'300'

[John Dailey]

~ Nothing like arguing about how NOT-'documentary' a 'historical'-based (catch that last word?) fiction (hello?) story is. Like, no one knows the movie's based on Miller's graphical-novel interpretational vision of that famous group?

~ Shades of the controversy over Disney's POCAHONTAS, which, apart from the talking tree cosmic matriarch, was really close to 'documented history' re the relationship 'twixt Poco and Smith!

~ Given all such, as I've mentioned elsewhere, why, oh why, does no one criticize Shakespeare's 'historical tragedies' this way? --- Or, for that matter, the original THE 300 SPARTANS made in the '60's? Give this 'historical accuracy is for shit' attitude a break, people! Or, get ready to justify why The Bard is not to be criticized for not documenting that Hamlet said 'X' or that Mark and Julie did 'Y.' Sheesh!

LLAP

J:D

PS: Hadn't seen it yet; can' wait for Jul-31st to buy it!

[John Dailey]

ADDENDUM:

~ Uh-h-h, that "PS...can'..." should be "PS...can't..."

~ Hate these 'edit' probs I have.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ 'Freedom' in the context meant re the Spartans (and, 'Bravehart'-Wallace, for that matter) WAS a 'limited' view of such, to be sure; let's not get into pointlessly trivial args about this. The very concept OF 'freedom' itself had to have a beginning in order to 'develop' to where its status is today (and, who would argue that its present status is the penultimate of 'proper' meaning?)

~ Ntl, Sparta and Athens showed (regardless their yadda-yadda flaws) a clear historical start of defending the idea of "YOU don't decide what *I* or my brethren are 'free' to do; *I*, and my brethren decide such. *YOU* have no 'right' to decide such; only *we* do; and we will cry 'You are wrong'...to our death!" (aka: "...then, we will fight in the shade.")

~ THAT's the 'justifiableness' of mixing Sparta and 'freedom.'

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

BTW:

~ 'Freedom' and 'Sparta' DO 'mix;' just not the same way (aka, to the same broader degree or context) we, nowadays, with our availed (due to our de facto teaching predecessors) 20-20 hindsight (courtesy of Rand, and a few Enlightenment [including our Founding Fathers] others, AND their predecessor giants whose shoulders THEY stand on) would view such.

~ To talk about 'equal rights for all' and 'woman rights' as a criticism of the Greacians (including their foremost mercenary protectors) is a bit...temporally provincial, if not temporally elitist, methinks. Almost like 20-yr olds discussing how ignorant their parents were.

~ So easy to take our historical ancestors (whom we've learned [more or less] from) for granted, no? Think about that.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Sorry:

~ Meant 'Marc' when I typed 'Mark'. (Edit prob.)

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ Finally caught/bought the sucker. I really have a prob understanding the 'probs' others had with this, especially that it wasn't a History Channel 'documentary' (anyone hear of 'artistic license' [sometimes overdone, granted] or 'impressionistic envisioning'?)

~ It was beautiful in its cinematicness (is that a word? We're not talking actual 'cinematography' here.)

~ It was beautiful in its whole storyline, especially the 'politics' (some things never change) having to be dealt with surreptitiously by Leonidas, and explicitly by Gorgo. Also, I actually felt sympathetic for the warrior-wannabe Ephialtes, regardless his rage-filled resentfulness-ergo-betrayal of Leonidas. (The source of the idea of 'Judas'?)

~ It was beautiful in its script lines (rarely commented on in reviews) by Ephialtes, Gorgo, Xerxes, and the rest. Xerxes had the best line to Ephialtes: "You'll find I am kind. Unlike the cruel Leonidas who demanded that you stand, I require only...that you kneel." Hey, is he 'generous' or what?

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

~ THAT's the 'justifiableness' of mixing Sparta and 'freedom.'

Now factor in the Helots whom the Spartans brutally exploited and cruelly treated. The Helots were the "niggers" of the Spartans.

Some freedom

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I just watched the movie. I didn't like it very much. The best was the over-the-top Xeres. The History channel just did a documentary on the battle. It was much better done IMHO. Too much bombast, not enough characterization. Conflating "freedom" with independence was too much for me to swallow.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I just watched the movie. I didn't like it very much. The best was the over-the-top Xeres. The History channel just did a documentary on the battle. It was much better done IMHO. Too much bombast, not enough characterization. Conflating "freedom" with independence was too much for me to swallow.

--Brant

Bingo! You have distinguished freedom/liberty on the one hand from political independence on the other.

Smarrrrtt as paint, ye arre!

But it was a kick-ass movie and a great cathartic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Richard Uhler]

...

But it was a kick-ass movie and a great cathartic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

...and I just got home with the DVD, which will provide this weekend's necessary catharsis. And maybe next weekend's too.

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Yeah, you're right there. Clearly they (not to mention Jefferson or our favorite: Aristotle) should have read Rand before arguing about 'independence' and 'freedom'...from a Hitler wannabe...and freed all their slaves 1st. What hypocrites our ancestors were.

~ Sheesh.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Baal, ADDENDUM-1:

~ I 'factored in' the Helots in my evaluation of the movie, but explicated nothing, granted, since the Helots were barely mentioned therein (like, Thermopolae-wise, they were relevent, other than as aides to the warriors?)

~ However, if concerned about my potential ignorance of such, please check one of my original posts-to-this-forum on SPARTAN, here; (scroll to post#38.)

~ Anyone familiar with the history of Sparta (much less the magnificent 300 [who else thumbed their nose at Persia's rulers' expanding dictatorial {spare me 'benevolent'} empire?]) are familiar with the Helots, their standing therein, and...why they were Sparta's 'slaves': they, as all others in those days...lost their turf war. Hence, they became (what did war-losers become, then?)

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 12, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Baal, ADDENDUM-2:

~ True: the Helots were 'slaves' of the Spartans...after their (unrecorded, but having clearly occurred) war-of-the-tribes-of-then.

~ The Spartans, being the victors, are to be impugned for acting as all other 'war-victors' had of then (including ALL of Greece a-n-d Persia)? --- Like, if the Helots won, the 'spartans' wouldn't have been slaves of theirs?

~ 'Context' applies here in evaluating worth of whomever...especially 'historical' context! Jee-e-e-z! Maybe the Helots started the whole turf fight; in that case they asked for the consequences! Who knows now...and what matter re that the Spartans were spearheading the defense of (yes, even the Helots...hello?) all from a Persian 'takeover'?

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 12, 2007 by John Dailey

[studiodekadent]

Cmon, this movie is NOT A HISTORY LESSON, it is art which is meant to emphasize the highest ideals set in a historical context.

I agree that 300 is not meant to be perfectly historical. However to talk about "highest ideals" is to miss the point. Listen to the opening monologue of the film. In Sparta, children are taught to (paraphrasing) "believe that dying in battle for Sparta is the most noble" of things. All these constant cries in the film of "for Sparta!" The film's portrayal of Sparta simply oozes collectivism, regardless of Leonidas's use of the term "freedom." If anything, the film shows Sparta's highest ideals in pure light: service to the state by sacrificing one's life to it.

Now, in addition, Jeff Kremer stated earlier that there had to be an Objectivist element to the film since Leonidas declared the inbred priest's "mystics." However, Leonidas himself is a mystic; a mystic of muscle (despite his use of the term "reason"). Leonidas has no room for the intellect; after all he insulted Athens as "philosophers and boy-lovers" (indicating that he considered both of these things bad). His state was one for men of the sword alone, not men of the mind.

I agree that 300 does show ideals: it shows a corroded mess of them, yet underneath the rhetoric is nothing but collectivism, brutality and slavery in the name of the state. Just because the Persians are "worse" does not mean they are in principle any different.

[BaalChatzaf]

I agree that 300 does show ideals: it shows a corroded mess of them, yet underneath the rhetoric is nothing but collectivism, brutality and slavery in the name of the state. Just because the Persians are "worse" does not mean they are in principle any different.

Arrghhh! Smart as paint, ye arrre!

What Leonidas meant by Freedom, was independence from Persian rule. Leonidas and his buddies were not about to free any Helots from their servitude.

Even so, there was something quite moving about the heroism on the battle field. Just about every nation has adopted Spartan Memes for their military establishment. This includes republics, monarchies, democracies and tyrannies. The Spartans got the Military Thing down exactly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[studiodekadent]

Even so, there was something quite moving about the heroism on the battle field. Just about every nation has adopted Spartan Memes for their military establishment. This includes republics, monarchies, democracies and tyrannies. The Spartans got the Military Thing down exactly.

We will have to differ on that issue, since I do not find military engagements to be inspiring or moving at all. But Im delighted that you agree with my other philosophical analyses.

[BaalChatzaf]

Even so, there was something quite moving about the heroism on the battle field. Just about every nation has adopted Spartan Memes for their military establishment. This includes republics, monarchies, democracies and tyrannies. The Spartans got the Military Thing down exactly.

We will have to differ on that issue, since I do not find military engagements to be inspiring or moving at all. But Im delighted that you agree with my other philosophical analyses.

The reason you are not speaking German or Japanese is because of the likes of George Patton and Curtis Le May. These Warriors are what has kept of free when attacked by thugs and tyrants. Thanks to the likes of George Patton, I did not end up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathroom sink.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Even so, there was something quite moving about the heroism on the battle field. Just about every nation has adopted Spartan Memes for their military establishment. This includes republics, monarchies, democracies and tyrannies. The Spartans got the Military Thing down exactly.

We will have to differ on that issue, since I do not find military engagements to be inspiring or moving at all. But Im delighted that you agree with my other philosophical analyses.

They are very inspiring when your side wins. The battle of the Coral Sea, Midway: these victories meant that Australians didn't have to worry anymore about a Japanese invasion. When you are praying, hoping, desperate for victories you dance in the streets when they happen. And when the Americans are on shore leave you don't mind the idea so much of them sleeping with your women. Much better than The Rape of Sydney or The Rape of Brisbane or The Rape of Perth.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

They are very inspiring when your side wins. The battle of the Coral Sea, Midway: these victories meant that Australians didn't have to worry anymore about a Japanese invasion. When you are praying, hoping, desperate for victories you dance in the streets when they happen. And when the Americans are on shore leave you don't mind the idea so much of them sleeping with your women. Much better than The Rape of Sydney or The Rape of Brisbane or The Rape of Perth.

I never said there are times when military success is wonderful. What I said is that I find the glorification of battlefields uncomfortable. War is terrible, a monstrous activity and a last resort. Of course there have been times when it was necessitated by certain circumstances and it probably will continue to be. All I am saying is that we shouldn't have any delusions about war. It is not some "wholesome activity that makes men out of boys" or anything. It is a hideous atrocity, a black mark on history, something to be avoided when possible. We shouldn't idealize it. This is why I think that self-defense is the only legitimate use for war.

[Brant Gaede]

I never said there are times when military success is wonderful. What I said is that I find the glorification of battlefields uncomfortable. War is terrible, a monstrous activity and a last resort. Of course there have been times when it was necessitated by certain circumstances and it probably will continue to be. All I am saying is that we shouldn't have any delusions about war. It is not some "wholesome activity that makes men out of boys" or anything. It is a hideous atrocity, a black mark on history, something to be avoided when possible. We shouldn't idealize it. This is why I think that self-defense is the only legitimate use for war.

Self defense should be idealized. That may involve war. If it isn't, idealists won't be found to do the self-defending. Your local police department is also at war, btw. It's generally more low-grade than that which involves an invading army, but it's war. The police are especially tasked in a country like Australia where citizens aren't allowed to possess or use guns. They can't effectively defend themselves and the police usually don't show up until after the crime.

The irony of fearing and hating war is it sets up the good guys for the bad guys (Hitler comes to mind) and the war (WWII comes to mind) that inevitably follows is more horrible than originally imagined.

When the shit hit the fan Great Britain (with some sub-rosa help from the United States) barely took back the Falklands. It probably couldn't even do that today. It is the mighty U.S. Navy that makes the Pacific as congenial as it is, so bereft of foreign threat that one can live there and talk about how horrible war is and how it shouldn't be glamorized and don't let those nasty U.S. ships into New Zealand ports that might be carrying NUCLEAR WEAPONS! (I should hope so!)

The United States is a warrior nation full of warriors. The Civil War battlefields aren't glamorized but treated as sacred ground. The same with Arlington National Cemetery where my uncle will one day be buried. He was shot up over the South Pacific going head to head with a Zero fighter attacking his B-17. He was at Pearl Harbor and Midway. Young men play football. They fight fires. They fight crime. They fight wars. Do we tell them to stop what they do? Would it not be better if they simply weren't wasted by their elders who were too stupid and lazy to learn anything at Yale they might have found useful later?

--Brant

[Selene]

I just saw the film '300' last Saturday night. WOW! This is the best movie I've seen since 'Casino Royale'. It is an incredible, heroic epic that inspires one to stand tall for what it is right, even against seemingly impossible odds. Highly recommended for Objectivists. I can't wait to see it again.

The idea of Spartans fighting for Freedom is almost an oxymoron. Sparta was one of the most repressed societies that ever existed and it lived on the slave labor of the Helots. No doubt the Spartan fought for Independence (from Persian domination) as did the Athenians. But Freedom and Liberty? Not a chance.

Even Athens which was far freer than Sparta was not a democracy. Only one in six adult males living in the Athenian City-State had any standing in its governance. Five sixths of the population were either resident aliens whose presence was tolerated and found useful or -slaves-. Slavery was alive and well in Athens in those days. Aristotle even defended slavery.

Don't get me wrong. I -loved- the movie. It was exciting, it was bad-ass, it got my juices flowing. Personally, I admire the way of the warrior, the man who puts his blood and vital organs between his family and community on the one hand, and the outsider who would come to conquer or destroy them. All hail the Warrior! The stand of the 300 is Sparta's lasting contribution to human culture along with its military memes. Spartan military modalities are -the- model for military organization in every subsequent society, be it fee or be it tyrannical. For example; the Romans were organized in the manner of the Spartan Hoplites.

Here is Simonides verse on the Spartan stand in memory of Spartan bravery:

Ώ ξειν', ἀγγέλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ότι τήδε κείμεθα, τοις κοίνων ρήμασι πειθόμενοι

Oh Stranger passing by, go tell the Spartans....

Graven on the statue of Leonidas at Thermopolea was the Spartan response to the Persian demand that they Spartans lay down their weapons.

"Μολών λαβέ" ("Come and take them!").

Damn! That gives me goose bumps.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yep. Much more eloquent than "Nuts!" by the Commander of Bastogne. It was an excellent movie visually. I only wish the director had included the famous Spartan Hounds that went into battle with the warriors. As old Bill said:

"My hounds are bred out of the Spartan kind,

So flewed, so sanded: and their heads are hung

With ears that sweep away the morning dew;

Crook-kneed, and dew-lapped like Thessalian bulls,

Slow in pursuit, but matched in mouth like bells,

Each unto each. A cry more tunable

Was never hollaed to, nor cheered with horn,

In Crete, in Sparta, nor in Thessaly:

Judge when you hear.

William Shakespeare

Midsummer Night’s Dream. Act IV, Scene I

In reality their howls struck horror and a primal fear into the opponent. Imagine fighting the Romans a la Gladiator [the movie about that charming Statis Roman Emporer], but with Spartan Hounds with an attitude.

[BaalChatzaf]

Yep. Much more eloquent than "Nuts!" by the Commander of Bastogne.

I don't agree. The stand of the 101-st at Bastogne was very Spartan. The outcome was much happier. In fact the counterpart to -300- was the Bastogne episode in -Band of Brothers-.

"Nuts" is right up there with

"Μολών λαβέ" ("Come and take them!").

-Band of Brothers- was Spielberg's salute to the Warrior ethos. That and -Saving Private Ryan- were praises to the Warriors who were not bred to be Warriors (unlike the Spartans). Our hero Warriors were -ordinary men- who rose to the challenge. They were not beaten and brutalized, as were Spartan youth. They were ordinary, salt of the earth types, who found the greatness within themselves when the need for that greatness was at hand. Our Warriors did not grow up using and abusing Helots. All the greater they are, then.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I don't agree. The stand of the 101-st at Bastogne was very Spartan. The outcome was much happier. In fact the counterpart to -300- was the Bastogne episode in -Band of Brothers-.

"Nuts" is right up there with

"Μολών λαβέ" ("Come and take them!").

It's something of a question whether he said "Nuts" or something you wouldn't be able to print in your newspaper back home.

--Brant

[John Dailey]

~ I've certainly defended the worth of the movie enough already from aspects/criticisms 'A' through 'Z' (well, through 'N' anyways.)

~ I'll just add this: if Sparta wasn't there, then, I really don't think we'd be here, now, arguing about the worth of admiring (or castigating the worth of) long-dead commandos-of-their-time in a do-or-die merely-stalling battle...in American-'English', anyways; it'd probably be neo-Persian (if we were allowed to refer to Sparta, that is.)

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 14, 2007 by John Dailey

[sbeaulieu]

It is not some "wholesome activity that makes men out of boys" or anything.

Wholesome activity, no. Make men out of boys...you bet! And then something more.

I revere any man or women that had to face an enemy on any combat venue.