BURN.

No, I'm just kidding, I actually I haven't seen it yet. But this is the first bad review of 300 I've read that wasn't an extended whine about some allegory for a deplorable facet of Western Civilization, like "Implied Racism" or "Men."

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. What that movie lacked was sufficient violence.

Well, that and a nation of gay men to be its primary audience.

*gasp*

VILE, VILE BLASPHEMY!

...

Okay, not really.

Seriously though, I don't understand why you didn't like 300. True, it could have been more violent, but I personally think that more violence would have detracted from the experience. One of my bigger pet peeves about Hollywood is the way every action movie either has far too little or entirely too much violence.

And yes, there is such a thing as too much violence.

For example, I always thought that Kill Bill Vol. 1 had way too much violence. Blood just doesn't spurt out of a person like that. It just doesn't happen. Every time someone's body part got cut off it was like a frikkin' garden sprinkler full of fake blood. Now don't get me wrong, the movie was good enough to make up for this, but it was hard to maintain a suspension of disbelief when 4 years of high school biology are screaming at me "Arteries do not work that way!"

By contrast, the Matrix Trilogy had far too little violence, considering what went on in those movies. For instance, in the Matrix Reloaded there's a scene when Neo gets in a kung fu fight with, like, five other guys, all armed with swords and such. Out of what must have been thousands of hits, including one where Neo used a giant spiked club thing to crush a man's chest in, there is almost no blood to speak of. Such a fight should have been incredibly bloody, but it wasn't for some reason.

But 300 is different. It uses, what I think, to be an exactly appropriate level of violence. When you run someone through with a spear, it wouldn't create a Tarantino-esque shower of blood, but neither would the spearhead come out spotless on the other side. And if you cut someone's leg off with a sword, there'd be a lot of blood but not nearly as much as certain Hollywood movies have you believe.

Frank Miller himself said in the DVD commentary that it was important to him that his book, and by extension this movie, give an accurate portrayal of the violence and savagery of ancient warfare. Making 300 any more or less violent than it is would have made it innaccurate.

Yes while 300 was interesting from an artistic standpoint, it didn't have near as much action, gore, or bloodshed as I would have liked. Shrek had more violence if truth be told.

On the other hand, the DVD I got done watching just now; "Hot Fuzz" had both an abundance of action as well as being bloody hilarious. If you loved "Shaun of the Dead" (I did for obvious reasons) you will love "Hot Fuzz". Awesome movie, be sure to check out the deleted scenes too.

This blog is nutty, tells me I'm signed in, but I still have to emter my info...

*stratching pointed head*

So, basically you're saying the movie watch you all???? ;-P

-HL

you also know that your dog tired when you misspell scratching... LOL

Hardliner -

And I'm scratching my pointed head:

"So, basically you're saying the movie watch you all???? ;-P"

Re Kill Bill: The blood shooting out in geysers was on purpose. Homage to old seventies grindhouse martial-arts movies, which also had such ludicrously bad effects. Was never meant to be taken seriously.

Re 300: MANTASTIC. Loved it. Beefy!

I felt the level of violence was just about right. But, you know, I guess if there's not enough heads peeling slowly off bodies, or limbs flying throught the air, it might annoy you?

What I definitely would have changed visually: the Spartan regalia; they actually wore a decent amount of armor. I also found the design of their swords rather odd.

Story-wise, my biggest hangup was all the talk about being free men. They weren't (not in the sense that we would relate to anyway.)

All that said, I really liked the movie but kept in mind that is was based very strongly on Miller's graphic novel which was stylized from history.
All in all though, the outline of events is fairly good according to what's known about the battle of Thermopylae.

Yep. Wife and I felt the same way. I watch it now just to laugh.

The Greeks used stylized warriors in their art; the soldiers were near naked and wore cloaks and helmets, just as in the movie. Since 300 is a work of art, Frank Miller paid homage to the ancient Greeks and their art.

I am surprised that anyone would find the movie gay. The 300 all had sons to carry on their name (which means they had wives), and King Leonidas loved his wife deeply. She was a kick-ass warrior queen herself. Nice, quick and fatal, that's the sword thrust I approve of. If you are a gay man, I'm sure the movie was very hot for you but there was nothing homosexual about it.

As a straight woman, it was hot for me too. Mm, mm, good.

Oh how can you say that Rachel?

I literally gasped when I read that..gasped!

Personally '300' has made it in my top 3 favorite movies(saw it 4 times in the theaters,havent got it on dvd yet)
I even got my parents to go see it and it was the first movie my mom's been to see since the first LOTR was out,she loved it.

Ok I admit they could have put some more clothes on(though it's not breakin my heart that they didnt *ahem*)..but I was happy with the amount of violence,and its the way the story is told that makes the movie stand out,no wussy little left wing messages or liberal crap.
It didnt really stand out to me until my second viewing(once you get use to the abs and the violence you can focus on the message)

Oh and you gotta admit there were some sweet parts and lines in there..:)

I hope you were real nice to Rupert in return for his watching that festival of man-flesh with you.

I once went to see Barney with a woman I was dating and her 3 year old. I wasn't rewarded nearly enough...

While you're defragging your hard-drive, you probably should go ahead and defrag your aesthetic sense while you're at it. You might try watching it again while you're sober too. "300" is as close to art as movies ever get.

Hugs and noogies,

Story-wise, my biggest hangup was all the talk about being free men. They weren't (not in the sense that we would relate to anyway.)

Actually they sort of were.

True, they didn't have quite as many freedoms as we do today, and I suspect that none of us would be comfortable living in Spartan society, but the Spartans themselves were in fact free men *and* women. In that respect they were in fact MORE free than any other civilization at the time. You know that quote by Queen Gorgo at the beginning of the movie? "Only Spartan women give birth to real men"? That quote is a real quote by the historical Queen Gorgo, but it was actually said to an Athenian woman who asked why Spartan women were permitted to speak equally among men.

Critics of 300 (particularly the Iranian ones) often point to the words "free men" as used by Stelios and Leonidas and the movie and shout, "See? See that? That's not accurate! The Spartans kept slaves!"

Well yes, the Spartans did keep slaves, but they did not enslave *each other*. All Spartans were free men and women.

I found 300 on demand and decided to refresh my memeory:)
But I'm curious what Rupert thought of the movie?
And so far I've noticed that the small screen does not even come close to the big screen of the theater,on the big screen it's much more...BIG..(obvisously heh)
But I think(and hope) a second viewing would leave you with a different feeling of the movie:)

Not enough violence? If you say so.

Not enough scanitly-clad seers (or whatever they were...I was too busy drooling to listen)? Defintely.

300 is one of the few movies I've watched this year. I knew it was based on a comic book, so I didn't expect much. I enjoyed it even though I found trained war rhinoceroses a bit much.

No, no, no, Rachel.

The kinder, gentler version of The 300 will be out on DVD later this year.

The movie?

Brokeback Mount Olympus.

i>"All Spartans were free men and women." - mightysamurai

I did disclaim my statement with "not in a sense we would relate to"...

~All Spartan men are required by law to serve 25 years (age 5-30) military service. They were forbidden to marry until age twenty and forbidden to have a household until thirty.

~After thirty, Spartan males were finally considered Homoioi (equals, or citizens if you will)and were allowed to take part in assembly (essentially voting on ruling council edicts).

This is as opposed to the Inferiors, and finally the slaves.

Naturally, you didn't get a chance at citizenship if you were thrown off a cliff or dumped down a well as a newborn because you didn't fit the requirements of the Ephors.

Highly militaristic, and restrictive socially. They had basic rights, but freedom in a sense we would not relate to.

Ditto, Frazetta_girl. I loved 300!

And Alexander, what you described sounds pretty good to me right about now. The rules were meant to make Sparta strong - stronger than anyone around them. Some sacrifices were made, and some sound like plain common sense to me. (What teenage boy do you know of who is fit to be a worthy husband and father?) Rules like that make perfect sense.

On a different note - we can hardly get sanctimonious about throwing away babies, seeing as we are free to do so by the millions each year. We certainly don't have a moralistic leg to stand on.

I'm not going to argue over how free we'd consider them today in our limp-wristed society. Not really relevant in my mind. People who strive to be the best in any endeavor always give up some measure of personal preferences and gratification in order to accomplish their objectives. Sparta was a society of like-minded warrior-people who did what they felt they had to do to protect, strengthen, and defend their way of life. And they never apologized for it. They chose it - and they were free to leave if they hated it.

~All Spartan men are required by law to serve 25 years (age 5-30) military service. They were forbidden to marry until age twenty and forbidden to have a household until thirty.

~After thirty, Spartan males were finally considered Homoioi (equals, or citizens if you will)and were allowed to take part in assembly (essentially voting on ruling council edicts).

There are nations to this day that still require compulsory military service of all male (sometimes female) citizens when they reach a certain age. Among them are Germany, Finland, Greece, and Israel, none of which can be considered brutal dictatorships.

As for marriage, owning a house, and voting, we do the exact same thing. We just set the minimum age at 18 rather than 20 and 30.

Like I said, we would not be comfortable living in Spartan society, but the Spartans certainly fit the definition of a "free" society better than any other ancient culture I can think of.

(And as Redhead Infidel points out, we hardly have the right to lecture the Spartans on infanticide, considering that 4,000 babies (I think) are aborted in America alone every single year.)

We should also keep in mind that much of what we know about the Spartans comes from other Greek's observations of their culture. Hardly an objective source.

Good points, mightysamurai. One small correction - I think the number is closer to 1.31 million abortions per year. But what's a few more zeros? Dead is dead, whether over a cliff or down the drain, right?

I suppose I need to point out that I'm not even sure what the debate is.

Naturally there are parallels. But for many specific reasons I have a problem with the portrayal as essentially a free American-esque society. Any city-state based soley on military power and prowess is going to have limited freedom to begin with for obvious reasons.

There is a stark difference between compulsory military service and military service required for 25 years in order to be a citizen. See Robert A. Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers' for another framing of this flavor of quasi-free society.

Whether or not you, Redhead Infidel (or me in certain respects) prefers this level and manner of disciplne is entirely irrelevant to ancient Sparta and the whether it was a truly free state. I think a better model of a free ancient society is Rome.

As far as lecturing Sparta on discarding children. It would be a moral equivocation to say I have no right to disapprove of throwing babies into pits because the country I live in now allows people to destroy babies before they're born.

Keep in mind, one of the primary reasons the men had to be such an effective fighting force was not to keep other people free, it was to keep the enslaved Helots (numbering in the millions) from overthrowing the Spartans (which had about 8000 citizens at it's zenith). That says nothing of their freedom, only their intentions.

All that said, it was simply a minor quibble that I had with the film!

I think it was Stalin who said "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

Well, Alex, it has certainly led to a fascinating discussion. You seem to know whereof you speak, so you are probably a good one to ask this question about Spartan society: what do you make of the popular modern theories that Spartan men were mostly homosexual? I always thought that was Athens, and find it mildly absurd that such a militant society .

Well, Alex, it has certainly led to a fascinating discussion. You and mightysamurai seem to know whereof you speak, so you are probably good ones to ask this question about Spartan society: what do you make of the popular modern theory that Spartan men were mostly homosexual? I always thought that was Athens.

Too much art direction, not enough of anything else. Perhaps one had to be a fan of Miller's graphic novel to truly appreciate it, but I found it unengaging and emotionally remote; and the remarkable visuals became annoying after about the first 15 minutes. Not gay, but gay-ish.

whoops, comment was duplicated.

Redheaded Infidel,

Definitely an interesting discusion, I was just surprised it occured from what I said :)

The reason for that contention is that even after taking a wife and fathering children, the men were rarely ever home with their wife and children, instead spending it with their male compatriots. It wasn't uncommon for men to take male lovers and it (as far as I know) wasn't frowned upon. But I don't think it could be considered that most Spartan men were homosexual.

Also remember, ideas of homosexuality didn't necessarily have the same stigma or social stereotypes then. So in relation to the military I don't think it mattered.

I think Lance brought up in another thread the Theban Sacred Band which I think may have been exclusively or largely homosexual...but I don't really know.

Nit picking time. Sorry, Alexander.

The government in the SST world was not a military-run government, nor a military dictatorship, nor fascism.

The government in the SST world was a civilian run democracy.

The point is, and this is one of the most important points of the entire book: the franchise had to be earned.

The right to vote not given out due to the fact that you had a body temperature of 98.6 degrees F, you had to prove that you were willing to offer service to the state, usually for 2 years, either in the military or any other assignment you were ordered to carry out.

Remember the famous citation of the blind guy who volunteered for service.

"He could be assigned to count catapillar hairs by hand."

Or someone in perfect health could be assigned to digging ditches on Pluto.

Or assigned to the Mobile Infantry.

[Weird. I just posted this over at Right Wing News.....]

I think Sparta was a civilian-run democracy, as well, now that O'Brain mentions it.

Thanks N. O'Brain.

The only comparison I meant to make here was about military service for citizenship... while ignoring the rest of the structure, which probably wasn't such a great idea.

You're right to nit pick as it's really not the overall point of the book.

I really need to read that book again, it's been about 15 years. (off to the library!)

Goddamn I love comment threads like this. I learn more reading my own blog than I did in college.

Just a correction to one of my previous posts: I mentioned the Helots as numbering in the millions. I was a little off (it helps to research every so often)...the number is was closer to half a million.

One other thing, the Greek Hoplite was usually armored in a Bronze or leather cuir boilli curiass. That got left out, too. And that the each of the Spartan warriors had at least one helot if not more with him to skirmish or provide missile support.

The entire Thespian citizenry was wiped out there...

But, work with me here...it was a MOVIE. Like Michael MOO's, and just about as accurate.

There fore I want to nominate "300" for the best documentary Oscar...

Didn't see it. Preview looked too gay. Chicks who want to see hot guys killing shit can always fall back on LotR. To quote a certain Blue Eyed Infidel: "I think I just got pregnant watching Eomir kick that orc's ass!"

Naturally there are parallels. But for many specific reasons I have a problem with the portrayal as essentially a free American-esque society. Any city-state based soley on military power and prowess is going to have limited freedom to begin with for obvious reasons.

True, but you have to remember that, in the movie (not the book), almost the entire story is told specifically from the POV of Dilios, a Spartan soldier. In effect, the movie is actually one long fireside chat between Dilios and the other Spartans.

Why were the Persian warbeasts (the rhino and the elephant) portrayed in such a grotesque and innaccurate manner? Because that's how they appeared to Dilios. He'd never seen a rhino or an elephant before.

Why were the Immortals portrayed as demonic creatures? Because that's how they appeared to Dilios. The reason they were called "Immortals" was because for every one that was killed, another would jump forward and take his place in line. To our modern perspective it's a cheesy trick that doesn't convince, but to the Spartans? It was magic! (I should also point out that in Frank Miller's book, the Immortals are just faceless, hooded figures. Not demons.)

And why was Spartan society portrayed so idealistically? Because that's the way Dilios saw it. He was a Spartan and he loved it. Naturally he would portray Spartan society in the best possible light.

Whether or not you, Redhead Infidel (or me in certain respects) prefers this level and manner of disciplne is entirely irrelevant to ancient Sparta and the whether it was a truly free state. I think a better model of a free ancient society is Rome.

Perhaps, but Ancient Rome was founded some 397 years after Ancient Greece (and it didn't become a republic for another 243 years). And one can't simply discount the heavy influence Greek culture had on the Romans.

And as long as we're using modern standards to judge Ancient Sparta, lets do the same thing with Ancient Rome.

For instance, the Romans employed certain people as "censors" whose primary duty was to take the census, but whose secondary duty was to punish people for violating the "public morals". They had the power to throw elected politicians out of the Senate and they could punish citizens for such notable offenses as not being married when one should, being too indulgent of one's children, being disobedient toward one's parents, spending too much money, neglectful/careless cultivation of one's crops, and carrying on a disreputable trade or occupation, such as acting in theaters.

Indeed, the very words "censor", "censorship", and "dictator" originate from Ancient Rome.

The important thing to remember here is, when you consider the historical context, Ancient Sparta was the only government even approaching a "free state" at the time. I mean, if we really get to pick and choose from past civilizations, I'd say that America circa 1776 is an even better model of a free society than Ancient Rome.

As far as lecturing Sparta on discarding children. It would be a moral equivocation to say I have no right to disapprove of throwing babies into pits because the country I live in now allows people to destroy babies before they're born.

Well that's the whole point, isn't it?

When you get down to it, there really isn't any difference, scientifically speaking, between throwing a newborn child into the sea and killing an unborn child in the womb (unless of course scientists have discovered the exact moment life begins and I was not informed).

In other words, the two actions are, essentially, morally equivalent.

Keep in mind, one of the primary reasons the men had to be such an effective fighting force was not to keep other people free, it was to keep the enslaved Helots (numbering in the millions) from overthrowing the Spartans (which had about 8000 citizens at it's zenith). That says nothing of their freedom, only their intentions.

I can't rightly argue against that but I would point out that, although it may have been a primary reason, it was hardly the only reason or the most important reason.

Well, Alex, it has certainly led to a fascinating discussion. You and mightysamurai seem to know whereof you speak, so you are probably good ones to ask this question about Spartan society: what do you make of the popular modern theory that Spartan men were mostly homosexual? I always thought that was Athens.

It's difficult to say for sure.

Like I said before, much of Spartan law was transmitted orally and committed to memory, and on top of that the Spartans were very secretive about their ways. Thus, much of what we know of Spartan culture comes from secondary sources. Namely, other Greeks. And since the Athenians were as much the rivals of the Spartans as their allies, one must consider the possibility that they were less than accurate in their portrayal of the Spartans.

So, were the Spartans "mostly homosexual"? Sources conflict. The Athenian writer Cicero claimed that Spartans, like many Greek states, practiced a form of pederasty (love of adolescent boys). But Aristotle wrote that Spartan society was based on heterosexual relationships.

Without going back in time to see it for ourselves, there's no way to know for certain.

One other thing, the Greek Hoplite was usually armored in a Bronze or leather cuir boilli curiass. That got left out, too.

You can blame Frank Miller for that. He wanted the visuals to be evocative of Ancient Greek art, thus, bare chests and six-packs everywhere.

Just be thankful the director made an executive decision to put the Spartans in loin-cloths. In the original book they either wore thongs or went totally naked.

Just for fun, a short anecdote from the Athenian writer Xenophon concerning Ancient Sparta:

An elderly man was trying to find a place to sit and observe the Olympic Games, as he went to each section. All the other Greeks laughed as he tried to make his way through. Some ignored him. Upon entering the Spartan section all the Spartans stood and offered the elderly man their seats. Suddenly the entire stadium applauded. All the Greeks knew what was the right thing to do, but the Spartans were the only ones who did it.

"But I don't think it could be considered that most Spartan men were homosexual.

Also remember, ideas of homosexuality didn't necessarily have the same stigma or social stereotypes then. So in relation to the military I don't think it mattered."

IIRC, Spartan men that had sex with other men weren't considered homosexuals in the way we think of the word today, because at the end of the day they still went home to their wives--they were family men who just also happened to have sex with other men, if you see the distinction.

mightysamurai,

I like the idea of Dilios telling the story, hence the grotesque exaggerations, definitely logical. Though, unfortunately, I don't think they were considering that factor. I was watching the commentary last night while I was working, and when they talked about the design and aesthetics, they essentially said: "Yeah we did that because it looked cool." or "Yeah, that was right from the graphic novel."

They did laugh at themselves regarding the fact that Dilios continued to tell the story as it happened when he was on his way back to Sparta and wasn't even there to witness it.

"The important thing to remember here is, when you consider the historical context, Ancient Sparta was the only government even approaching a "free state" at the time."

I think you're mistaken. Athens was free, and far closer related to the way our modern American life operates...where Sparta was much closer to a highly militaristic communist state.

Interesting stuff about Rome though. I've always been fascinated by it and I'm constantly reminded that I don't know nearly enough.

"In other words, the two actions are, essentially, morally equivalent."

Well, you started by saying they're scientifically equivalent, then you jump from there to being morally equivalent. That's not a logical leap given that the exact moment life begins is pretty much a matter of opinion at the moment.
But if you feel that there's no difference between killing a fetus and taking a newly born baby and hurling it off a cliff to die, then that's your perogative.

"I can't rightly argue against that but I would point out that, although it may have been a primary reason, it was hardly the only reason or the most important reason."

I beg to differ. I feel it was the most important reason, because there would be no Sparta without a strong army trained specifically in taking out much larger forces (that was not coincidental). They knew this, and they knew the Helots literally fed Sparta. As I mentioned there were only as many as 8000 Spartan citizens at once, all men.

So no, not the only reason, but certainly the most important as they saw it.

"The Spartans ask not how many, but where they are."

I like the idea of Dilios telling the story, hence the grotesque exaggerations, definitely logical. Though, unfortunately, I don't think they were considering that factor. I was watching the commentary last night while I was working, and when they talked about the design and aesthetics, they essentially said: "Yeah we did that because it looked cool." or "Yeah, that was right from the graphic novel."

That was part of it, but the fact that the story was told entirely from the Greek perspective can't be dismissed. Particularly the portrayal of the Immortals. I can't remember whether it was in the commentary or the special features disk, but the portrayal of the Immortals as demonic creatures was basically an overly exaggerated version of how the Greeks actually saw them. The Immortals were Xerxes' elite warriors and they employed tactics that seemed, to the Greeks, to border on the supernatural.

And the graphic novel is no different. It may not have been told from Dilios' POV as the movie was, but it was still told exclusively from the Greek's perspective. Hence, all the naked men, which is specifically designed to resemble Ancient Greek art.

I think you're mistaken. Athens was free, and far closer related to the way our modern American life operates...

Athens was hardly free, by modern standards.

1. Although citizens from all economic classes could vote, only upper class Athenians could hold political office.
2. Only adult male Athenians who had completed their military training as ethebes could vote. Women, slaves, and resident aliens could not.
3. Athenian citizens had to be legitimately descended from citizens on both sides of their family. Children of Athenian men and foreign women could not be citizens, and thus could not vote.
4. People who lived outside the city walls were forbidden from voting on matters of war, whether citizen or not, on the grounds that they had a personal interest in the outcome of such a vote (it was common practice for an invading army to destroy all lands outside a city's walls).
5. The status of women in Ancient Athens was perhaps the lowest of any Greek city-state at that time. Women could not vote, own property, or compete in the Olympic games. They often could not even leave the house without the permission of their husbands. By contrast, Spartan women enjoyed near-total equality with men.
6. Slavery was more widespread in Athens than in any other Greek city, even Sparta.

Now granted, Athens was certainly freer than most other ancient civilizations, but let's be fair. If we're going to judge the Spartans by modern standards, we should do the same with the Athenians.

That was my original point, after all. That we need to keep in mind the historical context behind the terms "free men" and "free society".

where Sparta was much closer to a highly militaristic communist state.

Perhaps. But any Spartans who didn't like the way things were run in Sparta were free to leave.

Well, you started by saying they're scientifically equivalent, then you jump from there to being morally equivalent. That's not a logical leap given that the exact moment life begins is pretty much a matter of opinion at the moment.

Yes, that was my point. At this point in time, there is no scientific evidence proving when life begins.

Consequently, there is no perceivable difference, morally or scientifically, between killing a baby in the womb and killing one outside the womb.

I beg to differ. I feel it was the most important reason, because there would be no Sparta without a strong army trained specifically in taking out much larger forces (that was not coincidental). They knew this, and they knew the Helots literally fed Sparta. As I mentioned there were only as many as 8000 Spartan citizens at once, all men.

I think you've got things backwards.

The Spartan's military prowess and their enslavement of the Helots are certainly connected, but not in the way you think. The Spartans weren't militaristic to keep the Helots enslaved. The Helots were enslaved so the Spartans could be militaristic.

There simply are not enough hours in a day to constantly train for battle and maintain enough crops to feed one's family. Which, as you rightly point out, is why the Helots basically fed the Spartans. But there is no evidence, to my knowledge, that the Spartan military existed specifically or primarily to keep the Helots at bay. It certainly doesn't jibe with Spartan culture, which placed a heavy emphasis on doing things simply because they were right, rather than because they were utilitarian or convenient. It seems rather odd that the Spartans would believe so strongly in doing the right thing for its own sake, but maintain a strong military simply to keep the Helots down.

Also, there were actually a lot more than 8,000 citizens in Sparta's early years (about 10,000 at the beginning of the 5th century BC). The problem is that, in Sparta, citizenship could (usually) only be inherited by blood, which meant that the number of citizens gradually declined over the years.

Ironically, Sparta was eventually brought down, not by military defeat, but by its own short-sighted laws.

According to legend, Philip II sent a message to Sparta, saying: "If I enter Laconia I will level Sparta to the ground."

The Spartans responded: "If."

This is an excellent conversation mightysamurai. I'm seeing that we're either slowly meeting in the middle or just seeing things through different eyes.

"That was part of it, but the fact that the story was told entirely from the Greek perspective can't be dismissed."

I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss it, there's alot of merit in it.

"Now granted, Athens was certainly freer than most other ancient civilizations, but let's be fair. If we're going to judge the Spartans by modern standards, we should do the same with the Athenians."

All good points, and not entirely different from Sparta. One of the major differences is the economic structure, Athens being fairly capitalistic in nature and Sparta more socialistic. If I were to compare modern day America to one of the two, I would still go with Athens, all things considered.

"That was my original point, after all. That we need to keep in mind the historical context behind the terms "free men" and "free society"."

I think historical context is supremely important in this circumstance, and there would be no contention from me were it another more historically accurate film.

But here, between the heavy electric guitar riffs and british accents, we have an indiscernable mix of contemporary and ancient, so it's often difficult to tell for which context one is intended.
I understand the usage of "free men" and "liberty" in the film, hell, I can even write it off as strictly a comparison to the structure of the Persian army, I just don't necessarily agree 100% with it in this circumstance.

In other words, I understand your argument completely, I just think a movie like 300 is the completely wrong film in which to have this discussion.

"Consequently, there is no perceivable difference, morally or scientifically, between killing a baby in the womb and killing one outside the womb."

This runs the risk of opening a whole other can of worms. I personally feel there is a difference between, say, cracking open an egg and crushing a baby chick beneath your boot.

I'll have to pass on this debate for the time being...I'm sure we'll find need to continue it later.

"The Spartan's military prowess and their enslavement of the Helots are certainly connected, but not in the way you think. The Spartans weren't militaristic to keep the Helots enslaved. The Helots were enslaved so the Spartans could be militaristic."

Keeping the Helots in check was priority #1 for the Spartan state given the role they played, as we've both stated. There was no other way to keep half a million people enslaved by so few other than by military means. Yes, the Helots fed the Spartans, but first the Helots had to farm the food that the army consumed, and that's not done out of the kindness of their hearts, hence the slavery.

There were many interesting things I found when checking up on the Spartans, among them was how they were taught to speak, in short terse phrases, hence the modern word": 'laconic'.

Anyhow, I'm honestly a bit tuckered out on this subject, thank you for the interesting discussion!

One of the major differences is the economic structure, Athens being fairly capitalistic in nature and Sparta more socialistic. If I were to compare modern day America to one of the two, I would still go with Athens, all things considered.

I'll give you that, Ancient Sparta certainly was not too keen on the concept of economic freedom. I guess that's the price you pay for being ultra-efficient and militaristic.

But as much as I love capitalism and the freedom that comes with it, I can't help but admire the Spartans simply for their dedication to physical and mental perfection. I think the rest of Greece, indeed, the entire ancient world, was extremely lucky the Spartans didn't have an expansionist mindset.

I think historical context is supremely important in this circumstance, and there would be no contention from me were it another more historically accurate film.

In fairness, the director of the film, when queried on its historical accuracy, described 300 as "an opera, not a documentary".

Yes it was stylized and (arguably) over-exaggerated, but the visuals weren't the important thing.

The message, that there are things in this world worth fighting and dying for, that you should never give up against even overwhelming odds, THAT was the important thing.

But here, between the heavy electric guitar riffs and british accents, we have an indiscernable mix of contemporary and ancient, so it's often difficult to tell for which context one is intended.

First of all, I fucking hate when people complain about Gerard Butler's accent. People said he was "channeling Sean Connery" as though they think it was a put-on accent. And I'm like, THATS HOW HE FUCKING TALKS YOU FUCKING FUCKTARDS! I FUCKING HOPE YOU FUCKING DIE YOU STUPID FUCKING FUCKERS! FUCK!!!

*deep breath*

Okay not really. But it does kind of annoy me.

Anyway, I think the movie suffers a bit purely by virtue of it being a movie. When you read the graphic novel your mind sets the mood. But when you watch a movie, the film-makers have to do it for you.

Also, the graphic novel is a lot more...let's say "introspective"...than the movie. When I read it the first time it seemed more like a narrative poem than a comic book. The pictures almost seemed like an afterthought at times. By comparison, the movie is almost a total reverse. In the movie, the visuals are 9/10s of the experience and the narration is secondary.

(I was also a little miffed that they omitted a scene from the book that I thought was an important one. In the original novel, after Daxos and the Arkadians have fled the battle and Leonidas has given his troops his final speech, Stelios says, "We're with you, sir. To the death." To which Leonidas responds, "I didn't ask. Leave democracy to the Athenians, boy.")

I'll venture a guess and say you've seen the movie but haven't read the book. If so, I implore you to go to your local bookstore and pick up a copy. Once you read that, your entire perspective of the movie will be changed.

Anyhow, I'm honestly a bit tuckered out on this subject

Bah! Sleep is for the weak!