PDA

View Full Version : History and the Moive 300



Pindar
10-26-2006, 01:49
This is a piece written by the Classist Victor David Hanson on the upcoming film and the proper perspective when it comes to historicity and narrative.

Victor Davis Hanson was educated at the University of California , Santa Cruz (BA, Classics, 1975), the American School of Classical Studies (1978-79) and received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University in 1980. Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University , a professor emeritus at California University , Fresno , and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services. He has written or edited 16 books, including Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece (1983; paperback ed. University of California Press, 1998); The Western Way of War (Alfred Knopf, 1989; 2d paperback ed. University of California Press, 2000); Hoplites: The Ancient Greek Battle Experience (Routledge, 1991; paperback., 1992); The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (Free Press, 1995; 2nd paperback ed., University of California Press, 2000); Fields without Dreams: Defending the Agrarian Idea (Free Press, 1996; paperback, Touchstone, 1997); The Land Was Everything: Letters from an American Farmer (Free Press, 2000); The Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Cassell, 1999; paperback, 2001); The Soul of Battle (Free Press, 1999, paperback, Anchor/Vintage, 2000); Carnage and Culture (Doubleday, 2001; Anchor/Vintage, 2002); An Autumn of War (Anchor/Vintage, 2002); Mexifornia: A State of Becoming (Encounter, 2003), Ripples of Battle (Doubleday, 2003), Between War and Peace (Random House, 2004) and A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War, published by Random House in October 2005.

History and the Movie 300: "The phrase “300 Spartans” evokes not only the ancient battle of Thermopylae, but also the larger idea of fighting for freedom against all odds — a notion subsequently to be enshrined through some 2500 years of Western civilization.

Even today we remember the power of the Spartans’ defiance. “Come and take them,” they tell the Persian emissaries who demand their arms. “Then we will fight in the shade,” the Spartans boast when warned that the horde of Persian arrows will soon blot out the very sunlight. “Go tell the Spartans that here we lie obedient to their commands” the tombstone of their dead reads.

In 480, an enormous force of more than a quarter-million Persians under their King Xerxes invaded Greece, both to enslave the free city-states, and to avenge the Persian defeat a decade earlier at Marathon. The huge force of ships and soldiers proved unstoppable on its way west and southward until it reached the narrow pass at Thermopylae (“The Warm Gates”) in northern Greece. There a collection of 7,000 Greeks had blocked the way. They hoped to stop Xerxes’ horde outright — or at least allow enough time for their fellow countrymen to their rear to mobilize a sufficient defense of the homeland.

Among the many Greek contingents was a special elite force of 300 Spartans under their King Leonidas — a spearhead that offered the other Greeks at Thermopylae some promise that they could still bar the advance of the vastly superior invader. And that hope proved real for two days of hard fighting. The vastly outnumbered, but heavily-armed Greek infantrymen in their phalanx — taking advantage of the narrow terrain and their massed tactics — savagely beat back wave after wave of advancing Persian foot soldiers and cavalry.

But on the third day of battle, Leonidas’s Greeks were betrayed by a local shepherd Ephialtes, who showed the Persians an alternate route over the mountains that led to the rear of the Greek position. When he realized that he was nearly surrounded, Leonidas nevertheless made a critical decision to stay and fight, while ordering most of the other various allies to flee the encirclement to organize the growing Greek resistance to the south.

Meanwhile the King and his doomed 300 Spartans, together with other small groups of surrounded Thespians and Thebans, would indeed battle to buy the Greeks time. They ranged further out from the pass on this third and last day of battle — at first with spears and swords, finally with teeth and nails —killing scores more of Persians. The last few Spartan survivors were buried under a sea of Persian arrows. The body of Leonidas was found among the corpses, his head soon impaled on a stick as a macabre reminder of the wages of resistance to the Great King of Persia.

The Greeks took encouragement from the unprecedented sacrifice of a Spartan King and his royal guard on their behalf. And so a few weeks later at the sea battle of Salamis near Athens — and then again the next year at the great infantry collision on the plains of Plataea — the Greeks defeated, and eventually destroyed, the Persian invaders. The rallying cry of the victors was Thermopylae, the noble sacrifice of the final stand of the outnumbered Greeks, and especially the courage of the fallen Three Hundred Spartans under King Leonidas.

So almost immediately, contemporary Greeks saw Thermopylae as a critical moral and culture lesson. In universal terms, a small, free people had willingly outfought huge numbers of imperial subjects who advanced under the lash. More specifically, the Western idea that soldiers themselves decide where, how, and against whom they will fight was contrasted against the Eastern notion of despotism and monarchy — freedom proving the stronger idea as the more courageous fighting of the Greeks at Thermopylae, and their later victories at Salamis and Plataea attested.

Greek writers and poets such as Simonides and Herodotus were fascinated by the Greek sacrifice against Xerxes, and especially the heroism of Leonidas and his men. And subsequently throughout Western literature poets as diverse as Lord Byron and A.E. Houseman have likewise paid homage to the Spartan last stand — and this universal idea of Western soldiers willing to die as free men rather than to submit to tyranny. Steven Pressfield’s novel Gates of Fire and the earlier Hollywood movie The 300 Spartans both were based on the Greek defense of the pass at Thermopylae.

Recently, a variety of Hollywood films — from Troy to Alexander the Great — has treated a variety of themes from classical Greek literature and theater. But 300 is unique, a sui generis in both spirit and methodology. The script is not an attempt in typical Hollywood fashion to recreate the past as a costume drama. Instead it is based on Frank Miller’s (of Sin City fame) comic book graphics and captions. Miller’s illustrated novelette of the battle adapts themes loosely from the well-known story of the Greek defense, but with deference made to the tastes of contemporary popular culture.

So the film is indeed inspired by the comic book; and in some sense its muscular warriors, virtual reality sets, and computer-generated landscapes recall the look and feel of Robert Rodriquez’s screen version of Sin City. Yet the collaboration of Director Zack Snyder and screenwriters Kurt Johnstad and Michael Gordon is much more of a hybrid, since the script, dialogue, cinematography, and acting all recall scenes of the battle right from Herodotus’s account.

300, of course, makes plenty of allowance for popular tastes, changing and expanding the story to meet the protocols of the comic book genre. The film was not shot on location outdoors, but in a studio using the so-called “digital backlot” technique of sometimes placing the actors against blue screens. The resulting realism is not that of the sun-soaked cliffs above the blue Aegean — Thermopylae remains spectacularly beautiful today — but of the eerie etchings of the comic book.

The Spartans fight bare-chested without armor, in the “heroic nude” manner that ancient Greek vase-painters portrayed Greek hoplites, their muscles bulging as if they were contemporary comic book action heroes. Again, following the Miller comic, artistic license is made with the original story — the traitor Ephialtes is as deformed in body as he is in character; King Xerxes is not bearded and perched on a distant throne, but bald, huge, perhaps sexually ambiguous, and often right on the battlefield. The Persians bring with them exotic beasts like a rhinoceros and elephant, and the leader of the Immortals fights Leonidas in a duel (which the Greeks knew as monomachia). Shields are metal rather than wood with bronze veneers, and swords sometimes look futuristic rather than ancient.

Again, purists must remember that 300 seeks to bring a comic book, not Herodotus, to the screen. Yet, despite the need to adhere to the conventions of Frank Miller’s graphics and plot — every bit as formalized as the protocols of classical Athenian drama or Japanese Kabuki theater — the main story from our ancient Greek historians is still there: Leonidas, against domestic opposition, insists on sending an immediate advance party northward on a suicide mission to rouse the Greeks and allow them time to unite a defense. Once at Thermopylae, he adopts the defenses to the narrow pass between high cliffs and the sea far below. The Greeks fight both en masse in the phalanx and at times range beyond as solo warriors. They are finally betrayed by Ephialtes, forcing Leonidas to dismiss his allies — and leaving his own 300 to the fate of dying under a sea of arrows.

But most importantly, 300 preserves the spirit of the Thermopylae story. The Spartans, quoting lines known from Herodotus and themes from the lyric poets, profess unswerving loyalty to a free Greece. They will never kow-tow to the Persians, preferring to die on their feet than live on their knees.

If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others."

Lemur
10-26-2006, 02:52
That's a shockingly open-minded reading of the film from a classicist. A far more generous understanding of film and comics than I would have expected.

R'as al Ghul
10-26-2006, 11:46
Thank you very much for posting this piece, Pindar.
I doubt that this will stop the "300 is not historical" crowd, though.

:bow:

naut
10-26-2006, 12:11
Very nice article.

satchef1
10-26-2006, 13:32
Good article, i was expecting some PHD in history moaning about how '300' ruins the story of Thermopyle

Pindar
10-26-2006, 17:26
That's a shockingly open-minded reading of the film from a classicist. A far more generous understanding of film and comics than I would have expected.

I had the same reaction when I first read it.


Thank you very much for posting this piece, Pindar.
I doubt that this will stop the "300 is not historical" crowd, though.

Alas.

Lemur
10-26-2006, 17:53
Hey Pindar, you wouldn't have the link to the original, would you? I have two Greek-reading, Latin-conjugating friends to whom I'd like to pass that article ...

Pindar
10-26-2006, 21:13
Hey Pindar, you wouldn't have the link to the original, would you? I have two Greek-reading, Latin-conjugating friends to whom I'd like to pass that article ...


Here ya go: http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101106.html

Vladimir
10-27-2006, 21:05
I thought it rather naïve when in the 1962 movie when they claimed that the Spartans died for “freedom”. They did no such thing. One could make an argument that they fought to preserve their way of life but certainly not freedom (maybe *their* freedom). In the movie they even used a line: "We will die but Greece will live." Using this same standard we can say that the Confederates also fought for freedom in the American Civil War. If they fought for freedom did not the North seek to suppress them and therefore freedom itself?

The Greeks held their democratic ideals close but so do the Germans, yet I have heard nothing of “democratic” Germany during WW II. Like NAZI Germany, Spartan society was highly militarized and relied on slaves like the Confederates. How can you call a militaristic, slave-owning, monarchy a free land? This can only be said of them if they are compared to Persia which was unquestionably despotic.

Yes I believe what they did was heroic and should be honored. That “loss” may also be responsible for freedoms many of us enjoy today. This whole notion that they fought for freedom is based on flowery propaganda and reeks of the “Golden Age” idealism of the past. It really irritates me when it is said by someone so educated on and knowledgeable of the era and region.

As far as the movie goes: Hell, if it makes money than good for them!

Oh and NO I do not hate freedom; and please correct me on any errors.

L'Impresario
10-27-2006, 21:52
Well said.


It really irritates me when it is said by someone so educated on and knowledgeable of the era and region.

..and with an obvious and well-known political agenda.

Lemur
10-27-2006, 22:00
..and with an obvious and well-known political agenda.
Who? Victor David Hanson or Frank Miller? Or somebody else?

L'Impresario
10-27-2006, 22:19
I think it's easy to find out what I meant heh

The movie is actually irrelevant when trying to score some cheap freedom-loving points;)
That being said, I don't care about historical accuracy etc. As it's inspired from the graphic novel, I'd be more interested in the form than the content, and hopefully even get some originality from the director.

Samurai Waki
10-28-2006, 07:42
Yes, a will look at this from an artistic point of view when I watch it (probably at a theater... however, maybe not considering our child is due in march...****:furious3: ) anyways, how well it's performed by the actors, the plotline, the colour scheme...etc. If it's good it's good, if not, than it is not. But I won't look at it from a historical point of view, because everyone with any common sense (seems to be fewer and fewer by the day) will not watch this for historical accuracy.

CaesarAugustus
10-28-2006, 17:22
Very long, but very nice article Pindar

Pindar
10-28-2006, 18:45
Very long, but very nice article Pindar

:bow:

Rocketman
10-28-2006, 23:53
Using this same standard we can say that the Confederates also fought for freedom in the American Civil War. If they fought for freedom did not the North seek to suppress them and therefore freedom itself?

Yes. The Confederacy was fighting for its independence, just like the 13 colonies had fought against Britain.

GottMitUns
10-29-2006, 08:24
I thought it rather naïve when in the 1962 movie when they claimed that the Spartans died for “freedom”. They did no such thing.


You beg the question, "What is freedom?"



One could make an argument that they fought to preserve their way of life but certainly not freedom (maybe *their* freedom).


That is what freedom is, "our freedom".



In the movie they even used a line: "We will die but Greece will live." Using this same standard we can say that the Confederates also fought for freedom in the American Civil War.

They actualy did fight to preserve their freedom. The original causes of the civil war lie in a violation of the rights of the states by the federal government, not in the issue of slavery.


If they fought for freedom did not the North seek to suppress them and therefore freedom itself?

Both sides fought for both freedom and tyrany. The south for their own freedom and the tyranny of holding slaves. The north for the freedom of the slaves and the tyrany they held over the southern states.



The Greeks held their democratic ideals close but so do the Germans, yet I have heard nothing of “democratic” Germany during WW II.


Thats a shaky argument. The era preceding wwii in germany was dominated by a philosophy (hegel etc.) advocating monarchy. The greatest german philosophers are, and german philosophy its self is, characterized by a rather explicid anti democratic sentiment.



Like NAZI Germany, Spartan society was highly militarized


Shaky associations combining to form a weak premise. Militarism and freedom are not mutualy exclusive in the least.



and relied on slaves like the Confederates. How can you call a militaristic, slave-owning, monarchy a free land? This can only be said of them if they are compared to Persia which was unquestionably despotic.


And there it is. "Compared to persia". Likewise, no libertarian would consider the FDR era in America to be exemplary of liberty or freedom, in fact since the civil war this was the era when the most draconian and unfree measures were pressed upon the American people. But compared the the Nazi regime, freedom was flourishing.



Yes I believe what they did was heroic and should be honored. That “loss” may also be responsible for freedoms many of us enjoy today. This whole notion that they fought for freedom is based on flowery propaganda and reeks of the “Golden Age” idealism of the past. It really irritates me when it is said by someone so educated on and knowledgeable of the era and region.

As far as the movie goes: Hell, if it makes money than good for them!

Oh and NO I do not hate freedom; and please correct me on any errors.


It is importan to consider that western civilization is a progress of freedom. Like the economy, there are times of boom and bust, but overall it only increases, not decreases. The spartans fought for freedom as did the american revolutionaries (another set of militaristic slave owning people), as did the wwii generation. The point is progress.

Also, last, it really is worth researching what freedom actually is. It really does mean different things to different people. The best example of this that I can think of is the contrast between the American and French revolutions and the long term results of each. The former aspired to and acheived extreme individual freedom. The latter aspired to benevolent despotism- it got the despotism but not nescessarily the benevolence. We have the reign of terror immediately following the French revolution and the despotism of Napoleon immediately following that. Napoleon who conquered europe and spread the idea of benevolent despotism throughout. Sewed the seeds for the rise of the likes of hitler, the popular accpeptance of despotism.


To some freedom is freedom of the individual to progress as far as he is able and willing. To others, freedom is freedom from hardship and hunger and unemployment.

Check out the US Bill of Rights and compae to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are huge difference and they all orient around the differences in freedom I pointed out above.

So did the "300" die for freedom? Not nescessarily as we think of freedom today. But I do think they knew they were dying for the progress of what they knew freedom to be.