<p>I know the idea of discussing the nuances of a mindless action movie like 300 seems to be a waste of time, but even though I think the linked page is not entirely correct, I still think it's worth talking about.</p>
<p>I must admit that when I first saw the trailer for the movie, I was blown away. I loved Sin City, and I couldn't wait for another movie like it. But then, all the simplistic brouhaha of the movie irked me, especially in these contemporary times. I thought the characterization of Sparta as freedom and Persia as oppressive was dangerously simplistic with potential war with Iran looming, in addition to general violence in the Middle East. Anybody who knows history knows that Sparta was an extremely harsh society, and Persians had many innovations in administration that Alexander the Great would later emulate once he conquered them. I rolled my eyes at the thought of dumbass neo-conservatives likening themselves to the glorious Spartans and the Iraqis/Iranians as the Persians.</p>
<p>Another thought that bothered me was that the Spartans were mostly played by Western Europeans (a Scotsman, Gerard Butler, plays Leonidas). There's even a British-accented Spartan in the trailer! This, despite the fact that the Spartans were Greeks and of Mediterranean stock. Generally speaking, people of Mediterranean stock have a distinct look from Western Europeans, such as dark curly hair and swarthy complexions. To me, it felt like another case of a historical re-write, where racial/ethnic anachronism was applied in order to distort Antiquity into a battle of Anglo-whites and Arabs, when in fact, Spartans and Persians probably did not all that different from one another (even today, Iranians have an ethnically ambiguous look, despite general ignorance portraying them as stereotypical Arabs). This may sound like nitpicking, or being the dreaded "PC" police (oh wait, anachronistic historical re-writing is just SATIRE), but in a world where mere appearance/image can make such a difference, I think it's very important to examine why whenever the great people of Antiquity are represented, they are almost always portrayed in a Anglicized manner (such as Joaquin Phoenix's fake British accent as Commodus in "Gladiator"... wouldn't it be more appropriate for him to speak like-a Mario?). Or what about the absurd "Enemy at the Gates" where apparently, the brave Russians who fended off the Nazis were actually all British! And if you're going to argue that it was a predominantly British production, then why did they get an American, Ed Harris, to play the villain? Geez, only the British could get away with this. Can you imagine an Austrian-accented Napoleon? Or a John Wayne-like Genghis Khan? Oh wait...</p>
<p>IMHO, it is a residual effect from centuries of British colonialism (of which America is a product of) that has forced people to equate anything British with the world's greatest achievements, or at least the West's greatest achievements. I mean c'mon, why does a British-accented Roman emperor sound "right", but a German one sounds ridiculous? I think the Germans deserve as much credit as the Brits in shaping modern Western society, but I guess since the Germans didn't spend as much time colonizing the world, their skills in self-promotion and brainwashing subjects (Nazis excluded) are not as honed.</p>
<p>I'm saying all this because from what I've heard, 300 is a superb movie and I can't wait to go see it. I don't think there's any agenda or ill-intent behind the movie, but I'm afraid that it may get marred by the opinions of idiots who see in the film things that justify their stupidity and simplicity.</p>