Sparta? No. This is madness
An expert assesses the gruesome new epic
Mar 11, 2007 04:30 AM
The battle of Thermopylae was real, but how real is 300? Ephraim Lytle, assistant professor of hellenistic history at the University of Toronto, has seen the movie and offers his view.
Article removed, but quoted in my reply and available in a previous post.
Okay, I was going to remain quiet in this whole history vs. entertainment argument. But pompous a$$hats like this person make me angry. Little background - I love history. I majored in US History and minored in Military History - specifically Naval Warfare. I had originally contemplated a military career ... but soon discovered I liked reading about getting shot at, much more than actually getting shot at. I eventually parlayed that degree into a mid-level management position. I did that for 4 years, then quit out of disgust. I went back to school (I was on the Bluto 7 year college plan I guess
) and became a Special Education teacher. Long story short, I have a love of history. Oh, and a love of cinema. But guess what? Unlike those "glorious" assistant professors (what, do they cart the real PHD around like Xerxes...
), I can appreciate the difference. Historical movies aim to do 3 things: 1.) Give a modern audience an overview of a historical event, 2.) Cram historical information that might take weeks to study in a college class, into 2 to 3 hours of film, and 3.) entertain. Guess what? 300 succeeds on every level.
These elitist historians love to spout off about changes and abbreviations, because they want a 10 hour Ken Burns documentary ... not a 2 hour cinema event. They overlook one of the most classic aspects of both literature and cinema: synecdoche - when one uses a part to represent the whole (its of Greek origins none the less
). In order to fit something this epic into a graphic novel, Frank Miller had to amalgamize/combine aspects to represent the whole. And, since the movie is based off that book, it too aims to do this. And in my non-PHD opinion, it succeeds. But lets look at the glorious half a professor's complaints with this in mind:
Thus I see no reason to quibble over the absence in 300 of breastplates or modest thigh-length tunics. I can see the graphic necessity of sculpted stomachs and three hundred Spartan-sized packages bulging in spandex thongs.
Ah, so he feigns indifference ... in the most sarcastic tone he can come up with. Well, Miller has said he envisioned the novel as a sort of Greek mythological take on the event. Well, if you look at ancient Greek artwork, the Spartans are often pictured semi-nude in battle. It was to convey their superior skills. Who wouldn't be impressed by someone so confident in their fighting abilities that they would go to war in the nude. Sure, it's history romanticized, but it was classic Greek tradition to do this. So, why does this student of the age fault a modern artist for using the same conventions?
We know little of King Leonidas, so creating a fictitious backstory for him is understandable. Spartan children were, indeed, taken from their mothers and given a martial education called the agoge. They were indeed toughened by beatings and dispatched into the countryside, forced to walk shoeless in winter and sleep uncovered on the ground. But future kings were exempt.
I refer back to my literature lesson
300 focuses on King Leonidas. However, it needs to give us an idea of just how a man becomes such an elite warrior. Well, this is how that happened. Since the story focuses on Leonidas, it makes sense to make it his back story. Since we know little about his past, its possible it could be true. But it is true of the majority of Spartan warriors so it serves its purpose.
"Elected annually, the five Ephors were Sparta's highest officials, their powers checking those of the dual kings. There is no evidence they opposed Leonidas' campaign, despite 300's subplot of Leonidas pursuing an illegal war to serve a higher good. For adolescents ready to graduate from the graphic novel to Ayn Rand, or vice-versa, the historical Leonidas would never suffice. They require a superman. And in the interests of portentous contrasts between good and evil, 300's Ephors are not only lecherous and corrupt, but also geriatric lepers."
I will ignore his pompous attempt to chastise us for read "funny books". I guess that kind of contempt is bred among the elite. However, he too is committing the same supposed sin Miller/ movie committed. Ignoring the rampant treachery and corruption present in Ancient Greece at this time. The Greeks were scared - the Persians were a formidable foe worthy of this fear. Many Greeks surrendered to Xerxes armies without a fight in order to either avoid battle or for love of some promised wealth. The "allied" Greek troops fighting for Xerxes numbered around 324,000. The true number of Greeks fighting against the Persians at Thermopylae is estimated at 5,200, Spartans included. It is historical record that many of the Greek city states were rampant with political corruption. In order to show the reader/viewer this sense of treachery and greed, Miller used the Ephors. They represent both the religion and government of the Greeks at the time, so they were a worthy amalgam.
Ephialtes, who betrays the Greeks, is likewise changed from a local Malian of sound body into a Spartan outcast, a grotesquely disfigured troll who by Spartan custom should have been left exposed as an infant to die. Leonidas points out that his hunched back means Ephialtes cannot lift his shield high enough to fight in the phalanx.
Okay, as far as I know it, there are no historical illustrations of Ephialtes. However, this much is known ... he betrayed the Greeks at Thermopylae for money and power. When the Persians were finally defeated at the Battle of Salamis, he fled to Thessaly. Now, consider his legacy. His name is reviled in both ancient and modern Greek. It has come to mean/symbolize: traitor and specifically "nightmare." Well, his appearance in both the comic and the movie personify that legacy rather well.
This touches on 300's most noteworthy abuse of history: the Persians are turned into monsters, but the non-Spartan Greeks are simply all too human. According to Herodotus, Leonidas led an army of perhaps 7,000 Greeks. These Greeks took turns rotating to the front of the phalanx stationed at Thermoplyae where, fighting in disciplined hoplite fashion, they held the narrow pass for two days. All told, some 4,000 Greeks perished there.
Once again I shall invoke the power of synecdoche! Okay, now we are ready. What did the graphic novel and movie focus on again? Athenians? Thespians? No, wait ... it was Spartans. How many Spartans were at this battle? Most historical accounts put that total at 300. Well, that certainly sounds like truth in advertisement. The Spartans were the greatest warriors on that battlefield. So, they get all the acclaim. Lets think modern football - our gladiators of the grid-iron. Who's the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts? Hmm.... well, if you even have a passing interest in the sport, you know that answer. Now, who's the backup center? Something tells me, unless you are a hardcore Colt fanatic, you have no idea. Well, in this battle, the Spartans were Peyton Manning and everyone else was the backup center. Miller/ the movie do convey that other Greeks fought there by the inclusion of Greeks the Spartans meet up with. They also mention sending the Phocian troops to guard the mountain pass. Its not like either the graphic novel or movie claims that ONLY 300 Spartans were at the battle. It just doesn't focus on the rest of the soldiers. And again, unless you want to turn this into a 10 hour documentary, that's good enough.
Mr. half-a-bee professor also mentions the treatment of the Persian armies. How they were "turned into monsters" and Xerxes is portrayed as an 8 foot freak. But what he neglects to mention is that the Persians welcomed and fostered this persona. Do you think it was coincidence that Xerxes advertised himself as a God-King? The Persians won countless battles without lifting a sword due to the fear their image conveyed. As the Greek contingent that follows the Spartans into battle demonstrated in the movie, many of them were thought to be ghosts ... unkillable. This is a classic tool of warfare - intimidation. The real Persians did everything in their power to scare their opponents into running off the field of battle. What better way to represent this on film than with the fantasy elements that were introduced. I promised you the real Greeks told legends about the Persian soldiers that were much more far-fetched.
Okay, I will get off my soap box now. I just want to summarize my opinion:
300 is a great movie which does an amazing job at entertaining you and a decent job at giving you an overview of a historical event. If you want to know the whole story, pick up a book or rent a History Channel special. Oh, and Assistant Professors should stop giving interviews and focus on their main jobs - getting coffee and grading term papers. The End.
Hmm ... Assistant Professor's name: Ephraim / Ephialtes ... hmm, connection? You be the judge
I am suprised Tom. I never would've imagined you talking in such a way!
