300 (Zack Snyder, 2007)

[filmnoir1]

While I am perfectly aware that the book was written before the Bush administration began to dismantle the country, it is still a problematic film because Miller is one of Bush's biggest allies in Hollywood and has been credited with saying that he did in fact change some of the dialogue and situations to fit this new world ideal of all Arabs bad, people who are white are good.
The film will no doubt make its money but as Zizek noted with American fantasies when it is sold overseas it will only fuel the fire of the Islamic fundamentalists and those who hate America.

[Roger_Thornhill]

While I am perfectly aware that the book was written before the Bush administration began to dismantle the country, it is still a problematic film because Miller is one of Bush's biggest allies in Hollywood and has been credited with saying that he did in fact change some of the dialogue and situations to fit this new world ideal of all Arabs bad, people who are white are good.

Do you have a source that I can read where Frank Miller says he changed "some of the dialogue and situations to fit this new world ideal of all Arabs bad, people who are white are good?" If anything the film toned down some the film's more fascistic elements (such as the repetitive beating of the "weak" Spartan) and the Persians are just as one-dimensionally evil in the comic book as in the film. The new elements to the film are the captain's father/son relationship, the wife's sub-plot to rally the Spartans to Leonidas' cause, and a duplicitious Spartan who manuevers to gain power by aiding the invading Persians. That's all I can remember and I don't see how any of those suggest that "all Arabs bad, people who are white are good."

According to IMDB the screenplay for 300 is credited to Zack Snyder, Michael Gordon, and Kurt Johnstad with Frank Miller and Lyn Varley receiving credit for the source material. How much input did Frank Miller even have on 300? Certainly much less than Sin City I would think.

After reading a piece on 300 in the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly I stumbled upon a quote by producer Gianni Nunnari where he states, "I would be surprised if even one person from the audience is watching this movie and thinking of Bush and Iraq. That would be a disaster-it would mean that people were bored." You must've been bored. I imagine he's rather surprised by now given the knee-jerk reactions from all political pursuasions this film is causing.

Zack Synder has similiarly dismissed any connections to Bush or Iraq in 300.

Like I said before, I think you're giving this film too much credit by searching for modern parallels to US foreign policy because, quite frankly, this film is too naïve, reductive, and goofy to make me think the filmmakers intended anything more than a kickass bloodbath.

[domino harvey]

worst part of this whole last week:
"So, I know you like movies, so what did you think of 300?!?!"

[maxbelmont]

I saw this film this afternoon and I have to agree with some of the comments on here, but I have a slightly different take and I realize that some on here will not really agree with what I have to say. I don't necessarily agree that this is Zack Snyder's attempt to state his viewpoint on the Iraq War, but I couldn't help but feel that this film does address the issue of occupation in the middle east. I really have not been a fan of Snyder's since I saw his take on Dawn of the Dead, but I feel with 300 that he has grown up as a director.

300 has its flaws which obviously show up through the course of the film. The biggest flaw has to do with the overall tone of the film. The film starts off strong with an explanation of how the best of the Spartan men are picked out among the newborns, but as the film plays out we are not given more about how these men go about after they are "chosen", but we are thrusted into the main plot. One quarter of the way through, my friend turned to me and made the gesture that he wanted to blow his brains out.

We are force fed what the overall message that Snyder was trying to get across and that is that no one will occupy us and we will stand up for our freedom. The connection to the situation in Iraq is evident with why the Spartans set out to take on the whole Persian army. The Spartans make war with the emissary of the Persian army then Leonidas goes up to the elders to get their permission to take on this war which he is denied. Leonidas is confronted before he and his men embark on their mission, but he tells the council that he is not going off to war, but to "stretch their legs."

There are some underlying messages that water down this film. Even from the start, the message that if a child is born and has some sort of flaw then the child is either banished or destroyed. This is evident by the hunchback that shows up halfway through the film and gives a monologue about how his mother and father were banished for even having him. Discrimination is evident in Sparta in this film as all of the 300 are nothing but physical specimens. Leonidas even goes so far as banashing the hunchback because he doesn't fit his ideal of the warrior. The hunchback's heart and will is there but his physical is not.

Snyder uses action to drive home the point that war is not pretty with CGI images of blood flying in all the battle scenes. The battle scenes are choreographed beautifully suggesting that even in battle that the Spartans fight war with a beautiful flair. Snyder even manages to acknowledge how war will harden man that is evident with the the death of Leonidas's Captain's son. After the son's death, Captain changes to a more bloodthirsty fighter. The change is handle with a gregariousness that seems to change the overall tone of the war with the Persians.

Clearly, the overall tone of 300 deals with the horrors of war and how that effects a country engaged in war. Not just the men fighting it, but the people that are back home. We are given a scene toward the end when Leonidas's Queen is addressing the council on sending more troops to help Leonidas's army. She engages in a heated argument with Dillios when she does him in and the council finds out that he has been taking money from the Persians for his undermining Leonidas. It is clear that Snyder is going for the viewpoint that war is profitable.

The final act of 300 has the final battle between Sparta and Persia. The final shot of Leonidas on the ground with all of his men in a symmetrical pose on the ground harbors images of the great painters of the past, but Leonidas is sprawled out in a crucified position suggesting that he was more of a god and now a possible religious figure to rally around. The final scene shows the lone soldier sent back by Leonidas inspiring his army which is clearly bigger than what Leonidas had suggesting that you do need numbers to overcome a great obstacle.

[Steven H]

Zack Synder has similiarly dismissed any connections to Bush or Iraq in 300.

I haven't seen the film, but even the trailer without hearing anything else about it, was enough to remind me of the war in Iraq. It would take a lot ot convince me there isn't a political motivation to the film (not that this is a crime, you could say the same thing about Star Wars). Here's a picture of Zach Snyder wearing a "Major League Infidel" T-shirt, made by CRYE Precision (who've soundly trademarked the phrase Serving Those Who Defend Our Freedom):

[exte]

I haven't followed the discussion on here, but I'll post some thoughts... When I went to Zodiac last weekend, I wondered why there were so many people in and out of the theater, and I couldn't believe at first they were all there for 300. Today I got to see it, and I'm happy to say I liked it. A lot. It wasn't bad at all. I appreciate how the effects were done in the vein of Sin City, with the made up backgrounds, and hope to see more of this in future films. I'm 100% Greek actually, and kind of enjoyed seeing some of the history we take so seriously put up on the big screen in glorious slow motion. The battle scenes were great, and I was surprised so much could be done with just spears, swords and shields. I could care less how this is received in Iran, not because the wounds of that battle may still linger, but because it's just a movie. Who cares? In fact, it's really Frank Miller's signature view of it more than anything. I hope to see it again to take in more of the effects in a theater that knows the meaning of 'in focus'. (Does this only happen in NJ?)

[sevenarts]

I saw this last night, giving in to curiosity and boredom. Beyond the fact that it's simply a horrible movie in every way, I'm pretty surprised to see so many people, including the filmmakers, claiming that there's no political intention to this film. It's practically a rallying cry for the Western world to wake up and stand against the "Persian" hordes who are threatening to attack. There's the depiction of the whiny politician refusing to support the army and saying essentially "he broke the law by going to war," then revealing he's actually in the pay of the Persians. It's not a particularly subtle film, least of all in the ways in which it attempts to parallel contemporary situations -- you'd have to be actively opposed to reading the film in that way to miss it. Also rather objectionable on that level is the film's uncritical presentation of the Spartan way of life as "free," and the rather odious suggestion that physical deformation goes hand in hand with evil. Witness the scene where the crippled exiled Spartan betrays his homeland, where the grotesqueries of the Persian camp provide a black-and-white contrast against the chiseled manliness of the Spartans. Likewise, the fey and almost feminine characterization of Xerxes. Manly, militaristic, physically able, and aggressive = good. Pierced, exotic, non-white, crippled, homosexual = evil.

Anyway, as much as I could go on about the rather ridiculous political subtexts in the film, the reason it REALLY failed was because it just wasn't any good. It's just oppressively loud, even when there isn't an action scene going on. There's virtually no characterization of any kind. The overuse of slow-mo for no apparent reason in EVERY DAMN ACTION SCENE. The horrible CGI. The laughable sex scene and the even more laughable scene with the oracles. The overbearing score. It was just a bad video game, and I was expecting to at least enjoy it as a fun spectacle. Well, I certainly laughed a lot, but at the film rather than with it.

[Roger_Thornhill]

I haven't seen the film, but even the trailer without hearing anything else about it, was enough to remind me of the war in Iraq. It would take a lot ot convince me there isn't a political motivation to the film (not that this is a crime, you could say the same thing about Star Wars).

Naturally, of course, because the Iraq War is the dominant event on the West's mind (if not world), but that doesn't mean that was the intention of the filmmakers. Just as when the first book of the Lord of the Rings was released many literary critics assumed Tolkien meant the narrative as an allegory of World War II because that was fresh on everyone's mind in the 1950s - Tolkien denied this. Or others who felt the original Star Wars trilogy was about Nixon and Vietnam because in the late 70s/early 80s the trauma of the Nixon years still tormented the American psyche (Although Lucas later claimed that was the truth many of his friends and colleagues at the time never heard him mention this connection). Whereas films like The Sea Hawk or M*A*S*H, for instance, are deliberately and consciously meant to parallel current events: Britain's struggle during the relentless assaults of the Luftwaffe for the former and of course Vietnam for the latter. I have yet to see any evidence that 300 was consciously intended to draw parallels to the Iraq War, whereas Michael Curtiz in 1940 or Robert Altman in 1970 would gladly proclaim the allegorical intentions of their respective pictures.

I remember watching The Day The Earth Stood Still in early 2003 before Bush launched his misadventure in Iraq and I was stunned at the similiarities between Klatuu's threats towards Earth and Bush's towards Iraq: disarm or die. Earth was not a threat to the Klatuu's people as was Hussein's Iraq to the US, but Bush and Klatuu felt that WMDs would eventually pose a threat to their respective peoples and were thus willing to launch a pre-emptive strike to stop said development of WMDs. Wise's film is more a plea for disarmament between the two superpowers to advert what many thought would be the coming apocalypse, but it fit so well to Bush's wrong reasoning for attacking Iraq. And while one could point out that The Day The Earth Stood Still reflects it's own current events and thus 300 can be said to do the same, I would argue that the former is an extremely intelligent film made by a gifted director whereas the latter is simply an exercise in formalism with banal thematic elements that you'd probably find in the average mediocre videogame. In other words, 300 is a rather stupid movie.

Good God I'm quickly becoming the Criterion Forum's dedicated defender of Synder's 300, I have no one to blame but myself.

[domino harvey]

You realize authorial intent is meaningless when analyzing a work of art, right? Often an artist is not consciously aware of the full breadth of their work. Not to call the director of 300 an artist, but well here we are

[Roger_Thornhill]

You realize authorial intent is meaningless when analyzing a work of art, right? Often an artist is not consciously aware of the full breadth of their work. Not to call the director of 300 an artist, but well here we are

Yes! I recognize that and agree, but I think that 300 was most likely not consciously made to parallel the Iraq War because I said the film's rather simplistic thematic elements made it rather unlikely to me that Snyder & Co. intended a conscious parallel to the quagmire in Iraq or the US' current foreign policy. An unconscious connection also seems dubious to me because of it's closeness to it's 1998 source material and that it's additions to Miller's comic book did not seem to suggest a parallel to Bush, Iraq, Iran, etc... 300, in my view, has only slightly more intelligence that the average Uwe Boll fair, although it's far more fun to watch than House Of The Dead.

[filmnoir1]

One last thought about this horribly pretentious message film that will be looked upon by film historians later on as a film that explained the politcal zeitgeist of the time and then I am finished with it.

The last shot of Leonidas I believe says it all, discussing authorial intent. He is positioned so that he looks like Christ crucified on the cross. This is obviously an intentional move as well as to stage the scene so that all their deaths become poetic. It is almost like Snyder is attempting to issue a mea culpa for all the Iraq war dead without recognizing that many of the dead would be alive had America not rushed into a war that it can never win. Too many of the lessons of Vietnam have been forgotten and this is why several generations will have to relive and re-learn those lessons once more.

I found this really interesting article by someone of Iranian descent who has possess a Ph D in Middle Eastern history. It is really fascinating in light of the current discussion.

[exte]

The last shot of Leonidas I believe says it all, discussing authorial intent. He is positioned so that he looks like Christ crucified on the cross. This is obviously an intentional move as well as to stage the scene so that all their deaths become poetic.

That's obvious to anyone.

It is almost like Snyder is attempting to issue a mea culpa for all the Iraq war dead without recognizing that many of the dead would be alive had America not rushed into a war that it can never win. Too many of the lessons of Vietnam have been forgotten and this is why several generations will have to relive and re-learn those lessons once more.

It's almost NOT like that, too. God, you anti-war fucks are rabid, aren't you? And I thought I was one of you, but this is nonsense. It's just a movie. A movie will not remove the lessons of Vietnam. And it's not like this came out in 2002, right before the invasion, so you could better claim it had real sway with things.

[jbeall]

It is almost like Snyder is attempting to issue a mea culpa for all the Iraq war dead without recognizing that many of the dead would be alive had America not rushed into a war that it can never win. Too many of the lessons of Vietnam have been forgotten and this is why several generations will have to relive and re-learn those lessons once more.

It's almost NOT like that, too. God, you anti-war fucks are rabid, aren't you? And I thought I was one of you, but this is nonsense. It's just a movie. A movie will not remove the lessons of Vietnam. And it's not like this came out in 2002, right before the invasion, so you could better claim it had real sway with things.

Well, I'm one of those anti-war fucks, but I'm hardly rabid. I agree that it's a mistake to read Snyder's film as a conscious defense of the Iraq war. I suspect that Snyder is neither that good nor that self-conscious a filmmaker for this allegation to hold any water.

Furthermore, Frank Miller wrote his comic in the late 90s, when this was a hot-button issue for exactly nobody (except the neocons, perhaps, but nobody knew what they were up to back then, and I'm sure they weren't having lunch with Miller anyway).

That said, I do believe that there's a reason this film gets made now, rather than 1998. Call it the collective unconscious if you must, but consumers of popular culture and media are continually fed images and ideas that also find expression in the (visual and political) themes of this movie. Snyder is just as much, if not more, of a pop culture junkie as the rest of us, and the degree to which he is an unselfconscious consumer of pop culture is the degree to which 300 traffics in 'orientalist' imagery.

So no, 300 isn't about the Iraq war unless one makes a concerted effort to read it as such. Nevertheless, as responsible consumers--quite the paradox, no?--I think we have an obligation to be aware of and criticize certain prejudiced significations (Spartans = enlightened, white; Persians = exotic, homosexual, evil) that pervade the film. I enjoyed the film, but I can't deny that its orientalist slant bothered me.

[Mr Sausage]

You realize authorial intent is meaningless when analyzing a work of art, right? Often an artist is not consciously aware of the full breadth of their work. Not to call the director of 300 an artist, but well here we are

Thank you, Mr. William K. Wimsatt, but that is a view specific to only a certain type criticism, and is not an obvious nor universally accepted standard.

[domino harvey]

What

[Mr Sausage]

What

I'm sorry, but I can't even identify that as a question, let alone know what you're asking.

[Nothing]

This talk of Snyder's intent seems somewhat ill-informed. Whilst the question of his abdication/complicity is interesting, it is ultimately a side-issue as 300 cannot be considered an auteurist film, nor Snyder an auteurist director. Okay, so the guy directed a reasonably successful horror-film remake - that does not turn him into Tarantino with the keys to the kingdom. This script/film will have been tweaked and commented on by countless executives - many of whom will certainly have a conscious poltical agenda - and, at some point, these same executives decided to greenlight the project over numerous other possible projects, despite a lack of major stars. It is not even unknown for 'outside forces' to make their mark in the Hollywood realm (Mankiewicz's Quiet American, for example...)

So why now and not 1998? Purely off the back of Sin City? A factor, sure, but why this project and not something else by Miller? Precisely at the moment when Bush's own '300' (try 3,000) have been slaughtered in Iraq, the Democrats are trying to halt the war and Bush is calling on America to commit more troops and possibly attack Iran. One does not need to struggle, nor look nor even think to taste the allegory.

This opportunistic rabble-rousing, along with the general ideological message of 300 (the triumph of white masculine strength over weakness, disability and Asian debauchery) is not incomparable to the Aryan mythmaking found in German cinema between the wars. For this reason, I find the film simultaneously objectionable, enlightening and somewhat amusing...

[Harvey Domino]

Zach Snyder is a typical dumb-as-a-post comic book retard. I'm surprised he isn't overweight and still living at home with his mother like Rusty Brown. He's a fanboy, pure and simple. Any "political" content in 300 or Dawn of the Dead is either accidental or adventageously assumed to be there by the pretentious PR department or asinine, frustrated film critics.

As a stupid fucking nerd of the highest order, all Snyder cares about is half-naked men grimacing one-dimensionally and stomping around with swords and spouting Stan Lee-isms while hitting each other as a substitute for gay sex.

If he makes Watchmen (a comic that most certainly does have explicit political content, unlike DOTD or 300) you can be assured he'll reduce the whole thing to a few "Ain't It Cool" spaceships and secret hideouts and sexy uniforms for the "chicks" while ignoring the fact that it's one of the few superhero comics that even approaches quality and one of the few that understands it is a comic book and therefore needs to exist in that form, with that history, to be fully understood. The average audience member is not going to know (or care) for example that Rorschach is based on Steve Ditko's "The Question" -- so the entire notion of both characters' moralistic/Randian world view will be lost because all Snyder cares about is the character's "cool mask" and how "bad ass" he is.

And the almost Chris Ware like level of Moore and Gibbon's attention to the formal aspects of the book - panels repeating themselves pages or even chapters later - will be meaningless in Snyder's Matrix-lite slo-mo/fast-mo MTV bullshit "style."

It's not that I care about Watchmen being turned into a good or bad film -- it exists now as a great little comic book and that's what it will always be. What I find strange is how anyone could take anything Snyder does (especially something based on one of Frank Miller's worst comics) the least bit seriously.

[Mr Sausage]

So why now and not 1998? Purely off the back of Sin City? A factor, sure, but why this project and not something else by Miller? Precisely at the moment when Bush's own '300' (try 3,000) have been slaughtered in Iraq, the Democrats are trying to halt the war and Bush is calling on America to commit more troops and possibly attack Iran. One does not need to struggle, nor look nor even think to taste the allegory.

My guess is because Miller, due to a number of bad experiences, was contemptuous of Hollywood, refusing to allow his work to be butchered, ect. Actually, I'd say Miller's positive experience with Sin City, and the popularity of that film, are the major factors in why 300 was made. This is certainly a more reasonable view than the idea that it was greenlit to act as a studio executive's personal propaganda picture, especially when it would have been more pertinant to make it near the beginning of the war.

[exte]

I've pretty much ignored this film since word of it came out but that IGN review IS offensive. "Pure cinema"?!?! Are you fucking kidding me? I doubt anyone at IGN knows what this means and it being applied to a film like this (which the best word of praise I can accept is "cool"), is ignorant and....well, stupid.

But in the sense of it being ripe for an HD home theater, I understand what he may mean. Put another way, this is not the type of movie that one would want to download rather than pay money to see. In fact, isn't it why they're releasing it on IMAX simultaneously? If that's their idea or definition, then I'd have to agree. The technique they're using IS visually arresting, and it's not ignorant to state the obvious. I think this and Sin City will create a whole new genre of film. What Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow got so wrong, these films get so right. They've set the template and proved you can make a film entirely in front of a green screen, and it can pull in the masses. It's what every studio wants to hear. I'm sure like Stephen King, all of Frank Miller's work will now be committed to celluloid. Frankly, I think we're looking at a new 'genre' in the making, in terms of visual style. It will be exciting to see how far they will push this look in the future.

Here's a piece by Eric Kohn in the new NYPress.

It's really a great piece on the technical side of the 'virtual' look. I remember critics like Roger Ebert were criticizing Gladiator for that fake CGI look. I too felt that way and still do, but this 'virtual' look or whatever you want to call it completely works... It's not trying to pretend be the real thing, and it works so amazingly well...

It was pretty similar to braveheart, in the way they handle the narrative and storyline...

I didn't get that at all. Could you explain that?

One thing that I found rather strange about the film (and comic book) is that none of the "Persians" look Persian. I know the Persian Empire encompassed many nationalities and ethnicities, but Persians are descended from Aryan tribes (that also settled in northern Europe & possibly India) and consequently Persians have a fair complexion like many Europeans. It's not uncommon to see a Persian with blonde hair and blue eyes. Of course present-day Iran has been invaded numerous times over history by Mongols, Turks, Arabs, etc which has given Iran a very mixed group of ethnicities (if I remember correctly roughly half of present-day Iran is ethnic Persians).

I think a picture of what you find to be Persian would help your argument.

Also, I cannot help feeling a bit sad that Sparta's reputation in the eyes of the general public is going to sink back to "warrior cult," when the truth is much more interesting....
...It actually makes me want to dig out my books on Greek warfare and start making comparisons, which I find is always rewarding.

I think a lot of people will be opening up books on the subject. Look for a lot of new print and tv on the 'real story' of the 300 Spartans...

The film will no doubt make its money but as Zizek noted with American fantasies when it is sold overseas it will only fuel the fire of the Islamic fundamentalists and those who hate America.

But they'll use any excuse as a reason to hate America. Why should we curb a few real conservative voices from a place like Hollywood? I find it refreshing every once in a while to get a big fuck you from the conservative side, if they have a strong enough argument or an entertaining enough angle...

[a.khan]

I saw the movie with a culturally diverse group of guys -- one of them was Iranian. I've been goading him to write a review of the "300" for my blog, telling it 'from a Persian perspective.' Whenever its done, I'll post a link here.

He finally busted out a rant. It's an interesting commentary on the movie, Persian history and shows obvious, heavy bias for the Persian cause.

The article is too long to post in full, and it contains some nice artwork from the website project protesting "300." So check it out if you like. Here's an excerpt:

“You who shall be king hereafter, protect yourself vigorously from lies.â€

[Antoine Doinel]

I'm staying out of this thread until I see the movie, but I thought this was pretty funny. From the good people at Penny Arcade:

[lord_clyde]

I'm staying out of this thread until I see the movie, but I thought this was pretty funny. From the good people at Penny Arcade

Ooh, deja vu!

[Cinesimilitude]

Penny Arcade is by far one of the best time wasters on the Net. I have an essay for my anthropology class due in 3 hours, but there is a good chance I'll just look through there archive of comics and hand in the paper tomorrow.

[toiletduck!]

Goodness, there's so much running through my head from such a standard film. You'll have to bear with me as I jump tangents in accordance with my synapses.

First off, everything pre-battle was shite. Absolute dreadful fekking shite. Were I the type to walk out of films, I just might have walked out of this one after the infamous sex scene. Horrid filmmaking, and I can't say it enough.

But, of course, it's the battle and onward that everyone's really concerned with -- and I'm torn to bits by different readings within my own self, much less everyone else. Purely speaking, the second half of the film was an interesting exercise in sustained violence. When one has a basically endless supply of anonymous bodies available, just how enthralling can savagery be, and, even more of a challenge, just how long can that process be stretched out while still gripping an audience? While I would hardly say that 300 is a rousing success on this level, it certainly isn't a failure. There was a point where I became third-person aware of just how long I had been watching viscous battle on the same small plot of land, but at no point did I check out saying, "Alright, that's it, enough blood for me."

On an allegorical level, there is some ground to be tread, but I think people are making very rickety leaps in their judgments. I in no way blame anyone of Iranian heritage (or any Middle Eastern heritage, really) for taking offense. I don't know that I would have in that situation, but the smoking gun is there for those who choose to acknowledge it. The film's good vs. evil, us vs. them singlemindedness also embraces the classic white vs. black symbolism, not stopping to check itself on the fact that that specific color scheme as dichotomy is not acceptable when placed on human skin. This dunderheaded unawareness is no more obvious than a point early on when a particularly dark-skinned Persian's face (and face alone) literally fades to black, leaving his gleaming, smiling eyes -- a direct connection, even if not intentional, of skin color and moral standing.

However (and this is a big however), racism and homophobia (which I haven't even touched on) are timeless affronts. The insults this film lays out upon Middle Eastern people could be laid out upon Middle Eastern people at any point in history. I fail to see how anyone could turn this film into an allegory, intended or not, for the war in Iraq or Middle Eastern occupation at all. Strictly speaking, the 300 Spartans are caught up in an act of self-defense. Wave upon wave of Persians are thrusting themselves at this small group of men who somehow manage to continue to prevail. This is simply an entirely typical scrappy underdog tale, the sort we've seen a million times before (check any standard sports film -- it'll line up perfectly). But only the most delusional of neocons would be able to insist for even a second that America is an underdog now, or has been for the whereabouts of 200 years. The fact that our fearless leader and Leonidas share a common enemy archetype does not equate their situations and thus does not make this film politically relevant to today's global situations. Is this a potential propaganda film? Absolutely so. (We also have to remember that the tale itself is being retold within the film as a piece of propaganda -- just how truthful is Dilios being in his reconstruction? Certainly in a pre-battle speech he is bound to exaggerate some, especially as the only living Spartan witness.) But this is the sort of propaganda film that is useful to pretty much everyone but America. And I don't mean that to sound arrogant -- when you wield power as massive as America (or Xerxes -- which is a much more capable connection), it takes quite a bit of marketing to paint yourself as the oppressed. The America-specific political attitude that seems to be emanating from the film isn't one pertinent to any current situation, it's a universal theme of extreme ethnocentrism in the form of some twisted sense of glory or honor, which is a harmful position, yes, but also one that can be gleaned from a wide majority of motion pictures and one that is not, in fact, America-specific in the least. And it's old hat -- the fact that everyone is leaping upon what equate to a bunch of no-brain St. Crispin's Day speeches due to some (still offensive, but) unconnected racial emptyheadedness to me only paints an unfortunate picture of a skittish, irrational body of dissension. And that is the last thing this body of dissension needs at the current time.

But what is most surprising is that I haven't read anything on what seemed to me to be the most glaringly obvious way to approach the film. Where are all the feminist (or anti-feminist, depending upon your reading) deconstructions? While the boys (both light and dark) are off a-wankin', I would've thought someone would have gone into extensive detail on the portrayal of good ol' Lady Macbeth keeping the homestead.

My brain is tired. If I forgot anything, I'm sure I'll be back shortly. Discuss amongst yourselves.

-Toilet Dcuk