Geleg wrote:
I'm with you Catweazle. I find the glorification of Sparta to be an interesting phenomenon of the present, especially in the US.
I don't think your seeing any kind of Spartan phenomenon in the United States. In fact the opposite is true I would think. To my thinking Americans have grown far to used to quiting. The movie's success is probably a reflection of several things
1) Its an action film that is actually action and doesn't spend alot of time trying to justify the brutality of action (aka Borne Identity, great movie, but we have to be told that its not his fault that he can kill people with an ink pen, secret gov. program of murders and he's the victim, not the hero). In 300, like Braveheart, we are given no moral ambiguities, which is nice. These guys over here are good. These guys over here are bad. Watch the good guys kick the hell out of the bad guys.
2) The dudes are hot and attracting a more than normal share of female tickets. A virtual sausage fest of muscle as Todd would say. I even told my wife: "dude you gotta see this one, your going to enjoy it..haha
3) Also, I think there is an honest appeal in the WEST for movies and entertainment that depict us as the good guys and them as the bad guys (whoever they may or may not be). I for one am sick to death of being guilted by my society...from being the sole cause of global warming to creating a world wide empire of oil wells or what ever the *#^@ I'm supposed to feel guilty about. 300 does that nicely. Its us against them, and look, we are the good guys.
I don't go to the movies to learn anything. Never have. Doubt I ever will. When the movies become a learning experience I'll stop going. And I suspect you and everyone on these boards is right here with me on this point.
Geleg wrote:
While it is true that an early democracy grew up in Greece (in certain areas), Sparta was not a major contributor to that (except maybe as part of an agon). Remember, Sparta enslaved most of the Pelopponese; the helots were treated far worse than the subject peoples of the Persian Empire
I'm not certain I would agree with this in total. On several points. Sparta, like many of the Greek states had some form of democracy, where people were voting for the state's choices and there was a system of checks and balances. However, you are right, since they kept no written records, nor attempted to supplant their form of government on anyone else their overall impact was far less than any of the other Greek states. It is one of the few, if only Greek states, who had a continuous form of government I think. But I would argue that their participation in the Persian wars was instrumental to keeping Greece free of the rule of Persia and probably helped further the democratic ideal, specifically at the battle of Platea.
Geleg wrote:
(indeed, the Persian empire was remarkably tolerant of differing religions and languages, so long as you obeyed the satrap and payed taxes).
That's an interesting statement. So long as you obey the tyrannt you are good to go. The Romans had the same approach to government, and though it was a Republic, it certainly wasn't for the 10s of millions of subjects who were subject to the Roman whim. I'm no expert on Persia, far from it, but I imagine there's was as bad as most. One good King for the dozen or so boneheads that horribly oppressed their subjects.
Geleg wrote:
True, 300 is only a movie, and an action movie at that. It is meant to entertain. And it does. I for one cannot wait to see it. I will be totally geeked with adrenalin when I emerge.
Hahah FIrst and foremost!! It rocked as an action movie! If you haven't seen follow Geleg's advice and see it. Mac's first comment when we came out was: "Dude that xerxes character was a perfect Arioch!!" haha He's right.
Geleg wrote:
But what bothers me about it is the very large proportion of people who come away from quasi-historical films thinking that they've learned something about the past. Yes, they may have learned something, but it's generally not about the past; it's more about what modern America wants to say about itself. This important distinction is often lost.
I don't know if people will walk away thinking they learned something. I think American's, as with most people, are pretty discerning folk. They know the Persians didn't have Ogres, ram-headed folks and were commanded by the Immortals who look like orcs. I think they will come away with the idea that some battle was fought in which freedom overcame tyranny and think no more of it. Even that will a subconscience thing.
I taught as a grad student and I've worked as a sub in numerous schools (pain in the ass job that) and I found that most people, old and young, separate what happens at the movies with what happened in history. Braveheart is the perfect example. Noone I've ever talked to talks about it anymore than this dude rallyed the scots to fight the brits. And isn't that kind of accurate? Don't know, not my period. lol
I find far more annoying the history channel that blathers on about whatever subject, and it is the HISTORY channel, and it is often so poorly explained that its mind numbing. I just watched the Dark Ages in which Justianians "Armies" are painted as this bloodthirsty mob of Greeko-Romans burning all of Italy. Well, maybe for a few days in Naples. But Belsarius only had several thousands of troops and most of Italy surrendered as he passed through. That's not really an accurate account of the General's march. I always wonder at the sources they are relying on for information they are feeding me. Good for entertainment and a base idea of what happened, little more.
Geleg wrote:
My gripe is that it shouldn't be so difficult to represent the past in a more faithful manner (acknowleding of course that no single interpretation will please all people) while still making an entertaining action film. Why do scriptwriters feel the need to alter the past in fundamental ways to please modern audiences (I've got Gladiator in mind here - the real demise of Commodus was far more exciting and interesting than the one shown in the movie, which is utterly laughable as 'history')? Why change ageless stories that have entertained thousands for millenia (I'm looking at you, Troy! Menelaus killed in the pillaging? What bullsh-t). And, in the case of 300, how would it have hurt Miller's story to inject a bit of social and political realism? Let's not even talk about Braveheart! [mind you, I enjoy all of these films - except Troy - as films. Indeed, they're all memorable movies which I will re-watch many times]
I tend to agree. I rarely read anything but history as I find the actual events of the past far more interesting, clever, cool, glorious (there really are heros out there) than what hollywood can drum up. Its cool stuff. That said, note previous comment, I never go for history sakes and I wouldn't advise anyone to go see 300 for history, but damn well go to see the Greeks kill the Persians in droves!!!
Geleg wrote:
I realize that this kind of rant is like shouting into the wind. So rather than be critical at greater length, I'll close with two philosophical queries:
Rant away! I love it!!! LOL It gives me an outlet for all this shit I read. My wife really doesn't care. "Hey Steve, I can't go to sleep, would you tell me about some French King . . . "
Geleg wrote:
1. Should artists who deal with the past have some obligation to represent the past in a manner faithful to that past?
No. My god no. Hahahah You would stifle their creativity, force the governement to create a presidential cabinet possition to monitor the content...which in turn would force us to create countless committees of 'professionals' to discuss what is accurte and what is not..., washington would come up with some clever tax to cover the expense and use the money to fund their various tropical gardens in Ohio or some such crap. LOL (I'm not really impressed with our government's ability to do much as you can see. Its built a damn fine army, made some good roads and manages to keep itself from collapsing from the weight of paper it produces! LOL)
Geleg wrote:
2. Why do human beings like to project the values of the present onto the peoples and situations of the past?
[i.e., Mel Gibson's cries for 'freedom' in Braveheart; 300's presentation of Greek 'freeom' as analagous to modern liberal values; even all of medieval Arthurian romance couched in the clothes and social values of the period in which it was written, not in the period in which it purported to occur]
Good question. I don't know if I have the answer, but I'll take a stab. We are always looking for something to justify what we are doing and we can only look to the past. So its easy to make William Wallace into a hero and not into a brigand. And whose to say? Brigand or not, wasn't he instrumental in the Scottish war against the English (I'm way out of my field here...all I know about WW is what I saw in Braveheart and the hisotry channel LOL). Is this a bad thing? The Greeks did believe in freedom...for white males who were citizens of course...but they did believe in freedom. The Athenians certainly did. The Spartans belived in their own freedom. Its nothing like ours today, but then again when our own Republic was founded we had slaves, women couldn't vote, if you didn't meet land and education criteria you couldn't vote. We brutally disenfrachised black people up until the 1970s, and I mean brutally. But tell my grandfather he didn't believe in freedom and he'd roll up his sleeves and pile drive you into the ground. LOL
Rambling Steve Aside: This is my big problem with the state of the American intelligensia today, they focus on what it is to be human far too much. For to do so is to quickly realize that we are (whether Persians with saws grafted to our bones or well oiled Spartans or some fat dude in Nebraska pushing ice cream at the parlor) very frail and fragile and subject to all the mean things the universe has to offer... from base hunger to unnerving rage or cowardice. We focus all our attention on these things in our quest to be more human than human. But we fail, in my opinion, because I think to be more human than human is to reject our flaws, to suppress the natural biological urges that flood your body with adreniline so you can run away.
That said, there are those amongst us who strive to rise above that and rise to any occassion and fight and struggle no matter the adversity. Teaching about some of these people would be a good thing I think. Help peolple find an imaginary hand to help them pull themselves through. I look up at my wall to a picture of seven Romans overlooking a bluff by Frazetta and I'm riled up. Looking at their form, their diffiance etc. That is what it means to succeed! To win! To struggle against the odds. I could as easily put up some clever picture of people in Paris, struggling to find food and living in utter misery. Both are real. For their are men who throw themselves into a hopeless fray and their are hungry people lilving in want and misery. But which one will inspire me to struggle more?
Whose to say.
Geleg wrote:
Still geeking to see 300, despite all that I've said,
Dude, it is rocking! But don't go for ANY HISTORY. Just kick ass ass kicking!
I LOVE THESE BOARDS
Steve
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying
He who sits on the elephants back
Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com
