There has been a lot of talk amongst critics and bloggers regarding whether the film "300" is essentially war propaganda; some suspect that it was made in order to encourage America to attack Iran using several techniques, among them the central plot of Sparta vs. Persia being painted as Good vs. Evil, having the Spartans use such patriotic phrases as "Freedom is not free", etc. While I agree that the filmmakers and/or financers are attempting to say something about our current state of affairs using this film, where we differ is regarding what they're actually saying. I think what everyone is missing here is that if there is any tinge of intentional political propaganda inherent in the film “300”, the situations portrayed are much more analogous to the United State’s previous and current invasion of Iraq than anything that the administration is planning now (although I do realize that geographically, Iran is part of what Persia once was). After all, as some have noted, this film was in pre-production in 2003.
I just saw the film last night, and while it was stunning visually and cinematically, well acted and directed, just extremely lush and vibrant, and while I thoroughly enjoyed the film as a story on it’s own, it was undeniable as the film wore on that the filmmakers were drawing clear comparisons to what has occurred in this nation in the last several years, and not so subtly implying that we as a country need to continue fighting for “freedom” and “our way of life”.
Let me begin by saying that I realize this is a film based on history, and so of course the details will not all be congruous to our situation because obviously the director and producers did not set out to make only a political film that mirrors our situation today, but also to create a stunning historical (if somewhat embellished) picture and it is obvious that they put their hearts into it. I will not say "300" is like the war propaganda films of old because, unlike those films, this one was made for the sake of art as well. Thematically, though, I’d like to point out the comparisons that I couldn’t help but notice as the film wore on (I’d also like to state that I had not read one review of “300” before seeing it, and had no idea there was any controversy over this film being perceived as propaganda; these conclusions were mine and mine alone, not influenced by others):
1) The side we are meant to (and so skillfully made to) root for is Sparta, a city of tough, beautiful white men and women who are defending their freedom. The side we are made to look upon with disdain and root against is Persia, an overwhelmingly non-white population of cruel, weak people made into mindless slaves of their king through punishment and fear (whereas the soldiers of Sparta would die for their king out of love and respect, and he for any of them), so many of whom happen to be wearing what we today recognize as traditional Arab head coverings (although whether they were Arabs is up to debate (See this article: http://argus.theorem.ca/view.php?aid=38792 ). The Persian women are portrayed as (albeit willing-looking) sex slaves, nothing but flesh to please the warriors. Whereas the Spartan women were tough, beautiful, graceful and intelligent, much revered by the men. These things may all be historically true (I honestly don't know), but I’m just pointing out the similarities, when you look at the impression of Sparta and Persia next to popular conservative impressions of the United States and the Middle East.
2) One of the opening scenes, after the introduction of King Leonidas, is of a Persian messenger coming to propose a deal with the King to avoid bloodshed (“Earth & Water” is what the Persian says he’s there for), to give up some of his land and succumb peacefully to Persian rule, in order to retain some of their freedoms. One of the Spartan Councilman fetches Leonidas for the meeting, and immediately we see there is scorn for this councilman from the beautiful Queen. The Persian makes his offer, or request, and Leonidas immediately responds with fury and defiance (none of which I disagree with, actually). The Councilman tries to jump in and say “Leonidas, we need to be cautious!” (United States Congress before the invasion of Iraq, anyone?), but Leonidas shakes him off and ends up killing the messenger and all of his group right there. He then goes to the top of a mountain to consult with the elders of Sparta (United Nations before the… well, you get it), monks of sorts who live atop the mountain as it is their final say on whether Sparta goes to war with Persia. They are diseased and misshapen, with boils all over their faces and bodies. Leonidas constantly describes them as “hideous inbred swine” and things of that nature. The elders say they want to consult the Oracle, which turns out to be a pre-pubescent girl, presumably drugged and clothed only with a see-through white shroud, and she dances and levitates and jerks around for awhile before one of the “disgusting pig men who nonetheless still have needs", according to Leonidas, goes over and licks the girl’s neck, at which point she tells him that Sparta will burn if they go to war, and for them to stay home for their usual celebration (I didn’t catch what the name of it was, but it revolved around the full moon). So Leonidas sends his captain to gather three hundred of their best soldiers, and only ones who’ve borne a son to carry on their name, to assemble and come to him. The Councilman who has advised against being impulsive to begin war, came and asked what he was doing with all of these men. Leonidas replied he was just going for a walk, and that these 300 men were simply his personal bodyguards. He then marches these men to war without the permission of the elders or the council. (Hmm..)
3) This councilman who advised caution, inevitably turns out to be a lying, cheating, woman-hating traitor, found with Persian coins in his robe late in the movie. He is killed after the Queen gives a speech to the council asking, wait for it… for MORE TROOPS to be sent to assist the 300 already fighting. The speech includes such beautiful statements as “We have to pay for freedom with our blood” and “Our way of life has to be protected” and “I come to you not only as your Queen, but as a wife, and a mother, and as an Americ.. er, Spartan woman, just one member of the 300 families who are paying for their freedom today with their men out there fighting alone” (this is not all verbatim, but you get the drift). The Councilman, who had the previous night promised to endorse her request of more soldiers (under umm… dubious circumstances), then proceeds to lay her open in front of the room, accusing her of all sorts of unmentionables, while painting himself as a saint, and denouncing her request for assistance. She guts him with a sword and they all cheer after seeing the Persian coins, intoning “Traitor! Traitor!” I just thought this was a bit over the top, that’s all.
The thing is, in this instance, I AGREED with the request for more troops, because (and this is the singular difference between the film and reality that no amount of flowery freedom speeches can cover), the Persians were ATTACKING them, were banging on their back door. They brought the full might of their military upon this city, with the expressed intent of taking it over. Might there be a small difference between going forth to protect your land from imminent attack, and actually going far away from home to attack a country that never once threatened your way of life? But I digress, because this really isn’t about my political views, and it’s not even about whether people will be affected or “brainwashed” by this movie, as some fear (although, in response to some of the critiques and blogs I have read today, I submit that you may be selling short your “average American” by stating that they will not notice this flagrant attempt at garnering sympathy for a war gone bad, and that "the ones who do should be smart enough to not be affected by it"; and I think the “average American” who does NOT notice this is the most susceptible to falling prey to its’ ideas); it’s about the freedom of speech. The freedom of these filmmakers and investors and everyone involved in this film to shape something to fit their outlook on politics, on life (and let's not forget, it is their right to do so). It’s about the “average American’s” right to watch this film and take from it what they choose, to enjoy it for its beautiful sequences, or hate it for its violence, love it for its violence, revere it as allegory of their long-held political beliefs, or dislike it as an allegory of beliefs that to some have stifled the very freedom this war has intended to protect (see: Patriot Act). And it's about the freedom for me to write such things as this review/rant, and lay it out there for people to take from it what they will as well. “300” is something to be happy about BECAUSE it invites such debate. So, to answer the title question: "300" As Political Propaganda? Probably: But to use creative media to express your political views is not illegal, nor is it new.
I disagree with you. But, I encourage debate.
But, I also recommend short titles.
If you make it shorter, I'll post it on the front page.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
or it will be forever buried in archives.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
Watched it. Looked at it as a movie based on an historical event. Kept my paranoia in check. Watched the documentary, 'Last stand of the 300' before going to the movie. Insured that I hadn't become such a feminique to be swayed by someone elses opinion so much that I wouldn't even consider watching it. Loved it! Loved it! Voted in the poll and watched my vote tallied and counted there but lost in the actual presented tally on the front page. My, my.