It'll save you ten bucks and a trip to the movies . . . --qrs

(editor's note: significantly expanded and extensively revised for this post; originally posted at 1,000 word limit at Internet Movie Database under my alternate user name)

USA Today feature article -- This is Sparta? The History behind the Movie

...As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty.

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

Eric Blair (pen name George Orwell)

Notes on Nationalism (essay) 1945

I bought Oliver Stone's Alexander The Final Cut DVD edition a few days ago. In return I received the movie certificate to the recently released film "300" enclosed in the case.

I went to the movies late Friday night.

After the movie concludes with a spectacularly arty ending credit sequence, it left me a sour taste in the mouth as I file out of the screening room with the stunned & impressed (mostly young in their 20's and early 30's) patrons.

I was slightly put off by the effect 300 the movie have on the receptive audience's attitude in the current situation.

I know, it's only a movie, but I felt like shaking my head in disbelief about the message conveyed to the impressionable youth.

The timing couldn't be more fortuitous than the release of 300 as the new Western war approach upon Iran/Syria's sovereignty.

I separate art from politics regardless but not this time. I saw Apocalypto and came away amazed. I saw The Pianist and felt its haunting surreal effect. I saw 300 and came away disappointed and a little disturbed by its bellicose message alternating with the reason for the need to preserve freedom while expounding ultra-nationalist fervor.

Admirable that the film apparently is very faithful to the source material, even taking dialogue verbatim from the comic pages. But whereas the film's panel-to-film adaptation is commendable, it's quite a tedious experience with barely sustainable character development that consist of few raw emotions and bizarre directorial choices in making the battles and dramatic moments emulate the look and feel of flashy music videos.

I acknowledge Zack was a music video director, as are the handful of established movie directors of similar background. At least David Fincher wasn't stupid in being tacky to pull the hyper-actively frenzied crank up, crank down & slo-mo editing gimmick. 300 movie is all style and less substance because of this. And there are way too many slow motion scenes that's incredibly annoying and induced me to let out barely stifled yawns.

I enjoyed Frank Miller's graphic novel years ago, but the movie adaptation (the filmmakers insist it is an exact interpretation of the originating material) feel underwhelming and strangely languid.

There is the unvarnished truth this movie represent the following credo -- unapologetically racist in fostering xenophobia with the jingoistic zeal, virulent condemnation of the "weak & disabled" by forced ostracizing with justified termination utilized according to the Nurture/Nature way of Darwin law and fascistically militaristic that would make Hitler, Mussolini, General Patton (whom I greatly admire, in spite of his unorthodox view) & Air Force General and demented Cold Warrior (an advocate of nuclear war, I kid you not) Curtis LeMay proud.

I don't blame Frank Miller, the author of the graphic novel, even if he happens to be a misanthrope as alleged. The comic is separate from the film as Mr. Miller creates the work of *art* for the readers to evaluate. The movie as well as graphic novel are merely re-telling of the true event of the Spartans' last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae that exemplify patriotic duty, ferocious loyalty and unsurpassable towering valor.

Their fearless courage to sacrifice themselves to defend the particular area is exemplary in spite of the historical fact that the Spartans were, to put it literally, ancient Nazis due to their aforementioned method of termination with extreme prejudice in the disposal of young children to build the finest military-civilian army by rearing & reproduction that embody "Survival of the fittest" and governed their world with the slavery and maltreatment of the Helots and warrior way of life.

I object to the movie vision of 300 because it is in effect an endorsement of unrealistic high-octane, stone-cold emotionless (except anger & rage, if that's all there is) machismo to place the impossible test on the definition of manhood (the culprit behind bullying & hazing in school & life) and ultra-nationalistic militarism with less logic in foresight and diplomatic reason before the last option.

Director Zack Synder, producer Mark Canton and co-screenwriters Kurt Johnstad & Michael Gorden have no shame for producing what may be the most pervasive propaganda since Triumph of the Will, the infamous documentary. There are certain analogies between 300 the movie and the vintage 1935 b&w film. Their claim (Zack, especially) that the film is not intended to be a geopolitical allegory is bunk.

The analogy is so unmistakable that I wonder whether the filmmakers took notes during a video viewing.

I believe in rational patriotism and humanitarian reason as the wise philosophers of the ancient and romantic periods decree. In my humble opinion nationalistic pride is healthy whereas ultra-nationalism only blind that cause ill-considered choices which will change the course of human civilizations in affected continent/regions as well as mankind's destiny.

Because of how I perceive the message of the movie from a historical (though 300 is essentially a work of fiction based on real events and figures) and political standpoint -- trying hard as I can to be impartial -- the movie is an utterly distasteful type of propaganda that cater to the brutish instinct of the enthusiastically receptive audience patrons as demonstrated by some exuberantly positive reviews by the film critics and viewer comments on Rotten Tomatoes and Internet Movie Database.

This film could be one of the reasons that help sell the new, more expensive American war on the present Islamic Republic of Iran as a "psyop". Real history matter so we learn from it to apply the lessons for the security and welfare of the Republic; historical fiction that strive to make the Spartans resemble gods while the other side look ugly and monstrous is indisputable propaganda.

The fact that the association of neo-conservative university professor of classics & Greek military history (passionate defender of Bush/Cheney's "war on terror") Victor Davis Hanson's extreme right-wing agenda with the book re-print "300" in foreword lead me to believe the filmmakers endorse fundamental militaristic way of life as the end-all answer to existing crises.

Denying that this film isn't political at all is plain lying. Frank Miller is spared, but the rage-filled jingo filmmakers are to be admonished for pursuing the subconscious agenda to top the cream whip with the cherries of bellowing melodramatic theatrics, stylized violence and flashy cinematic gimmicks to produce the most peculiar and magnificent propaganda film in recent times.

A nauseating (not gore but shrill tone) and weirdly disturbing experience for the politically astute, indeed.

My critical evaluation of the film is I would've given it at least two stars -- for good production design and bronze-tinted special effects cinematography. All else felt weirdly stilted in grade school theatrics.

Because of the repellent nature of the film facilitating the nobility in fascist art (however crudely applied by the filmmakers) as well as aesthetically displeasant viewing from my experienced and historically aware moviegoer's perspective, I knock it down to

* (one) star.

Posted in

• Hollywood
• Iran
• movie review
• neocons
• propaganda
• Syria
• zionism

Submitted by Nepos Libertas on Sun, 2007-03-18 03:06.

• Nepos Libertas's blog
• Login or register to post comments