Shadow's and Fire

All right I'm not going to review Frank Miller's “300”, that's been done several times by all kinds of people and the same thing is said in different ways. Regular people love it, critics hate and dismiss it as another comic movie that just happens to have a historical basis.

So here's what I've got, the review of the reviews.

Every professional movie reviewer seems to say the same thing “It's just blood and thunder” “It's too pro military” “A bunch of nearly naked buff guys but there's no gay men even though it's Greece is stupid!” “It degrades the Persians!” and so on and so forth.

Here's why reviewers hate it. Because it is the exact opposite of everything a movie should be. It glorifies a principle that is lofty and smashes home the fact that violence is sometimes required to oppose evil. It espouses that some ideals are more important than your own life, and a LOT more important than the life of someone trying to crush those ideals.

Yeah, it's got blood and gore, yeah it's a BC era war movie, yeah there's a decent amount of sexuality. And this stops it from being a dramatization of a pivotal moment in western civilization becaaaaaaaaaaause why?

Here's my justification for calling this a pivotal moment in western history. Freedom as we know it is not founded in France, or just as arrogantly a uniquely American idea. It started in Greece, and it started before Christ was born. And if a small contingent of men had not held back a massive force of a conquering tyrant it is unknown if the principles that make up democracy and individual freedom would have survived to evolve into what we call freedom now. This event, accounted by multiple sources (including the Persians though they tell it far differently, BUT WITH THE SAME ODDS) should not be discounted in its significance.

As for the claims that the movie is far removed from the facts of the matter well...

1. The movie lays claim to one fact that is not disputed. 300 men led personally by a King, fought and died so that their lands and family would be given the time to defend themselves. They fought against a force that is estimated to number anywhere from 175,000 to 1.7 million. Either way it should have been a slaughter and it gave Greece the time it needed.

2. You know the exact happenings of the battle cause you and every historian was right there and watched it all, right? Please. All history is subjective, it's only when multiple sources from vastly different places agree on one or two small facts that something can be considered fact. 300 Spartans fought a hell of a lot of Persians and killed so many Xerxes had to stop his invasion for a while. That's known to be fact, everything else is speculation, so why are you saying a movie isn't a quality film because it differs from a speculation?

The claims that homosexuality is portrayed negatively is based on one line. “If those philosophers and boy lovers have turned you down...”

Duh. Spartans thought the rest of Greece were far below them in the order of things. There was no room for softness in Sparta, love was accepted but not openly encouraged or written about. If a man and a woman are wed and fall in love that's fine, that's acceptable but advertising it was a sign of weakness. You still got married to have more Spartans. If two members of the same sex have sex they do it for affection, love or physical need. All of which would be considered weak in Spartan society.

So yeah, there wouldn't be a sign of homosexuality in a Spartan fighting unit.

Also, the claim that just because a bunch of buff guys are near each other and dressed in loin clothes there should be some homosexual activities is as patently stupid as assuming one woman hugging another is an instant cue for some hot girl+girl sexxors!

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

It was hot, Greece is a warm place and it was summer, wearing lots of clothes unless you're conditioned for it and it is in your culture, as in the Persians case, is dumb. So yeah, they wouldn't be wearing much. Guess what? If you go to Iraq or Afghanistan right now and go into a tent full of Army infantry or Marines and there isn't much AC, they'll be hanging out in their underwear too.

Bet most of them aren't gay either despite lots of yaoi fan girls desires to the contrary.

Some say that the movie was all action separated by pointless speech that are given to dramatic pauses.

That's so lame an excuse to try and downplay a movie it really isn't worth mentioning. A lot of the lines are quotes from Herodotus, kinda makes you wonder how they're using historical lines yet the movie has no historical basis don't it?

The story is great, it's not a mystery movie but neither is most of life, there is betrayal, political maneuvering and inspirational speeches espousing glory, honor, and loyalty. Yes I know those qualities aren't in fashion with a lot of media right now but that doesn't diminish their value.

That and the story is a VERY clear stab in the face of those who use religion to put themselves above others, and politics for their own benefit. A brush that can applied anywhere, from the bloodthirsty manipulating Islamics (or Christians) sending their children to die for their cause, to the statesmen who put immediate political want over long term strategic need, ending in soldier's dieing when they didn't have to.

Some complain of the stylized action. ....The Spartans were probably the best trained soldiers on the planet at that time. The style of the fights were meant to show that skill. Because honestly a factual depiction of that kind of conflict would be a blurred maelstrom of blood and metal that occasionally paused when a Persian general ran out of people to send to their death.

The reason some critics snub the “No retreat, no surrender, no mercy” law of the Spartans, and the bloodthirsty glee the Spartans had when killing their attackers, is because it shows an unpleasant little truth. Sometimes, freedom, justice, and reason NEEDS to be defended by those who are vicious and brutal in its defense, because the enemies of those values are just as vicious, brutal, and bloodthirsty.

There is no shame in killing a tyrant, a bully or someone who works for them. There's no shame in killing someone who wants to enslave your family.

There's no shame in finding joy in the destruction of the enemies of your family and your land.

As for degrading the Persians.... historically speaking, they do a fine job of that themselves, all this movie did was make it common knowledge.

Ultimately critics hate 300 because it emphasizes and glorifies one saying: “It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.”

Modern society cherishes life a bit TOO much, mediocrity is encouraged because then no one has to feel bad about themselves.

The Spartans did not. They ground away at themselves until they were as close to perfection as they could be. The Spartans in 300 give us an ideal, a vicious, bloodthirsty, but still noble ideals like honor, duty, respect, and loyalty. This blend and mix, the fact that a person can be a skilled soldier and killer, yet still be noble is unfashionable and unpopular with many. Because it makes it seem that the average person who just lives in a free society is less than the people who kill to defend that society. Funny that.

This is the message of 300: It *IS* better to die on our feet than live on your knees. And it is far better to kill those who would take that away from you than die on either.