Just saw 300...

[Guest A-Men-HouseofPain]

[quote name='sneaky' post='455134' date='Mar 11 2007, 10:42 AM'][color="#FF0000"][b]Instead of just PM'ing Scout, I guess I might as well post my complete reveiw and issues
with this movie for all to see.

First off let me say that I'm not saying the movie was bad. I enjoyed it because of the action
and the beautiful imagery. From that pesrspective, I found the movie very entertaining, but
there was some things in this movie that I did not like.

PROBLEM #1: INFANT KILLINGS

At the beginning of the movie, it is explained, that Sparta infant males, who were either
deformed or too small, were thrown off an edge of a cliff or hilltop, to ensure that that
all men from Sparta would be strong and healthy. The movie does not show any infants
getting tossed, but there is a scene where a man is examining a baby at the top of a cliff,
and the skulls of infants are seen at the bottom.

To me this is extremely fucked up. Dont get me wrong, I am aware that these kind of things
happened in various ancient cultures, thats not my problem, my problem is that this scene
was not needed and it should have been edited.

Why? People are fucking ignorant, and they dont need to be given more fucked up ideas.
Those of us who live in Cincinnati are already aware of the Marcus Fizel murder last summer.

Marcus was a 5 year old mentally impaired child that was left to die, tied up in a closet, while his parents went on vacation and upon their return they cremated his body.

Just a few months ago, a Dayton woman was charged for murdering her six week old baby.
The baby was killed via microwave. I can almost gaurentee you that within a matter of
weeks there will be a disabled child or infant thrown off a cliff or bridge, because of this
scene.

As I am typing this, I just found this story from CNN this morning.....

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/11/infant.bodies.ap/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/11/infant.bodies.ap/index.html[/url]

PROBLEM #2: PLENTY OF RACIST AND XENOPHOBIC INEUNDOS

Throughout the entire movie, the point that the people of Sparta was superior was
banged like a drum over and over again. In one of the opening scenes, when the
messenger of Xerxes asked Leonidas why did he allow his wife to verbally confront
him (the messenger), Leonidas answered, "because only Sparta women bare real men".

IMO, I find that type of dialogue extremely reckless and dangerous, especially when
the movie is all about multiple cultures, and multiple races fighting each other in war.

Also, the Persian army which included Africans and Asians were presented as
demonic, evil, freakish and heartless murderers and all lacked great skill and
true courage on the battle field.

I'm not the only person that noticed it........
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29[/url]
In conclusion, I think the movie had a hell of alot more style than it did substance.

If the makers of this film would have put the same amount of effort and concern on what this film
had to say, as they did on how it looked, it would have been a lot better.[/b][/color][/quote]


sneaky i can see what you are saying,but this is more of a stretch than tommy lee with a virgin. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img]

[Guest A-Men-HouseofPain]

[quote name='BadassBengal' post='455145' date='Mar 11 2007, 11:35 AM']sneaky, come one man, who cares. The movie is about being cool and manly and killing things. For a good minute, can't you just say "fuck the real world" and go enjoy yourself.[/quote]
what the fuck is up with ur disappearance lately? i never see you around anymore.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='BadassBengal' post='455145' date='Mar 11 2007, 10:35 AM']sneaky, come one man, who cares. The movie is about being cool and manly and killing things. For a good minute, can't you just say "fuck the real world" and go enjoy yourself.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]BAB, I enjoy these kind of action movies just as much as the next guy,
but when a film wants to make a movie about actual people, actual events, actual cultures and countries, then I have to hold it accountable on things I'd let fictional movies slide on.[/b] [/color]

[quote name='Scoutforlife591' post='455171' date='Mar 11 2007, 12:10 PM']Well, I'll agree with you on most accounts sneaky. In sincerity.

However, I'd urge you to put things into context a bit more.

Perhaps the "babies over the cliff" scene wasn't edited as to show the cost this particular society has had to carry so that "only spartan women give birth to real men."[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]It does not matter, it was unecessary. The tests of manhood that the boys had to go through, as far
as the sparring, and hunting the gigantic wolf in the cold wilderness, was more than enough to
show how tough the Spartans were.

You don't have to show everything for an audience to get the point. Example:
When Theron blackmailed the Queen of Sparta for sex in exchange for his help of her
husband, after she disrobed he made it clear by his words that he was going
to "grunge fuck her", so it was unecessary for the movie to actually show him fucking her
all night, because the audience already understood thats what he did.

All I am tring to say, the same kind of direction could have been used without actually having
to show a man holding a baby at the edge of a cliff with baby skulls at the bottom of it.[/b][/color]

[quote]The movie was given from the perspective of the Spartans. That is the reason for the grotesqueness of the Persian army. If you'll remember, the entire movie was lightly narrated by the Marathon runner.
It's obvious that he was telling some tall tales and embellishing things. That's more of a tribute to cultural storytelling and the oral tradition. Thus the reason Xerxes was Likely a foot and a half larger than the King, even though the King was already presented as a 6'5" laser rocket arm perfect male specimen. Hence the monster-like attributes of the Persian Empire as seen through Spartan eyes.
From my own perspective, I saw the Spartans make fun of the Athenians, calling them boy-lovers. However, that's the same thing a Marine would do to a soldier in the army. That's how a group of warriors fosters there warrior culture. By constantly believing they are superior.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]It doesn't matter what perspective, it was given from. If the perspective is demonizing and
demeaning entire cultures, races and countries, it's still socially irresponsible for the film to
portray that to the public. I'm sure if this movie was filmed from a Persian pespective, you
would see my point a little better.[/b][/color]

[quote]That right there is how I took the movie. A story on a warrior culture. I think it's easy to see that a warrior culture is not going to be PC. ("Kill Babies" isn't an infrequently battlecry heard in the Marines, as a sign, albeit immature, of our ruthlessness.)[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Was Gladiator not PC? Was Braveheart not PC? Was Saving Private Ryan not PC? Of course they
were. You can make a good warrior / war movie without demonizing cultures, countries and races.[/b][/color]

[quote]Back on baby killing. Today it's criminal, then it was social acceptable. (China) There is a difference. I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Fizel are going to be filing an appeal on grounds of "300." There is a clear distinction. In no way[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]I think you have completely missed my point on this. I believe that it is a responsibility of
the movie industry to censor themselves when it comes to violence and children. It is absurd
to think anyone will use this movie in the court of law to justify why they killed a child. So I
have no idea what you're getting at. However, my initial point is when an idea or image of
violence towards children is shown on a film, all it does is plant seeds in the minds of people
who are mentally unstable enough, and violent enough to actually go do it. That is my point,
do you understand now?[/b][/color]

[quote]As to the Persian army being ruthless and talentless. Well, it was a bit of a clusterfuck winning due only to their masses. The language barriers and morale making in nearly an inoperable war machine. Furthermore, the Spartans WERE just about the greatest fighters on the earth at the time. The Phalanx and 13 foot spears was pretty tough to beat. As to ruthless, yes, it's not like Darius and Xerxes were trying to spread democracy or have everyone in the world get inoculated for Hepatitis B.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]This movie was based on a fictional novel about a war that took place nearly 2,000 years ago.
Historians have already came out criticizing this movie for it's lack of accuracy. This movie
is not factially accurate nor does it attempt to be. Thus making it an injust to portray Persians
in such a light, when the film makers know many will think this story is true. If you can't see
the potiental evil in this, then I'm wasting my time typing this.[/b][/color]

[quote]Anyway. I enjoyed the movie. It's not like I was seeking moral guidance by watching it.[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"][b]Nor was I and it wasn't suppose to, but its recklessness was a little too real for my liking.[/b][/color]

[big_dish]

[quote name='Scoutforlife591' post='455171' date='Mar 11 2007, 01:10 PM']Well, I'll agree with you on most accounts sneaky. In sincerity.

However, I'd urge you to put things into context a bit more.

Perhaps the "babies over the cliff" scene wasn't edited as to show the cost this particular society has had to carry so that "only spartan women give birth to real men."

The movie was given from the perspective of the Spartans. That is the reason for the grotesqueness of the Persian army. If you'll remember, the entire movie was lightly narrated by the Marathon runner.

It's obvious that he was telling some tall tales and embellishing things. That's more of a tribute to cultural storytelling and the oral tradition. Thus the reason Xerxes was Likely a foot and a half larger than the King, even though the King was already presented as a 6'5" laser rocket arm perfect male specimen. Hence the monster-like attributes of the Persian Empire as seen through Spartan eyes.

From my own perspective, I saw the Spartans make fun of the Athenians, calling them boy-lovers. However, that's the same thing a Marine would do to a soldier in the army. That's how a group of warriors fosters there warrior culture. By constantly believing they are superior.

That right there is how I took the movie. A story on a warrior culture. I think it's easy to see that a warrior culture is not going to be PC. ("Kill Babies" isn't an infrequently battlecry heard in the Marines, as a sign, albeit immature, of our ruthlessness.)

Back on baby killing. Today it's criminal, then it was social acceptable. (China) There is a difference. I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Fizel are going to be filing an appeal on grounds of "300." There is a clear distinction. In no way

As to the Persian army being ruthless and talentless. Well, it was a bit of a clusterfuck winning due only to their masses. The language barriers and morale making in nearly an inoperable war machine. Furthermore, the Spartans WERE just about the greatest fighters on the earth at the time. The Phalanx and 13 foot spears was pretty tough to beat. As to ruthless, yes, it's not like Darius and Xerxes were trying to spread democracy or have everyone in the world get inoculated for Hepatitis B.

Anyway. I enjoyed the movie. It's not like I was seeking moral guidance by watching it.[/quote]

I agree with scout.

Also, I saw it last night, and, for all the hoopla it has been garnered with, I thought it was just OK. It was a cool movie, dont get me wrong, but I was led to believe it was going to be more like Bravehearts cooler older brother. It was One big fight scene (cool) and a somewhat underdeveloped emotional connection to me as a member of the audience. I would recommend seeing it, but I would also caution that it is not "the greatest Movie ever" which I have heard people say of it.

That said, I am 28, and I bet I would have loved it if I was 19.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='A-Men-HouseofPain' post='455196' date='Mar 11 2007, 01:19 PM']sneaky i can see what you are saying,but this is more of a stretch than tommy lee with a virgin. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img][/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]I'm dissapointed, you feel that way A-men. I thought you of all people would have
understood where I was coming from. For example, had you been born in Sparta,
they would have tossed you off the cliff for having boobies.[/b][/color]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]Haven't seen it yet ... but I may see it soon.


I can pretty much already imagine the entire movie in my head .... the only question is whether I want to drop 9 $ for the ticket --- and 7 $ for the popcorn to watch thousands upon thousands of people be killed in an overly gratuitous and shameful way on a big screen.

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/23.gif[/img] Since I am a product of an overly militarized society --- I probably will “turn the other cheek" towards the screen by succumbing and enjoy the 2 hour distraction from the real terror of war --- and watch some pissburgh looking fuckers get their heads chopped off. [/b]

[Guest A-Men-HouseofPain]

[quote name='sneaky' post='455214' date='Mar 11 2007, 03:14 PM'][color="#FF0000"][b]I'm dissapointed, you feel that way A-men. I thought you of all people would have
understood where I was coming from. For example, had you been born in Sparta,
they would have tossed you off the cliff for having boobies.[/b][/color]
[/quote]
i was skinny the first 14 years of my life thank you Im also part Greek and would have been a killing machine in those times

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='455220' date='Mar 11 2007, 03:49 PM'][b]Haven't seen it yet ... but I may see it soon.
I can pretty much already imagine the entire movie in my head .... the only question is whether I want to drop 9 $ for the ticket --- and 7 $ for the popcorn to watch thousands upon thousands of people be killed in an overly gratuitous and shameful way on a big screen.

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] Since I am a product of an overly militarized society --- I probably will “turn the other cheek" towards the screen by succumbing and enjoy the 2 hour distraction from the real terror of war --- and watch some pissburgh looking fuckers get their heads chopped off. [/b][/quote]
gotta see it in theater, more fun that way.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='455220' date='Mar 11 2007, 02:49 PM'][b]Haven't seen it yet ... but I may see it soon.
I can pretty much already imagine the entire movie in my head .... the only question is whether I want to drop 9 $ for the ticket --- and 7 $ for the popcorn to watch thousands upon thousands of people be killed in an overly gratuitous and shameful way on a big screen.

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/23.gif[/img] Since I am a product of an overly militarized society --- I probably will “turn the other cheek" towards the screen by succumbing and enjoy the 2 hour distraction from the real terror of war --- and watch some pissburgh looking fuckers get their heads chopped off. [/b][/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Actually BJ, I would like very much if you were to watch the movie because I
would like to know if you thought there was a racial element to the film or if
I am just trippin'.[/b][/color]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='sneaky' post='455231' date='Mar 11 2007, 04:12 PM'][color="#FF0000"][b]Actually BJ, I would like very much if you were to watch the movie because I
would like to know if you thought there was a racial element to the film or if
I am just trippin'.[/b][/color][/quote]


[b]will do ... I will let you know what I think and give you my honest assessment once I watch it. [/b]

[Actium]

The Persians were actually quite sophisticated militarily--they just couldn't battle plan the way they wanted in Greece due to the terrain.

Also, as far as empires go, they were quite gracious towards defeated peoples.

As far infanticide, that was all legalized in Sparta since the Spartan Supreme Court decision of Roeus v. Wadecles.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='Actium' post='455235' date='Mar 11 2007, 03:18 PM']The Persians were actually quite sophisticated militarily--they just couldn't battle plan the way they wanted in Greece due to the terrain.

Also, as far as empires go, they were quite gracious towards defeated peoples.

As far infanticide, that was all legalized in Sparta since the Spartan Supreme Court decision of Roeus v. Wadecles. [/quote]


[color="#FF0000"][b]I'm assuming all the infanticide happen before the Trojans invented the condom.[/b][/color]

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='A-Men-HouseofPain' post='455222' date='Mar 11 2007, 02:55 PM']i was skinny the first 14 years of my life thank you Im also part Greek and would have been a killing machine in those times [/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Do you even know what seperates Greek "men" from Greek "boys"?[/b][/color]

[Actium]

[quote name='sneaky' post='455240' date='Mar 11 2007, 03:23 PM'][color="#FF0000"][b]I'm assuming all the infanticide happen before the Trojans invented the condom.[/b][/color] [/quote]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='ONYX' post='455134' date='Mar 11 2007, 10:42 AM'][color="#FF0000"][b]Instead of just PM'ing Scout, I guess I might as well post my complete reveiw and issues
with this movie for all to see.

First off let me say that I'm not saying the movie was bad. I enjoyed it because of the action
and the beautiful imagery. From that pesrspective, I found the movie very entertaining, but
there was some things in this movie that I did not like.

PROBLEM #1: INFANT KILLINGS

At the beginning of the movie, it is explained, that Sparta infant males, who were either
deformed or too small, were thrown off an edge of a cliff or hilltop, to ensure that that
all men from Sparta would be strong and healthy. The movie does not show any infants
getting tossed, but there is a scene where a man is examining a baby at the top of a cliff,
and the skulls of infants are seen at the bottom.

To me this is extremely fucked up. Dont get me wrong, I am aware that these kind of things
happened in various ancient cultures, thats not my problem, my problem is that this scene
was not needed and it should have been edited.

Why? People are fucking ignorant, and they dont need to be given more fucked up ideas.
Those of us who live in Cincinnati are already aware of the Marcus Fizel murder last summer.

Marcus was a 5 year old mentally impaired child that was left to die, tied up in a closet, while his parents went on vacation and upon their return they cremated his body.

Just a few months ago, a Dayton woman was charged for murdering her six week old baby.
The baby was killed via microwave. I can almost gaurentee you that within a matter of
weeks there will be a disabled child or infant thrown off a cliff or bridge, because of this
scene.

As I am typing this, I just found this story from CNN this morning.....

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/11/infant.bodies.ap/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/11/infant.bodies.ap/index.html[/url]

PROBLEM #2: PLENTY OF RACIST AND XENOPHOBIC INEUNDOS

Throughout the entire movie, the point that the people of Sparta was superior was
banged like a drum over and over again. In one of the opening scenes, when the
messenger of Xerxes asked Leonidas why did he allow his wife to verbally confront
him (the messenger), Leonidas answered, "because only Sparta women bare real men".

IMO, I find that type of dialogue extremely reckless and dangerous, especially when
the movie is all about multiple cultures, and multiple races fighting each other in war.

Also, the Persian army which included Africans and Asians were presented as
demonic, evil, freakish and heartless murderers and all lacked great skill and
true courage on the battle field.

I'm not the only person that noticed it........
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29[/url]
In conclusion, I think the movie had a hell of alot more style than it did substance.

If the makers of this film would have put the same amount of effort and concern on what this film
had to say, as they did on how it looked, it would have been a lot better.[/b][/color][/quote]

Saw this today...

I see what your saying about the babies, and it really hadnt occured to me as I was enjoying it as mere entertainment. Could they have just explained it and edited it out, maybee but how effective from a story telling aspect would that have been. And Ill explain that further by addressing the 2nd problem you had with it. Remember this was a narritive, it was told throught the eyes of a that Spartin that Leonidas asked to go back to tell the stories of them. The idea I had goten is that they were a proud warrior culture and bred their men to be such, thus would the point of killing their "lesser" babbies would have been effective? Remember when Leonidas met with the other group of men that joined them and he asked what their occupations were? And they were potters, sculpters and such. Then he went on to say that the Spartin's were warriors (paraphrasing here) and said the he brought more warriors then the other guy (even if the other guy brought more than 300) then they further illistrated that in how quickly the other guys soliders died, and how quickly they retreated while the Spartins would fight to death, because they were again born and bread to be warriors. So then their pride in their culture would lead one to believe they did belive they were "real men" and all else were lesser. This is also a story of battle told throught the eyes of a Spartin that was there, when we fight wars we are told to make our enemies hated so that we can fight better, we give them names like 'the immortals' or 'charlie' ect.. ect.. So one would think the story would get exagurated (sp?) a lot from the story tellers point of view to make the Persians "evil, demonic, ect ect' for the purpose of making the Spartins all the more a proud and nobal bunch. Also remember this comes from a comic book which pushes that kind of story telling all the further.

So I can see how you might see what you saw and might be troubled by it, but I dont think there was any malcious intent.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='455248' date='Mar 11 2007, 03:36 PM']Saw this today...

I see what your saying about the babies, and it really hadnt occured to me as I was enjoying it as mere entertainment. Could they have just explained it and edited it out, maybee but how effective from a story telling aspect would that have been. And Ill explain that further by addressing the 2nd problem you had with it. Remember this was a narritive, it was told throught the eyes of a that Spartin that Leonidas asked to go back to tell the stories of them. The idea I had goten is that they were a proud warrior culture and bred their men to be such, thus would the point of killing their "lesser" babbies would have been effective? Remember when Leonidas met with the other group of men that joined them and he asked what their occupations were? And they were potters, sculpters and such. Then he went on to say that the Spartin's were warriors (paraphrasing here) and said the he brought more warriors then the other guy (even if the other guy brought more than 300) then they further illistrated that in how quickly the other guys soliders died, and how quickly they retreated while the Spartins would fight to death, because they were again born and bread to be warriors. So then their pride in their culture would lead one to believe they did belive they were "real men" and all else were lesser. This is also a story of battle told throught the eyes of a Spartin that was there, when we fight wars we are told to make our enemies hated so that we can fight better, we give them names like 'the immortals' or 'charlie' ect.. ect.. So one would think the story would get exagurated (sp?) a lot from the story tellers point of view to make the Persians "evil, demonic, ect ect' for the purpose of making the Spartins all the more a proud and nobal bunch. Also remember this comes from a comic book which pushes that kind of story telling all the further.

So I can see how you might see what you saw and might be troubled by it, but I dont think there was any malcious intent.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Sparta Homer[/b][/color]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//33.gif[/img]

[WD40]

I see your points, sneaky, but I think that you are looking in the wrong place for social responsibility. The intent of this movie was to make Frank Miller's graphic novel, loosely based on a historical event, into a movie. Even if you haven't read anything that Miller has written, I'm sure you've seen enough of Sin City to get the idea that Miller deals in "comic book reality" where absolutely everything is sensationalized beyond perportion. In this respect, the movie did the novel much justice.

The intent of the movie was to never accurately depict the actual events of the battle of Thermopylae. The accounts of the actual battle are far less impressive than what is portrayed on screen. Instead of just 300 Spartans and a small troop of Athenians, the real Greek force consisted of roughly 7000 Greek fighters. It is true,though, that Leonidas and the Spartans stayed til the end, ensuring that the greater amount of Greek forces could retreat and regroup, eventually leading to the Greeks stopping the Persians from subjugating all of Greece. It is only this small part of the tale that was focused on, from the Greek perspective, by Miller.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='ONYX' post='455254' date='Mar 11 2007, 04:45 PM'][color="#FF0000"][b]Sparta Homer[/b][/color]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//33.gif[/img]
[/quote]


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]:rofl:


Im gladd I wasnt drinking anything when I read that.

[Go Tory Go!]

I agree with sneaky on some of his points, particularly the line between historical accuracy and fiction on which the movie treads. In my opinion, movies such as these, which are a combination of truth and fiction, are dangerous in that the lines between the two are rarely evident to those unfamiliar with the facts. The result is a bent story which is easy to interpret as a relevant historical fact, giving the writer's bias more weight than could be attained in a totally-fictional story. This seemed increasingly-relevant to me after reading Frank Miller's comments on the wiki entry:

[quote]However, an interview on National Public Radio in January, Frank Miller echoed much of what Leonidas says in the movie about the clash between West and East: "It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western world is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants."

Miller said he had no problem judging American culture to be superior to Islamic extremism. "Let's finally talk about the enemy," he said. "Nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against, and the sixth-century barbarism they actually represent. These people saw people's heads off... . They do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us."[/quote]

Throughout the film, it was impossible to not notice the 'eternal political ideals' forced into the script at every possible moment, which gave me the impression of an attempt at inducing, even subconsciously, analogy to present times: 'defending freedom,' our way-of-life, "freedom isn't free" (it costs a buck-o-five). Here, it is important to recall the earlier point about historical accuracy, since no mention or evidence of Sparta's robust slave population is made in the film, a historical fact which, if included, would make these proclamations about 'fighting for freedom' seem quite glib. With Miller's comments regarding present politics essentially echoing the treatment of history given in the movie, the suspicions of a forced analogy seem to be more likely than I had hoped while seeing the movie. The funny thing is, if anything, the US is more analogous to the invading, powerful, hedonistic Persians than the Spartans defending their ideals and way of life from the influence of the great foreign power. This is not to say I make such an analogy myself, but rather to contend that if a contrary subversive analogy was intended in the film, it was not only off-base, but [i]completely[/i] off-base.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='WD40' post='455255' date='Mar 11 2007, 03:47 PM']I see your points, sneaky, but I think that you are looking in the wrong place for social responsibility. The intent of this movie was to make Frank Miller's graphic novel, loosely based on a historical event, into a movie. Even if you haven't read anything that Miller has written, I'm sure you've seen enough of Sin City to get the idea that Miller deals in "comic book reality" where absolutely everything is sensationalized beyond perportion. In this respect, the movie did the novel much justice.

The intent of the movie was to never accurately depict the actual events of the battle of Thermopylae. The accounts of the actual battle are far less impressive than what is portrayed on screen. Instead of just 300 Spartans and a small troop of Athenians, the real Greek force consisted of roughly 7000 Greek fighters. It is true,though, that Leonidas and the Spartans stayed til the end, ensuring that the greater amount of Greek forces could retreat and regroup, eventually leading to the Greeks stopping the Persians from subjugating all of Greece. It is only this small part of the tale that was focused on, from the Greek perspective, by Miller.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]See, my concerns are not for the people who have read Frank Miller books, or the people
with enough intellect to realize that its just a movie, so they won't come out with ill conceived
notions,instead, its the stupid people that I'm worried about. Which is the vast majority of the
American population.[/b][/color]

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='455260' date='Mar 11 2007, 03:54 PM']I agree with sneaky on some of his points, particularly the line between historical accuracy and fiction on which the movie treads. In my opinion, movies such as these, which are a combination of truth and fiction, are dangerous in that the lines between the two are rarely evident to those unfamiliar with the facts. The result is a bent story which is easy to interpret as a relevant historical fact, giving the writer's bias more weight than could be attained in a totally-fictional story. This seemed increasingly-relevant to me after reading Frank Miller's comments on the wiki entry:
Throughout the film, it was impossible to not notice the 'eternal political ideals' forced into the script at every possible moment, which gave me the impression of an attempt at inducing, even subconsciously, analogy to present times: 'defending freedom,' our way-of-life, "freedom isn't free" (it costs a buck-o-five). Here, it is important to recall the earlier point about historical accuracy, since no mention or evidence of Sparta's robust slave population is made in the film, a historical fact which, if included, would make these proclamations about 'fighting for freedom' seem quite glib. With Miller's comments regarding present politics essentially echoing the treatment of history given in the movie, the suspicions of a forced analogy seem to be more likely than I had hoped while seeing the movie. The funny thing is, if anything, the US is more analogous to the invading, powerful, hedonistic Persians than the Spartans defending their ideals and way of life from the influence of the great foreign power. This is not to say I make such an analogy myself, but rather to contend that if a contrary subversive analogy was intended in the film, it was not only off-base, but [i]completely[/i] off-base.[/quote]


[color="#FF0000"]
[b]BTW, I had no idea Miller made those comments. Wow![/b][/color]

[Actium]

[quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='455260' date='Mar 11 2007, 03:54 PM']I agree with sneaky on some of his points, particularly the line between historical accuracy and fiction on which the movie treads. In my opinion, movies such as these, which are a combination of truth and fiction, are dangerous in that the lines between the two are rarely evident to those unfamiliar with the facts. The result is a bent story which is easy to interpret as a relevant historical fact, giving the writer's bias more weight than could be attained in a totally-fictional story. This seemed increasingly-relevant to me after reading Frank Miller's comments on the wiki entry:
Throughout the film, it was impossible to not notice the 'eternal political ideals' forced into the script at every possible moment, which gave me the impression of an attempt at inducing, even subconsciously, analogy to present times: 'defending freedom,' our way-of-life, "freedom isn't free" (it costs a buck-o-five). Here, it is important to recall the earlier point about historical accuracy, since no mention or evidence of Sparta's robust slave population is made in the film, a historical fact which, if included, would make these proclamations about 'fighting for freedom' seem quite glib. With Miller's comments regarding present politics essentially echoing the treatment of history given in the movie, the suspicions of a forced analogy seem to be more likely than I had hoped while seeing the movie. The funny thing is, if anything, the US is more analogous to the invading, powerful, hedonistic Persians than the Spartans defending their ideals and way of life from the influence of the great foreign power. This is not to say I make such an analogy myself, but rather to contend that if a contrary subversive analogy was intended in the film, it was not only off-base, but [i]completely[/i] off-base.[/quote]

that problem is inherent to anything with any historical basis. Gladiator? No one had a problem with that. You see, historical fiction, especially movies, is often eye-rolling for people who study it. But is it a good story? Is it entertaining? that's what I care about.

This may warp impressionable minds, but no more so than anything else out there. The problem you have with it is not that it could be influential, but that it could teach a different lesson than what you would wish.

[WD40]

Tory and sneaky, those are both valid points. However, I think that we are getting on a slippery slope when it comes to the debate of whether or not we should dumb down every piece of pop-culture art and make sure that everything has safety edges on it. People are people and often do stupid things. If they take this movie, which is obviously a fictitious piece, to heart and do something stupid in copycat fashion, as you have suggested with the killing of babies, it is totaly on them. Chances are that, if they do something that stupid, they would have done it with or without having seen the movie. Probably just not in that fashion. We are socially responsible for others in our society, but it is impossible to micro-manage the lives of every individual to the point where they have but one choice; the right choice.

[Go Tory Go!]

[quote name='WD40' post='455255' date='Mar 11 2007, 04:47 PM']I see your points, sneaky, but I think that you are looking in the wrong place for social responsibility. The intent of this movie was to make Frank Miller's graphic novel, loosely based on a historical event, into a movie. Even if you haven't read anything that Miller has written, I'm sure you've seen enough of Sin City to get the idea that [b]Miller deals in "comic book reality" where absolutely everything is sensationalized beyond perportion[sup]1[/sup].[/b] In this respect, the movie did the novel much justice.

[b]The intent of the movie was to never accurately depict the actual events of the battle of Thermopylae[sup]2[/sup].[/b] The accounts of the actual battle are far less impressive than what is portrayed on screen. Instead of just 300 Spartans and a small troop of Athenians, the real Greek force consisted of roughly 7000 Greek fighters. It is true,though, that Leonidas and the Spartans stayed til the end, ensuring that the greater amount of Greek forces could retreat and regroup, eventually leading to the Greeks stopping the Persians from subjugating all of Greece. It is only this small part of the tale that was focused on, from the Greek perspective, by Miller.[/quote]

From his comments regarding the film, it seems that Miller is more than aware of the present political climate, and I fear that the obvious emphasis on 'defending freedom' driven home in the film makes application to present times inescapable given our government's annoying tendency to use nearly identical language. Yes, I realize the tendency of comics to deal in the language of idealism, but he has showed himself to be aware of politics and willing to opine about his views, and I'm not satisfied with trusting America's famed morons to even hesitate before parlaying the film into something to reinforce their patriotism, given the film's taste of historical accuracy. [u]Basically, I don't think it looks enough like a comic (as [i]Sin City [/i]did) for all discussions of its content to be disallowed on the grounds of "comic reality."[/u]

I realize that the film's stated aim was not historical precision, but, to echo sneaky and my previous post, it seemed to be [i]just[/i] close enough to blur the line. I'm not concerned with you being smart enough to know the difference, but for the vast majority of sheep viewing this film, it can easily be taken as a historical account.

[WD40]

Tory, do you have a link to that full interview with Frank Miller? I would be interested to read it because, as you suggested and it seems in your quote from the interview, that this movie was politically driven. However, 300 was written by Miller in 1998. I would like to see if the subject matter and timing of this movie were coincidental and Miller made a secondary remark about how it could parallel current times, or if that was the primary intent of making this movie now.

[WD40]

[quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='455268' date='Mar 11 2007, 05:09 PM']From his comments regarding the film, it seems that Miller is more than aware of the present political climate, and I fear that the obvious emphasis on 'defending freedom' driven home in the film makes application to present times inescapable given our government's annoying tendency to use nearly identical language. Yes, I realize the tendency of comics to deal in the language of idealism, but he has showed himself to be aware of politics and willing to opine about his views, and I'm not satisfied with trusting America's famed morons to even hesitate before parlaying the film into something to reinforce their patriotism, given the film's taste of historical accuracy. [u]Basically, I don't think it looks enough like a comic (as [i]Sin City [/i]did) for all discussions of its content to be disallowed on the grounds of "comic reality."[/u]

I realize that the film's stated aim was not historical precision, but, to echo sneaky and my previous post, it seemed to be [i]just[/i] close enough to blur the line. I'm not concerned with you being smart enough to know the difference, but for the vast majority of sheep viewing this film, it can easily be taken as a historical account.[/quote]


So waht if it does drum up a little patriotism? Is that wrong? If it were Miller's intent to make this a patriotic movie, how is it different from anything that Michael Moore has directed? He has certainly been liberal with facts in his movies to bring across his political views.