain for a few hours (and making no apology for it, making a POINT of the fantastical in fact) is wrong then I'm sorry, but art, and entertainment, may as well lay down and die right now.

Oh, and a point too... It was lovely to see a woman taking a role that involved hard decisions and a sharp pointy thing where it hurts! If more two-faced nasty pieces of work got a solid bit of steel between their ribs after scheming and thinking they are smarter because they are smarmier, I'd be a happier woman! (In a fantastical sense... You cant tell me part of you at least didnt cheer?)

Oh, and if you havent seen this film, I advise that you do before arguing about it. Until you've seen it's silliness and lack of reality for yourself you will be speculating on what you've heard. If you've seen it and STILL think it should have made more sense, stick with things that work on your level...

I LOVED it! Especially the first push at the start of the battle when they are hit and pushed back and you can feel the grit sliding under their feet and the sweat of their enemy in their mouths then all hell breaks loose and the blood starts spraying. The fighting rhythms and timing of individual sequences was breathtaking for me. If you're gonna do hand to hand fighting, do it properly! In a virtually virtual style! and play with your slow mo button! YEAH!

I was also very impressed with the phalanx combat during the first main action scene. It felt very real.

And as for Queen Gorgo playing the 'gutsy woman stuck at home' role...it's hardly original any more, is it? Gorgo was supposed to be an intelligent and incisive woman, but people always go on nowadays about it being great to *finally* have a strong female character. I find that's the stock character type for every female.

The only thing I didn't think worked was the huge long speeches about "We are Spartans - our success in battle depends on us fighting side-by-side, each man covering the man to his left with his shield"... followed by countless battle scenes where they break formation and run around killing people seperately.

It's quite important to the plot, too, as it's how Epiglottis (or whatever his name was) is set up to betray them.

Gif

The problem is that the timing of the film is suspect. America talks about starting a war with Iran and then a film in which a brave warrior state which prides itself on it's LIBERTY and DEMOCRACY (I've put both in caps as the words are branded about frequently in the film) bravely faces off against a corrupt Persian (aka. Iranian) state which enslaves it's population and has a bling Persian king literally step on a few of his subjects to get off his throne and talk to the brave Spartan leader.

Even if it's not propanganda for the Western world's crusade against the Middle East the timing makes it look like one. Yes, the film is visually arresting and very stirring but it is based on very Greek biased sources and alas some people will take on board a very anti-Middle East message from this as may be the intention of some involved with the film. It's also the lionisation of a rather brutal warrior state which is almost nazi like in its attitude. I've argued this point with my husband who says that you can't read a message in it and it's just comic book escapism but I think the problem is that there is a danger some won't read this that intelligently.

True, there is that danger. Also yes, it was frustrating how this single fighting unit liked to run around all split up but that in itself shows us just how much this film isnt about what's MEANT to be happening, it's about what's going on before your very eyes.

As for the female lead... There's strong female characters and strong female characters. What I liked about her was this; As a woman she is weaker than a man and accepted that it was necessary for her to sell herself for the greater good of her beliefs (in these particular circumstances and this cultural model). When this great sacrifice was betrayed she had no qualms about cutting the barsteward down in a style befitting a Spartan warrior. Showing herself to be as steely inside as her nutter of a husband.

As for fascist. I dont know... where they? Did they really go out in attempts to change others or just say 'you're different and can never be us, it's what we do and are. You cannot change us and we'd never truly try and change you... That'd give the game away'. There's something romantic about the strong and polarised ideals of the greek cultures... Sparta Vs Athens and so on... Were either right or wrong? Did they both really need to take a chill pill (or in Athens' case, drink some vodka and listen to some heavy metal) and meet somewhere i the middle?

And the Persian King who is all blinged up and debauched, exotic and effeminate.... Isnt he just a fabulous fairy-tale baddy? Only bad guys walk on their own people as a matter of course, only bad guys have bigger armies and still lose The setting was already there and is a point in history that inspired a story, I feel the characters were invented and really, who knows the truth of these personalities, it's not like we can ask their mums!

I always feel it's sad when an imaginative artist is called to task and held responsible for the topical problems of the country they happen to live in or near or work in. I feel Frank Miller certainly and probably most people involved in this whole project are more politically motivated on a wider scale (really, a whole film about the east Vs west in a modern context? Just set fire to a bush...) and can draw a line between analogy and metaphor and straight out semi-historical entertainment that is intended to delight, surprise and have everyone leaving with a big beard cos of the testosterone flying aorund the room... (apart from that creep that sha66ed his missus... he was SUCH a girl )

the timing was when

1) studios where prepared to cough up the cash for sword-and-sandals stuff following the success of Gladiator and the relative succes of Troy and Alexander.

2) When Miller had a gap in his schedule that wasn't filled with filming Sin City 2.

As I said in the what film thread, Miller wrote this ten years ago, so any reference to present political situations is being put there by the viewers. He has done stuff about the war on teror, and the situation in the middle-east, but 300 ain't it.

Oh, and the Spartans had no time for democracy at all. It's pretty evident, certainly in Miller's original that they regarded democracy as weak and stupid. They simply disliked the Persians more.

Oh, and the Spartans had no time for democracy at all. It's pretty evident, certainly in Miller's original that they regarded democracy as weak and stupid. They simply disliked the Persians more.



Oh, that made me smile that one Just summed up a proper Spartan for me that did... It's not about LIKING things (excpet war and a glorious death in battle doing what they were put on this earth for) it's about chosing which things irritate you or affect your livelihoods the most and crushing them (or allowing them to crush themselves against your immoveable object, whichever works) like the ants that they are! MWUAHAHAHA!

*ahem*

Sorry. I'm a nice girl really...

Hmm yes...

Thinking about it, I think Miller does have Leonidas pay some (very small) lip service to the idea of preserving the Athenians, even if they are silly girly-men.

But in reality, the choice was a very simple one - either a stand was made by *someone* to halt the Persian advance in order to buy time for the rest of the Greek States to get their act together, or they all went down seperately.

The whole point about the other troops who were present was that they came from the Northern States, and knew full well if the stand wasn't made then they'd be first under the cosh, as it were anyway, so celebrating a sacred holiday kind of lost it's meaning.

I think the whole idea of the laws being governed by the Oracle and the priests was interesting... Kind of like the start of the 'Age of Reason' that Anne Rice often bangs on about... That start of an age where what is before one's eyes becomes more important than what some people are telling us the gods want from us. The gods 'decreed' that there should be no war... Leonidas said sod that, I'm gonna buy you lot some time, and if you let us die for your folly so be it, I'm no martyr but let it be set down in the record books that I did what I could while I could and you allowed a corrupt system to allow you to be compliant and complaisant. Have fun with that, seeya laters.

Certainly the film shows us so much from the Spartan point of view that we barely even get to SEE other greeks... Because the Spartans barely saw them. Understood they were there but didnt really acknowledge them in the same way as they were aware of their brothers.. Like you know your family's whereabouts most of the time but might not often be that aware of whether your neighbours are in, out, away, ill, fighting, loving, reading... But you know they are there!

I should probably go home and watch this again. I didn´t really see there being much about preserving democracy in this movie, more just about preserving Sparta and it´s sometimes cruel ways. But I would say the spartans were fascists(which has nothing to do with expansionism) and we do seem to have suprisingly little heritage from them. Sure they were good warriors, but can you name any famous spartan scientists, philosophers or playwrights? Apparently even their food was shit. But those 300 were willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, which is what the real story is about. I do actually feel the movie could have done more to show these soldiers knew it was a suicide mission.

I'm not sure about 'the greater good'. Sparta probably wouldn't have cared about the other Greek city-states if it had not needed them to defeat the Persians - they were fighting for Sparta, not Greece. Remember, after the war Sparta and Athens went on to roughly divide most of Greece between them. No talk of freedom and democracy then.

I dont know... I dont know enough about fascism to really comment, though I'd love to find out more in discussion this isnt the place or time.

There was certainly a feeling that Sparta was like the hard working 'right arm' of greece in terms of fighting... It wasnt very good at walking or talking and biased everything in terms of what it saw as necessary... Whether that be arts or physical abilities and philosphies. The stomach would put food as most important, the mind perhaps speech and poetry, the eyes, beauty... Every part plays it's own role to the best of it's ability and selfishly perhaps.

Of course we havent heard of Spartan poets and artists, thinkers and mathemeticians... It's not what they purported to be, not how they trained themselves, not what they saw as important. In the same way that Athens will not have the same level of aggressive and strong warriors, trained from birth to be cunning, ruthless, cold. They were certainly not merely suicidal nutters... They were CLEVER suicidal nutters Where is the honour in simply throwing yourself on your enemies weapons? To die in a fight where despite your best efforts your opponent bests you. A worthy opponent. THAT is honourable. THAT is the pinnacle of living and dying. The legendary fight between Leonidas and the Wolf... Kill or be killed. Be better or you do not deserve to live, you have come as far as you are able. It's a philosophy that fascinates me in it's simplicity. It's such a clean, clear and logical mode of thought. I cant do it, I empathise too much and understand that the whole must work together with tolerance... But each to their own so long as they also keep to themselves!

In the film I think Sparta had tolerance for the whole. Leonidas just didnt like being held back by corrupted priests putting money over their way of life... And he objected to other greeks being too easily ruled by what he could clearly see was foolisness and lies when he could see ALL their ways of lives being torn apart. He wasnt willing to accept that fate, for himself, his family yes, but I believe there was a wider understanding of the whole, of all that was ancient Greece. Problem being, this film was about war. If it had been about art or philosphy, Sparta wouldnt have had a look in, they probably would have been spoken about in sniggering tones as a joke by artisans and thinkers... I suspect that was the way Spartans liked it

"As I said in the what film thread, Miller wrote this ten years ago, so any reference to present political situations is being put there by the viewers. He has done stuff about the war on teror, and the situation in the middle-east, but 300 ain't it."

There's also the fact that Persia is presented in the film (from what I've can gather) and rich and arrogant, lead by the wealthy rather than strong and (historically) it was the dominant power in the region whilst Sparta was a small warrior state that was massively outgunned (or should that be out-speared). It's interesting that people have interpreted the USA as Sparta and Persia as Iran (or other middle-eastern people). I'd have reversed the roles, myself.

"I think the whole idea of the laws being governed by the Oracle and the priests was interesting... Kind of like the start of the 'Age of Reason' that Anne Rice often bangs on about... That start of an age where what is before one's eyes becomes more important than what some people are telling us the gods want from us."

Oh, it's incredible how much faith the ancients put in their gods, oracles and omens. Modern tacticians like to study the campaigns of Alexander and Caesar and talk about what brilliant commanders they were but don't notice how much faith they and their contemporaries put in superstition. Generals would delay battles because they felt omens were bad (ie they'd seen a raven that morning or something similar) or it was an unlucky day and whole battles and even wars could rest on these things. And Christianity didn't change anything much - indeed Europe has Christianity because Constantine had a dream where he was shown the cross and told "with this, conquer" before winning the battle that made him sole Emperor and thus felt that the God of the Christians had favoured him.