300 (not members)

[Kalos Mer]

So I just saw the movie '300' for the first time, and I gotta say that I'm disappointed, as a classical historian and particularly as a student of Herodotus. (A rampaging naked lobsterman was NOT a part of Xerxes' invasion force!)

I've discussed this with ElDo, but I'm wondering what the perceptions of other people were on the film, particularly those who did not come in with a lot of background knowledge (and therefore background assumptions) about the events of the Greco-Persian Wars.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

Well, firstly, it's not supposed to be an accurate historical documentary; it's based of a comic of the same name by Frank Miller.  You really have to watch it as a comic book movie, or a fantasy movie, and not as a period piece.  

Secondly, it RAWKED.

[Kalos Mer]

I am aware of Frank Miller's work, and I have my own issues with him.  

While I wasn't expecting a 'historical documentary' level of accuracy, watching lobster-man and the other assorted freaks of the Persian Empire, and the downright bizarre characterization and costumization of Shahanshah Xerxes was approximately equivalent to watching a World War 2 movie and seeing the Americans riding around on zebras while decapitating Nazis. (A bronze potato to anyone who can place that reference.)

If they were going for a fantasy movie aesthetic, why not make it a battle between the little kingdom of Ilithia fighting against the overwhelming empire of Morgax, or something?  Kids today already have a sufficiently screwed understanding of the ancient world (See: "Weren't Rome and Greece the same thing?") without having it reinforced by this film.

I have to admit though.  "Then we will fight in the shade" was well done.  Some of the action sequences were well done.  But as someone who became a classicist largely because of an idolization of the 300 Spartans who fought and died (for Greece, by the way, and not 'FOR SPARTA!!!!!') at Thermopylae, I couldn't see past the casual, even disdainful, disregard for what actually happened at the Hot Gates in August, 480 BC.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

If they were going for a fantasy movie aesthetic, why not make it a battle between the little kingdom of Ilithia fighting against the overwhelming empire of Morgax, or something?  Kids today already have a sufficiently screwed understanding of the ancient world (See: "Weren't Rome and Greece the same thing?") without having it reinforced by this film.

Puh-LEEZE[/i] ), I'm honestly not really seeing where you're coming from.

As as to your WWII analogy, that's kind of a tough one for me.  If someone writes a historical fiction that changes facts and fantasizes because that's what they want to write about it, it seems to me that when they make a movie on that book, it should follow the book, and not historical fact.  Historical fiction is a fun point for me; I've honestly written some myself, and I imagine there are a lot of people who have looked back on an important event in the past and wished they could have personally been there to make a difference.

And I don't think the movie belittles the stand at the Gates at all.  Even knowing it was pure and utter fiction, and even knowing that what was shown in the movie was nothing like what truly happened in the war, I left the theater in awe of the prowess and skill of Spartan warriors, which seems to me to be the opposite of disdain.  It just seems that even if was fictionalized and exaggerated, the skill of the Spartans was amazing, and the movie seemed to be more in a mind to honor that skill, rather than just make stuff up.

You should read some Harry Turtledove sometime.

[Kalos Mer]

Well, to address the first issue, I guess I'm complaining about 300 *as a whole*, comic, movie, the whole 'Spartans fighting lobstermen' industry, whatever the medium (sorry to hop on that example).

As for disdain, I should explain why this point bothers me so much.  My roommate is the film editor for the campus newspaper here at Brown, and he was given the unique privelege of participating in a conference call with the director and Gerard Butler about the film a few weeks before the release.  At my request, he asked the director what role historical accuracy played in the development of the movie.

He said "I looked into the history, and determined none of it was as cool as what Frank Miller wrote."

I weep for this sentiment.

(As far as historical fantasy: when it is clearly labeled as such, I enjoy the genre.  Turtledove is a good example, one whom I actually have read a bit.  He tries to stick close to the history *except where his 'premise' requires him to deviate from it.*  If 300's premise was 'Let's see what happens if Xerxes had lobsterman on his side when he invaded Greece, and they remained true to the history when dealing with Xerxes himself (he appears in Herodotus a thoughtful and philosophical, if somewhat overproud, monarch), Spartan tactics (they fought in the phalanx formation, not this 'throwing spears' madness), the reason for the fight in the first place (Sparta wasn't just defending herself.  Sparta was in effect sacrificing her soldiers to keep all of Greece free), and the ending (Salamis), then I would have given it a lot more leeway.  Or if it were presented as pure fantasy as opposed to 'historical fiction.'

I worry, however, based on a lot of my peers' reaction to the film (these are upperclassman college students at a prestigious university), that far too many people will simply see the film and say 'Yes, that's what happened at Thermopylae', and never care to learn anything about the actual sacrifice that was made.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I must be honest, I don't know that much about the true battle.  But (also honestly), I left the theater (as I said before) with nothing even close to disdain to the Spartans, and with something much more like admiration.  I see your point, but I think as a movie, they did a superb job on the two points they were trying to cover:

1 - Make a great heroic-action movie.

2 - Make a well-adapted comic book movie.

[Kalos Mer]

I agree that they succeeded at what they attempted to cover.  I suppose I object to
(A) the people who will take what they present as even close to the actual history  without ever investigating further and
(B) the fact that they could have attempted so much more, with the material they had to work with.

I was also surprised by what seemed to me the utter absence of any moral ambiguity.  I will grant you that the Persian Wars (to my mind, at least) represent one of the least ambiguous wars fought in human history, but there was a lot they could have done to make the Spartans more 'human'.

Again, all of this is me speaking not only as an ancient historian, but as an ancient historian with  a long history of interest and academic energy expended on this very battle.  So I well admit that my expectations and demands are a LOT higher than most, perhaps unreasonably so.

[Darkxarth]

Having neither seen the movie (or read the comic), nor learned anything more about the actual historical event than we learned in sophomore (that's high school sophomore) world history, I don't know that I have a lot to add to the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of the movie/comic.

During the Greco-Persian wars, there was a particular battle where only 300 Spartans fought 100,000+ Persians and although the Persians won, the losses were not proportionate.

And while I can understand Kalos Mer's annoyance/anger at what was portrayed as "historical fiction" I also feel that this is the same thing that happens to many "based on a true story" movies.  They take a single event/person/etc. that they like, build a loosely related movie around it, and slap "based on a true story" onto the posters and previews to grab the attention of people who enjoy those things.

However, while you are annoyed/angered at the movie, a lot of your ire seems to be directed at the stupid people who take "based on a true story" and "historical fiction" movies at face value.  I hate that too, but it doesn't seem to be a problem that can be easily resolved.

I think that they ran it as a "historical fiction" movie rather than a "based on the comic by..." movie is because since it isn't an uber well-known comic (like Spiderman, Batman, Superman, etc.) and they figured main-stream consumers would shun that kind of comic/movie.  However, by marketing it as "historical fiction" (at this point I've forgotten why I started using quotes around that) they can market it to a larger audience, without excluding those who recognize it from the comic.

So, overall our anger might be better directed at the marketers and the stupid masses than at the director of the movie (or the writer of the comic) or the film itself.

[Wensleydale]

I also was disappointed in the lack of ANY historical accuracy at all in the film. Even the frickin' ACTORS believe that this is a TRUE STORY. I mean, admittedly... actors aren't always the cleverest people around, but still. For a start, there may have been three-hundred spartans, but there were also around 3700 OTHER greeks facing the persians also, and as Spartans were trained all their lives not to feel fear in battle, surely the other greeks deserve as much if not more recognition?

[Túrin]

For a start, there may have been three-hundred spartans, but there were also around 3700 OTHER greeks facing the persians also, and as Spartans were trained all their lives not to feel fear in battle, surely the other greeks deserve as much if not more recognition?

@ Golem: But those other Greeks weren't in the battle at Thermopylae, were they? They didn't sacrifice themselves for Greece' continued existence.

@ KM and others: So this is the first time I hear that the film isn't actually based on the historical event, which is a disappointment to me (now I'm no longer sure whether I'll go see it).

But I agree with the others: once you know it's fiction, there's little sense in being angry at the makers of the movie. And people that think historical fiction = historical fact... let's say they're a little naive. :-/

Túrin

[Stargate525]

@ Golem: But those other Greeks weren't in the battle at Thermopylae, were they? They didn't sacrifice themselves for Greece' continued existence.

Túrin

They were. On the ships and behind them to make sure that they weren't flanked.

I also was disappointed in the lack of ANY historical accuracy at all in the film. Even the frickin' ACTORS believe that this is a TRUE STORY. I mean, admittedly... actors aren't always the cleverest people around, but still. For a start, there may have been three-hundred spartans, but there were also around 3700 OTHER greeks facing the persians also, and as Spartans were trained all their lives not to feel fear in battle, surely the other greeks deserve as much if not more recognition?

actually, it was around 7,000.

[Wensleydale]

actually, it was around 7,000.

Working from what I remember of greek history :P

But yeah. It was frankly depressing to see the actors, being interviewed about their parts, talking totally sincerely about how 'Like, that was when the spartans thought, hey, we do this now, all three hundred of us, charge into those one million men, we'll be remembered forever. Like' and quoting historical references. *facepalms*

[Kalos Mer]

To clarify, a larger Greek army did hold the line at Thermopylae for the first several days of the battle.

But when the Persians found a way to circumvent the narrow gate the Greeks were guarding, then the vast majority of the army left, while the Spartans, Thebans and Thespians stood their ground:

The Big H, Book 7
'So the allies, when Leonidas ordered them to retire, obeyed him and forthwith departed. Only the Thespians and the Thebans remained with the Spartans; and of these the Thebans were kept back by Leonidas as hostages, very much against their will. The Thespians, on the contrary, stayed entirely of their own accord, refusing to retreat, and declaring that they would not forsake Leonidas and his followers. So they abode with the Spartans, and died with them. Their leader was Demophilus, the son of Diadromes.'

Also, as Stargate implied, at the same time that the Spartans fought on land at Thermopylae, a fleet led largely by the Athenians was fighting the Persian navy at Artemesium, to make sure that the land force would not be flanked.  They retreated when they heard of the defeat of Leonidas's army.

[Stargate525]

Glad to see us actors had a showing at the battle, dieing with the spartans no less. ;)

[brainface]

While I wasn't expecting a 'historical documentary' level of accuracy, watching lobster-man and the other assorted freaks of the Persian Empire, and the downright bizarre characterization and costumization of Shahanshah Xerxes was approximately equivalent to watching a World War 2 movie and seeing the Americans riding around on zebras while decapitating Nazis. (A bronze potato to anyone who can place that reference.)

http://www.prisoner34.com/dnd/PBF209-Now_Showing.jpg[/img]
(http://www.pbfcomics.com)

I DEMAND POTATOES OF METALS.