One strange thing pointed out to me by a friend (an indian who just arrived in this country), is that it is odd that the persians / bad guys are mostly depicted as being black, when persians are actually white... I was surprised by his observation, and i think perhaps there is a problem with the integrity of this particular film and director...

AO, I noticed this in the film and it troubled me briefly as well, but then I realized the film was emphasizing the "100 nations" aspect of the Xerxes army - it wasn't just Persians.

Neil, spectacular job on this - very logical, informative, and fun to read as well!

I noted on another review - historical accuracy is not the focal point of this movie (nor in Miller's graphic novel).

It was very ironic that the movie spent an inordinate amount of time speechifying around Spartans not wanting to bend knee to the Persians and laying claims to Spartan freedom, while ignoring the historical fact that the Spartan society was largely supported by large numbers of Heolot slaves - the reason Sparta was able to devote so much of its resources to developing a professional military in the first place. Fear of slave uprisings was an ongoing problem in Sparta.

The Iranian contraversy is somewhat amusing as I suspect the vast majority of movie-goers probably wouldn't associate ancient Persia with Iran in any case....

Have you also considered the fact that most Americans don't realize that Persians are known as Iranians today? Not a very effective propaganda tool if your target audience can't identify the villains in real life.

"For a lesser educated America, these look like political statements ripped right out of our own headlines,"

Someone once said....

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

But I am sure your educated enough to know who said that.

If the ancient story resonates in our times even through the artistic prism of this creative film. I think it does so for a damn good reason.

Maybe Americans are not so ill educated as you might like to think, and this films political messages mapped onto our times are not so easily dismissed.

But what do I know? just ill educated right?

Freedom ISN'T free.

At least they have ripped abs and giant elephants. Who wouldn't want them?

this film was never meant to be historically accurate. It is a movie based on a comic that was based on another movie about a historical battle. it is a work of fiction. So to start picking it apart for historically accuracy is kinda silly. So if you realize hey this is a comic book movie, just like say daredevil and batman... (frank miller wrote for both these books) So sit back relax and enjoy the show.

I like how no one seems to complain about the use of hand grenades...

There is one thing you didn't cover in your article that essentially renders most arguments that this movie is some sort of political commentary on the war on terror false.

As you mentioned The movie is almost a cell by cell copy of the graphic novel penned by Frank Miller. However, Miller's political leanings in the war on terror are moot because the book was published in 1998. There had been no 9/11; the US had not invaded Iraq or Afghanistan; and there was no talk of war with Iran. Any message seen in the story that is relevant to today's political climate is purely a figment of the critic's imagination.

Fact: You're an idiot.

Persians were actually dark skinned/black, not entiely white, since they were from the middle east/mesopotamian area, so by chance the bad guys(persians) are black, big deal this is not a flaw in the flim or director, its the most historicly accurate thing they could have done.

Just as the stories told through the film (and comic) by Dillios, the movie actually works at presenting some form of war logic in a positive light.
Basically, you have this great storyteller who exaggerates reality and makes up parts of it to motivate a people to fight and die.
Dillios, Snyder, Miller are telling stories about disobeying authority, about absolutely soulless enemies, about the greater good.
It may not be obvious propaganda or not even knowingly have a political agenda, but to impressionable minds it can contribute to shape ideas some can be against.
Still, I feel this is the essence of all great art.

Honestly, accuracy and film rarely go together. How many excellent novels have been turned into movies only to be either poor in quality or poor in accuracy?

The people who get upset are irrational, sort of like how I deal with the sad dismemberment of the LotR. I've only slept through two movies while watching them the second time: The second Harry Potter and the FotR.

Kevin

Why do we have to sugar coat this? At that period of time nations brutally murdered each other. And then told Ulysses-like tales of the battles. They may not have been Lord of the Rings-type monsters, but the Persians didnt walk around like free-love hippies helping people more than anything else. Even hundreds of years later the nation of Islam spread through military might, not enlightenment.

Like I said elsewhere, Iran's president does far more damage than any movie could ever do...

Well I know personally when I saw the movie, and teh credits rolled I said to myself.

"man that was a good movie, that one guy severed another guy's leg with his sword"

But then again, what do I know.

This film is fascist art, plain and simple. It is beautiful, but then so were Nazi aesthetics.

300 glorifies euthanasia and the reckless warmongering by a strongman leader (who come complete with a "destiny") in the face of (so-called in the film) democratic laws. The perfection of the male form reflected an absolute moral superiority. The "enemy" comprised just about every non-white nation, in addition to which they were also deformed and monstrous and, apparently, queer. The film ends with Leonidas represented as a Christ figure upon his death.

Mr. Miller, if you know anything about film or film theory, you know that representation is always political, especially when you have the Hollywood cultural machine behind it. Dismissing the fascist nature of this film by focusing on narrative devices or historical exegesis is insufficient and simple-minded.

Nothing is "just" anything. Despite what many people want to believe, or want us to believe, the world is culturally complex. To ignore this fact is to reveal oneself to be ignorant or a scoundrel.

Neil, first let me say that if you speak the way you write, I would listen to you all day! Your cadence is perfect and a pleasure to read.

About the article, your logic was flawless and there in lays the rub, logic and politics are mutually exclusive.

Psychology on the other hand is one of politics' favorite bedfellows.

When someone is looking to pick a fight, they will grasp at anything no matter how flimsy to make it appear that they were justified in throwing the first punch.

There is nothing that works better to get others to rally to your aid than playing the victim.

and # 10 that is an opinion not a fact. Facts can be proven.

okay this movie is from a comic book maybe we should have a long debate over spider man. a man who's a spider. maybe stan lee knows something we don't. noooo!!!! its just a movie if ppl want to believe it let them.

Fact: The Persian Army employed Axe handed mutants, which are sadly extinct today.

Anyone who believes the crazy conspiracies are fit for the nut house, but with that said - this movie is just coming out at a bad time (in terms of politics, good time in terms of movie schedules releases - no movies out now so big profits for a blockbuster like this).

In the wake of the Iraq war and the soon ousting of a President and his war-bent regime, it is only too fitting that a movie like this should come out. NOT because theres some sort of conspiracy, but because a movie such as this could cause ignorant individuals to get a false image of what the Persians and by extension Iranians believe - eg: highly suggestible types might interpret the fictional dialogue as actual threats. Believe me there are actually a lot of idiots that would see a movie like this and use traits displayed in the movie as arguments to attack Iran (stupid as is it is - the individuals are to be blamed not the movie).

No time to search the comments, but Dan Savage also touched on homophobia in his latest column.

Please note that today's Iran should not necessarily be associated with the Persian empire. Many Iranians who live abroad detest the Iranian government, but admire the old empire's achievements. To them, this movie is a blow to the stomach and undermines everything they hold dear.

Dear Mr. Miller, if you claim that this is only a movie, and now you're explaining that they might be some fictitious elements to it, but that's OK, then why don't you have someone who's African American watch "The Birth of a Nation" and then see how they feel about that?

Afterall, this is only a movie too, right?

Your first comment needs to be altered if you'd like to keep it in line with the facts that follow it. It simply wasn't the Persian way to enslave people -- they were totally unusual in ancient time in that they allowed and encouraged conquered fiefdoms to continue praying to their own respective gods and practicing their own religious freedom. As a a counterpoint to anyone claiming the USA is a "Christian Nation," ancient Persia was a bastion of personal religious freedom.

And as the movie covers, and you point out in a subsequent point, the Spartans engaged in some very atrocious practices (including slavery, something the Persians abolished) that very much qualify as "evil" if we believe that evil can exist in such a manifest fashion. There is in fact a pragmatic explanation for everything called "evil."

And as you should know, in modern times, for every American who slurs the Arabic, Persian, and Muslim communities, there is some derange mullah daclaring the U.S. as the "Great Satan." And vice versa applies, as well.

See where it goes? An eye for an eye....

For an actual factual presentation of Persia, check out this Documentary created by the History Channel.

The History Channel's "Last Stand of the 300" has found its way onto YouTube (watch it while you can)
The official site is here.

It was just a cool gory movie. How can you take a movie too seriously that hardly had any dialog? It was just a kick A$$ slasher film. I did notice that the last scene looked like the twin towers in front of the Spartans. Maybe I just wanted to see that. Who cares, its frakin Hollywood.

What a lot of people are afraid to admit is that the movie hits on an important universal theme which is more significant than even those who have been outraged by the film realize.

That same fundamental conflict between the beliefs of east (as represented by Persia) and west (as represented by the Greeks) which is depicted in the movie, is still around today and remains the basis of the conflict which we now face between Islam and the post-colonial, western-influenced world.

Dave

So many comments! I must respond. You know, this is severely detracting from me writing painfully witty reviews of films like Pride and Shooter, but I love the heat of discussion.

EO - Thank man! It is always good to get kudos from the boss...

Deano - You are right. Most people have no clue what is going on in Iraq. I for one, am still waiting to get word from Jon Stewart. Then I will feel informed.

seth - Hand grenades? Did we see the same movie? I missed the part where Bruce Willis pops out from behind a rock, pulls the pin with his teeth and yells, "Alright boys, come get it." On a more serious note, I do see what you are talking about, I just don't see how it is relevant.

Robin - You are correct. I am an idiot. And while witty, that cannot serve as your only argument. That is like saying, "Na na -- you stink!" I need more to complete the insult, please.

Kevin - I am with you. I am still really pissed that they butchered the historical accuracy of LOTR and Harry Potter. Next time they need to stick to what really happened at Hogwarts.

Brian - You got me, I really know nothing about film or film theory. In fact, I am not a real film critic, I just play one on TV. Of course I know that the Hollywood machine churns out political activism faster than they can adopt African babies. My point is that in most cases, especially with large Blockbusters, the point is to make a lot of money. And that, my friend, is a lot more important than making a statement. Besides, the director of the film told me personally that he just wanted to make a film that was a "kick ass ride." Nowhere did he mention he wanted to make a "kick ass ride that escalated tensions between two cultures, ultimately leading to another unjust invasion of a middle eastern country putting more American troops in harms way for no good reason." Or, maybe I missed that part.

Candide - Are you single by chance? If you enjoy my cadence, you should see me dance. Thanks for the kind words.

Surrounded by Conservatives - I agree, blame the individuals who actually cause the wars, not the films that draw parallels to our current world. Oh wait, we don't do that here in America...

Yo, E Rocks! - I beg to differ, that really is fact. In the movie, the Persians literally threaten to enslave the Spartans. Whether or not the real Persians said that is like trying to figure out who killed JR, so I'm staying out of it.

Some great comments here! I love a little argumentativeness in the early morning... It keeps me young.

The only argument I have for the film not being the basis for some hidden agenda to rally the troops to march upon the persian empire is the original Graphic Novel. It was a graphic novel first, with the same ideas, images and story. The same number of Africans found in the movie can also be found in the graphic novel. That is why I enjoyed the movie. The attention to detailed paid to make the movie read almost exactly like the book. There were some embelishments made for the 20-something college crowd but I would hardly call givng more emphasis to the female characters a ploy to incite war.

And truth be told, there were a lot more East Asians in the story than there are Africans. The personal guards, the ugly guys wearing all black with the silver ogre masks? Those weren't Persians or anyone else west of India. I think it is sad when a movie made to trill and entertain the male gender can create such a fuss. And for the sake of arguing, 300 the novel came out roughly 2 years before 9/11 when I don't think anyone was really paying too much attention to Iran at all. And honestly, how many people really believe that the majority of the people watching 300 have a clue where Persia is? I would be impressed if half of them could tell me capital of New York or the name of their current Governor(California Residents don't count).

The past speaks to us, if only more would listen...

"Most importantly, only in Greece was there a constant tradition of unfettered expression and self-criticism. Aristophanes, Sophocles and Plato questioned the subordinate position of women. Alcidamas lamented the notion of slavery.

Such openness was found nowhere else in the ancient Mediterranean world. That freedom of expression explains why we rightly consider the ancient Greeks as the founders of our present Western civilization - and, as millions of moviegoers seem to sense, far more like us than the enemy who ultimately failed to conquer them."

Whenever anti-USA movies are made Americans cry over it.
Why are Iranians not allowed to be patriotic to their culture?
Double standard here used by the USA again.

hmmmm

Anyone stopping the Iranian regime from making their own films? Not last time I checked.

Personally, I bet the opressive Iranian regime is concerned that its own student populace might just see things more from the Spartans perspective. God I hope so.

What the Iranians really need to realize is that, for the most part, Americans couldn't put 2 and 2 together, that most people don't realize that Iran is where the Persian Empire used to be seated.

Enamored as i may be by its glorious,no-holds-barred 'simplistic' depiction of conflict, i have to say that '300' holds a very strong flavor of 'white' supremacy. Considering the international box office performance of this movie, the director should not discard the movie's overtones as mere entertainment. After all, the fact that a 'gay' Alexander was unacceptable (Alexander did bomb disastrously), but a 'gay' Xerxes is welcome begs us to question ourselves for our racial prejudice.

As an Iranian who was born and raised in Australia
Bravo on this article... and thank you!
My father is one of those idiots who thinks this is a propaganda movie that America is feeding the public to win support for a war on Iran.

Apparently everything is a conspiracy these days!

Perhaps I saw the wrong movie or maybe I just know too many homosexual people but I wouldn't have considered Xerxes gay and depsite how they are often depicted in Movies, I don't necessarily associate Greeks with 'White Power'. Western civilization may have taken much from them but most Greeks that I have met have 'stood' out in a crowd of pasty-faced Westerners. I've even know a few to be mistaken for someone from the Middle-East. Is there anything wrong with that, for me no, but for him, he wasn't all that happy but then again I don't think many Indians would be happy being mistaken for someone from Pakistan or a Syrian for a Lebanese or what-have-you.

The point is, this isn't an ode to the supremacy of the white Westerners over the dirty Persians. Holywood lies people, anchient Greeks probably had more in common with their Persian antogonist than we would like to admit. They probably still do, but the point is this movie wasn't an attack on anyone's culture. It is a fantastical tale from the mind of Frank Miller retelling the tell of an Underdog holding back the greatest army from the richest civilization the world has ever known. It was exagerated, blown ut of proportion and purposefully done so because it is based on a comic book! Sure, the comic book goes by the fancy title of graphic novel but it is still a comic book and all you have to do is look at Sin City to see how Frank Miller enjoys distorting people.

I just wish this issue would die. There is no issue of double standards. We Americans are babies who like to believe that out shite smells of roses. We can't handle the truth but I would like to think that the rest of the world could learn from our falacies instead of repeating them. I find it funny how no one focuses on how open and accepting the movie portrays the Persian Empire. Sure, there were things that looked as if they were taken from the id creature vault but there were also points that highlighted the advanced state of the Persian Empire. The 'magic' exploding pots? How long did it take for the West to turn Chinese fireworks into tools of destruction?

And here's an idea. Instead of crying about how inaccurate the movie is or how it portrays the Persian culture in such a negative light, why not make a historically correct movie that doesn't invovle all the digital magic and wanton destruction that has made 300 the blockbuster it has become. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a $70 million dollar opening weekend but then you wouldn't be making a movie to entertain the masses but to educate them. I think that is why Alexander didn't do so well. There wasn't a bunch of half-naked men sporting six packs running about chopping everything that got in their way from limb-to-limb. Personally I enjoyed Alexander but I'm also not as closed-minded and homophobic as the general populace appears to be.

And it is odd, the thing that bugged me most with 300 were the accents. No one else complains about the accents, they complain about the half-naked women, the partial re-enactment of the kama sutra or the portrayal of the Persians but no one mentions the accents.

Freedom isn't free, it costs folks like you and me..... calm down its a film.

Next you'll be telling me video game violence breeds real life weirdos, we all know that the only thing that breeds weirdos is America....

One thing I must comment on: You're not Persian. It's easy to say "it's nothing" when something does not affect or address you.

Most people know next to nothing about the Persian empire, and this movie may be their first introduction. Is that how it should be portrayed?

How people react emotionally will be personal, but I think neither side is being overly foolish. What we need is considerate dialog, not demagogues on one side, and naysayers on the other.

No one knows what really happend there, at least something happend, as we all know people just love to add fiction to a story so it would look good.

Basically, I can say it could have happened like in the movie 300 (gonna see it tonight) or in any imaginable way anyone wants.

A really good post...this is the first time I have been to this site but what a comprehensive description to resolve the issues surrounding 300... this is similar to people raising their eyebrows on the selection of Daniel Craig as 007

I agree with the original assesment. It's just a movie. The story may be based on something that really happened, but it is obviously nothing more than fantasy. If I am to walk away from this movie with a negative view of the Persian Empire, then I'd have to accept the premise that a single Spartan was able to fight and kill hundreds on the battlefield and live to joke about it later. If anybody reads anything more into it, then it's because they are looking for something to complain about. To anyone who hasn't seen the film yet, my advice is to just enjoy the movie for what it is; 117 minutes of fantasy.

Even if.....who actually walks away from this movie hating the persians? What sort of negative energy is built up against a people that don't exist in that state any more. I don't hate the British after watching the patriot. I don't hate Americans after watching Dances With Wolves.

Loved reading this article!!!! It is nice to see that someone isn't taking a movie and making it out the be the pervervial mountain from a mole hill!!
People should get over it and go watch it again and watch it for what it's really for ENTERTAINMENT!!!
You know, to escape the day's events!! Make you forget about your bad day at work! as home! whatever!

Neil, beautiful job on this!!!

THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

So the guy who said there was no such thing as the Holocaust is pissed about this movie.....and we care because?

About the hand grenades thing... depending on your point of view, they weren't hand grenades so much as they were Molotov Cocktails. What I wanted to see were the ancient Persian flame throwers! Oh yes, they had them! Nasty brass suckers filled with oil with a wick at the end and a pump. Ancient "Trogdor the Burninator" kinda stuff. So, the hand grenades don't surprise me in the least.

As for the "you're not Persian" blather... Don't you oppress me. Who cares if someone isn't Persian? Persia isn't a disease. It's not a political movement. And you're (probably) not Lakota Sioux either. Does that mean you can't watch Dances with Wolves? 'Oh, but that shouldn't be the first thing Americans see about Persia!' *cry* *sob* OK, so you're solution is the film equivalent of book burning? Great idea! And what, oh wise and benevolent Big Brother, should be the allowable first thing we backward and ignorant Americans are permitted to see about the misunderstood Persians, in order to burst the shackles of our ignorance and elevate us from the darkness of our arrogant culture preference to the lofty heights only you have achieved?

What you think is great and all, it's fine to have an opinion and genuine concerns (freedom of thought may not have been invented in the West but we were smart enough to adopt and retain it, so give us some credit before you bash away), but what you're not considering is that most people aren't actually as ignorant as you perceive and there exist such things as libraries and on-line documents to fix what this film may have broken. Hence the article above. If there are people who honestly take ANY movie as THE source of historical record, and stop there, those are people who need serious help and shouldn't see this movie. We're not talking about regular people here. Star Wars was the first film I saw about outer space, and not a soul on earth takes that as THE movie of historical record about life beyond our galaxy. It's a movie... that's all.

I'm a little tired of the "Americans are ignorant" crowd, as well as the "American culture = evil" crowd. In Persia, Persian culture is best. In America, American culture is best. Perhaps the comfort zone of your political boundary is infringed upon by modern communication and travel advancements. I'm so sorry about that. And perhaps some Americans have been overly zealous, and even poor representatives while abroad. But I refuse to apologize for such a rich and wonderful culture that has done such amazing things as America has, simply because we all aren't [insert nationality here] or simply because we aren't all perfect. Yes, we have flaws. These flaws are simply different than your flaws. Did we once have slaves? Some did! But guess what.. we fixed that problem and moved on. What it boils down to when one bashes the American culture as smugly superior is that one is unwittingly saying American culture is lesser because we aren't submitting to some other culture - which is smug superiority. There's a name for that, it's called hypocrisy.

Actually I cant believe how much mis information has been posted. It's a FACT that Cyrus the great(who wrote the first laws of Human rights) which are engraved in the UN building in NYC abolished slavery. Every land/people the persians conquered, they freed the slaves. The greeks DID have slaves...anybody recall 'Gladiator'. Case Closed. The greeks DID have slaves!! Please go open some history books people!!

DJ - Point of fact , the movie Gladiator was set in Rome not Greece.

Yes, slavery was endemic to the Greek states in the era (as it was for most of the Mediterranean world). The majority of slaves were taken in the endless intercine wars between the Greek city-states.

However it should be noted that no matter the state of slavery in either Greece or in Persia, Xerxes invaded Greece for the explicit purpose of making the Greek city-states vassels of the Persian Empire.

Interestingly enough, after his first failed attempt to take his army across the Hellespont enroute to Greece, Xerxes had the waters whipped as punishment, and threw in some fetters for good measure.

you say in your article "For a lesser educated America, these look like political statements ripped right out of our own headlines, when in reality they were themes that existed way back then as well - unfortunately for us, they are still around."
Please, the Liberals of today would say, ohh, I'm sorry you attacked us, please Al-Queda, we'll give you anything you want.

Actually a lesser educated America will never make the connection that the Persians, and Persia is in fact another name for Iran. At no time in the movie is the name "Iran" ever spoken. Since most Americans' can't pinpoint Idaho on a map, what makes you think they know the history of the Iran/Persia naming dispute?
To 90% of Americans, Persia is the wonderful place where those fuzzy cats come from, and Iran is the country that sells guns to Iraq.

THIS IS A MOVIE NOT A DOCUMENTARY!!!! WATCH THE HISTORY CHANNEL IF YOU WANT ACCURACY!!!

IT IS BASED OFF OF A COMIC BOOK...READ AND BASH THAT IF YOU WANT TO CRITICIZE ANYTHING. SHEESH PEOPLE!!!

IT'S LIKE NO ONE CAN MAKE A FRIGGEN MOVIE ANYMORE WITHOUT IDIOTS LIKE ALL OF YOU TEARING IT APART AND COMPLETELY FORGETTING ITS A FRIGGEN MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually I was impressed with how much WAS historically accurate considering it is based on a comic interpretation. Miller did do some homework.

ya 300 was good, now on to the real subject at matter.. whos ready for TMNT!!!!!!

Good article. But let's also realize that the tone of those making a fuss over 300 is very like the tone of those who made a fuss over a cartoon of Mohammed. Perhaps the same instigators are at work: Islamic fundamentalists constantly looking for ways to foment hatred of the West.

What are you going to arrest the guy for makind a movie that is NOT based on fact?
It's called Fiction, PEOPLE. We normally learn this in about second grade.
It's not the live local news, It's A MOVIE!

your articles are well written mr. miller. and i mostly agree with you which is rare given my own critic nature. ::clap clap::

i watched the movie ...
i liked it ...
i even blogged about it ...
i didnt come out and think about iranians or americans ...
am hoping there would be more people like me ...

for all the comic relief i applaud the historical accuracy of the lamda "L' symbol for laconians shields vice S for sparta as that was the city , the people read spartans were laconians ask them. besides that and politics aside why oh why was xerxes portrayed as a giant CLEANSHAVEN semi-freak when whatever else he was he wore the long groomed beard of any wealthy educated persian of the time. See ANY statue or painting of him.

"(i.e. the fact that they threw away weak babies), they were not that uncivilized."

uuuhh . . . i'm like 99.9% sure the Spartans DID have babies who were weak or disformed killed at birth. i thought everyone knew that. . .

Wow. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - the holocaust denier, is one to talk about distorting history.

Guys here I sit in Africa and watching the film in no way do I go see a connection to America or Iran in a tale about Sparta and Persia. Heck, if Sparta existed today as a nation (dedicated to raising warriors, a nation that glorifies war) it would be on the the CIA watch-list. As to the historical accuaracy or not debate - all I can say is only a moron would sit and watch a movie produced by Hollywood to be educated on history. If you want to learn about history watch a documentary or go read a book, if you want some mindless entertainment, so you can escape from boredom, go watch a movie.

I recommend 300 as escapist entertainment. If you watch it and the core story seems interesting go read a few history books, but even then do n't expect the truth as victors always buy the right with their blood to be the auhtors of the definitive history book on the subject.

I found the battle scenes to be wonderful, but then again I am fan of David Gemmel's fantasy books which have the "few against the many" parallel to this story as well.

Congrats to the director on a tale well painted, hope at some point he might consider David Gemmel's Legend worthy of similar treatment. Aynon.

If Sparta had never existed, this message board and all of us would not have existed.

The Western world exists because the Persian empire FAILED.

It failed EXACTLY because of people like the Spartans.

They were not like us, there were far from it. But they DID fight for their homes and freedom from the Persians, pressing them back away from Greece, uniting Greece.

And the fragile concepts of democracy and the seeds of western civilization were protected because of it. Greece was the cradle of democracy.

And that long long path led to the western worlds democratic way spreading around the world like a wildfire.

History turns on a dime sometimes.

That is why this film is making some angry.

Not because of the way it portrays ancient peoples.

Because it reminds us of the costs of freedom and what must be done to protect it.

And if your against the war on terror, well your going to attack this film on some level. Because it's message was crystal clear.

Because the simple words "freedom isn't free" enrages many.

I consider myself to be somewhat educated on the conflict between Greece and Persia cerca 480bc. I thought the original graphic novel was cool. I thought the movie was over the top. The majority of the movie was outstanding! But I thought many of the characters were too monstrous. The sexual freakshow in the Persian camp, the ogre that fought Leonidas, the guy with the razored-arms - all ridiculous.

The Greeks weren't historically accurate (no helots in Sparta, no body armor, the hideous and perverted ephors), and the Persian's weren't historically accurate either.

And like others have said, if you want accurate, Hollywood is NOT the place to go. Just sit down and enjoy a fantasy film inspired by a historical event; one in which a vastly superior force was punished dearly (and later defeated) by a small number of men who dreamt of having their own country with democracy and freedom.

why do people even bother about this subject? this is what some of us people from underdevelop/developing countries call: "too much time on your hands and not real problems to fix" and since ppl must constantly find something to complain and look for something to fix, they start on stupid crusades/debates like this.

If you're going to politicize this film, which I see as pure entertainment, then Bush should be Xerxes. Hegemony, Imperialism, etc. Invading and occupational forces? Come on, it's clear as day! Who wants to impose his will on the world? Xerxes could have argued that Freedom is not Free also, you must pay tribute to the "Leader of the Free World!"

Check This out!

Sparta was not fighting for freedom but to protect a way of life. Their own society did not consider individual freedom. It was a highly rigid and militarized society. That said, they did push back the Persians and this changed Western history as did the Eastern Europeans when they held back the Turks a few centuries later.

Iran making a stink about is a little rich given their leader and that they have been run by thugs.

Using black is less racially motivated and more for the fact that it is associated with evil. When reading the many poems and novels of King Arthur the authors had a strict color code that were used as metaphors for life. I'm sure that's where the idea comes from for Hollywood/arts.

It is indeed just a movie. Here's the problem: it uses real places and names and blurs it with fiction. As long as people are aware of this then there's no problem. People do tend to use Hollywood (gulp) as a history guide. It is very rare Hollywood gets the facts straight and even if they do it is vulnerable to bias and perspective of contemporary writer's and director's.

How many times have you watched a movie with dubious historical claims by which your friend came out and said "Ooo, the Americans are evil!" - and vice versa if you wish. Think of this. Art is in the eye of the beholder. We understand this; parts of the world where everything is politicized less so.

It reminds me of the "Da Vinci Code" when Brown had the balls to say it was "fact." When it wasn't.

People are missing the point: It's not that the movie "300" is historically inaccurate, it's that it's not even accurate to the comic (which I note nobody seems to realize came out *before* 9/11).

For instance, only in the movie do we actually get democracy tied to Sparta, and only in the movie do we get the plot line of the Queen trying to rally more troops to go "fight the Persians." Of course, both of these points are also patently non-historic.

These are the two keys that, for me, politicize the movie. They don't need to be there, weren't there in the comic, and make a statement that those who made the movie really want to connect Sparta to the US. It only falls naturally that people would assume that Persia represents the Islamic terrorists/Islamic States.

Of course, things are a bit more subtle than that: The "manliness" of the Spartans was played up beyond comic proportions, just as the role of Queen Gorgo was. It really is a testosterone thrill-ride, with ripped men and a strong female character to appease women (and men), and ultra-violence and scantily clad women for the men. The "otherness" of the "others" (i.e. the Persians) make it that much easier to hate them, just as Dilios would have wanted the Greeks to hate them. But then, who are we supposed to hate? Obviously "the bad guys," but who are we going to call bad guys in reference to this movie? Oh...the "Persians". And what do the heroes do? Fight for democracy, and rally the troops to fight the "Persians."

I would like to think that everyone can agree that film is a viable channel for praxis--the ability to change the world. Certainly then, we should be aware of underlying politics, even in a gore-fest movie?

Bush would be Gorgo or that older gent that helped her.
Marines the 300.

Democrats are the politicos trying to undermine the war efforts.

Sad to say. But it is true.

this is sparta, the is where democracy was born, this where human right was born, we gonna keep and protect it, stupid and barberian persians go back to your caves in afganistan.

Wow, quite the sounding board we have got here... Has our society become so twisted, so perverse that we cannot even spend the $8.50 it costs to see a movie and enjoy it?

300 was what it was; a fictional story based on some historical events. It was Rudy, The Mighty Ducks meets Rocky IV and Dreamer all hopped up on roids.

Leonidas and George Bush? I don't recall Leonidas using the word "strategery." But I do seem to remember George W. on the front lines yelling, "THIS IS AMERICA!!!" Seriously, comparing Leonidas to G.W.II is like comparing Arnold Schwarzenegger to Peter Griffin. You might find similarities, but come on folks, don't be that guy.

Was 300 a great movie, no probably not. Was it entertaining, yeah I think so. Will it change the way I vote, no. Do I think that Frank Miller new in 1998(when he wrote the graphic Novel, aka comic book) that George W would become president and that he would lead us into the middle east, highly unlikely. (But just in case, I want Miller to pick my next lotto numbers.)

Until the dispute is settled or, even more likely, until people get tired about debating, can't we just all agree that this was a movie and that movies are intended for entertainment? I know there is one fact we all can agree on, Gerald Butler looks much better in a Spartan costume that G.W.

Actually, Warner Brothers has a history of creating propaganda for the government. Do you know about Private Snafu?

I can only hope that the people who have argued back and forth about the historic inaccuracies and/or the irrelevance of said inaccuracies do go ahead and read up on them, as many have suggested an interested viewer should do.
The thing that bothers me about the film more than anything else is the way that it suggests that only in classical Greece could the ideas of democracy and reason originate. That's just a little too much for me to swallow, notwithstanding the fact that Western culture and democracy does descend from classical Greece.
Also, how funny was it that towards the end of the film Dilios was describing how the Spartans were protecting Greece (and its attendant virtues) against the forces of 'mysticism and magic' considering the fact that Greece at that time refused to go to war before consulting its own mystic Oracle?

Many people claim 300 is only a movie. If it's only a movie, I would love to see another similar movie made, but with the characterisation reversed for the races. Let's have a huge number of caucasians portrayed as pathetic, bad, immoral, disloyal, licentious, weak and stupid. Let's have a small number of Persian/Asian/Arab looking people portrayed as strong, heroic, courageous, loyal, self-sacrificing, intelligent and honourable. And let's have this small clan easily massacre the pathetic white people, piling their bodies in a way that's reminiscent of the holocaust.

Then see the reaction of the same large group of (mostly caucasian) movie-goers who claim 300 is fantastic, and just a movie, and shouldn't be taken so seriously. Whether they admit or not, many caucasians would despise and be upset by seeing the way the characters that "represent" them are portrayed and they would feel the simplistic, hateful racism that is inherent in such portrayals.

For my part, I also don't go for this conspiracy theory angle. It's a little too fanciful.

But I wonder if those who have commented here along the lines of "it's only fictional entertainment, get over it", (probably most of the posts here) would feel exactly the same if a movie totally distorted history to show the US forces in WWII, as revolting, deformed monsters that stood for everything that was evil and bad in the World, in contrast to the Japanese, portrayed as the heroic, muscular goodies that stood for everything was good?

Keep in mind that, despite it s claim to be only fiction, 300 is based on REAL history, REAL nations, REAL events, and REAL characters. So, while I might not agree with all their criticisms, I can understand Iranians/Persians being at least little pissed off about it.

Oh and, having traveled through both countries, the Greeks and Iranians, in many cases, actually look very similar. I can also tell you that the great majority of the Iranians that I met, absolutely detest the Mollas and the fanatics who rule over them and want to have good relations with the West. Something that we don't hear much about in the Western media.

Here are some great facts for people who are interested in serious discussion and historical facts.

If you are Iranian then its a MUST for you to watch this movie.

Searching for political significance in a film made as a piece of fiction is patently ridiculous. Iranians may desperatly scream propaganda, but having observed what they so happily did to the British service personnel they so recently kidnapped renders critisism of a fictional work somewhat moot. If 'the west' as the Iranians would have it were to indulge in a propagnda campaign against Iranians then you can bet that the respective governments would not be so restrained in their criticisms. Anyone with half a brain knows better than to expect historical accuracy from Hollywood, unless of course we are to accept films like the DaVinci code, U-571 and the last samurai as gospel and simply do away with the academic study of history. We go to the cinema to be amused, if you want fact go to a library and look it up.

The left attacks 300 and it really bothers them clearly.
So do islamo facists.
Gee I wonder why! LOL

The west needed a movie like that at this time, lots of obviouse messeges like the debate on sending more troop or not. LOL

I recommend this movie to the American soldirs fighting today in the parsian golf.

am african and have watched the movie,and i think it has nothing to do with modern Iran,
it's true persia was geographically where Iran is today but that does not mean THAT THE IRANIANS ARE THE TRUE DESCENDANTS OF THE PERSIANS.
the movie also has some historical truth in it but its not a documentary either.
FACT :!!IF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE HAD NOT FALLEN WE WOULD NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY:
the movie focuses on a well trained army and a well planned war stratergy.

most of you are a bunch of idiots. this is not a pro-bush movie, it is simply a retelling of an ancient story--in an exaggerated way. and sparta did beleive in freedom and all that good stuff.. even back then. if they did have slaves, it was a completely different time, as that was the norm. this movie is just showing that "few stood against many." yes it is an exaggeration of the truth, but if you watch this movie you WILL get the jist of what actually happened.

The simple truth is that someone is offended by everything. Period. There is no way to judge when a person or group of people should be offended, but it is a movie (for entertainment) and not a history lesson (for accuracy).

you guys don't undrestand.Iranians are really mad. they don' care of the film maker wanted to just make a movie they are saying if he wanted to make a movie like this why did he choose persians as the devil because if for some reason persians always got heart in their wholl history and they didin't heart anyone.ok if the goverment of America hase problems with iran they shoulden't go and make a movie about the people in iran.

Everyone on this page (except ml) is completely missing the point. The problem with 300 has absolutely nothing to do with its historical accuracy.

What is wrong with you people? Doesn't anyone find it offensive that during a completely misguided and tragic war with Iraq, while the PNAC-based ambitions of the government are squarely set on Iran and the the rest of the middle east (Syria.. even Pakistan is being implicated as an enemy lately) that a movie like this be released?

It is not the historical accuracy or lack thereof that is the problem. It is the extreme politicization of the movie - the fact that every line of dialog in it is an awkward and heavy-handed attempt to make a parallel to the situation the US finds itself in today in the Middle East and to make a case for continuing and extending the fight against Islam. Don't you people recognize a propoganda film when you see one? Has anyone seen 'How Green Was My Valley' (socialist propoganda film) or any Nazi propoganda films? Each shameless and awkward attempts to further a political agenda where such other minor concerns like plot, character development, acting quality, dialog.. all take a backseat. This film fits squarely into that genre. A propoganda film is simply a film whose number one priority is to make a political statement, not to make entertainment and you can recognize it in under 10 seconds of watching any portion of these movies with dialog. The writing, the dialog and teh acting are of such poor quality, while the agenda is so heavy-handed, that you cannot mistake it.

Was this movie made primarily for entertainment or to further a political agenda? You have to be crazy or outright daft to think this movie was made primarily for entertainment. It's attempts to make post-911 parallels relating to the senate which is unable to act and 'support the troops', to the half-human oracles to the united nations who are caught up in obsolete regulations and corruption, to the Islamic peoples who are all portrayed as evil Arab mystics, is shameless and mind-bogglingly transparent, while the cast of utterly unknown actors are just above the high school drama level and still too good for the writers.

The question is not one of historical accuracy or of Hollywood's right to make a piece of fiction loosely based on a true story. The question is this: In an extremely sensitive international climate between ourselves and the middle east like the one we have ineptly and callously created for ourselves today, when a war with Iran, involving most likely tens of thousands of deaths of American and Iranian people, is very possible and very real, and furthermore was completely unprovoked by Iran, is this movie appropriate? What do we think about the timing and the politicization of this film? That is the only question at hand.

What kind of war-mongering or otherwise completely apathetic tendencies does it take to not complain about this movie? Propoganda is an attempt to use film to influence weak minds toward accepting a certain political agenda, and to hold that goal higher than any art or entertainment value that may come out of that. How does this movie not fit that definition? This movie attempts to get an uneducated American youth psyched up for war against the middle east, plain and simple. How responsible is that? Should we tolerate that? Nearly 4,000 mostly young American soldiers have died already in this fiasco, along with literally hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis or all ages and we are going to lie down or even defend a movie like this? We are even going to go so far as blame Iranians for being offended? Because I imagine we would not be offended by a similar international blockbuster film put out by and Iranian film company where the exaggerated roles were reversed?

Whether this film was a completely private effort or was in fact received support from a small network of GOP cronies who prefer to go unnamed is not really the point. That point is that we should denounce it wholeheartedly. Let the world know at least that the citizens of the USA are not the ignorant and violent beasts that the film would have us believe the Persians were.

The above post is the biggist pile I have ever read.

FREEDOM!

And it drives liberals and terrorists mad when they cannot control it! LOL!

Calm down, GS. It was only a comic book adaptation--and not a very good one at that.

The film made a mint because it rocked.
Tell the liberal terrorists appeaser JF who wrote that steaming pile to calm down. He wrote a friggin manifesto worthy of the unibomber. LOL

If I were him, I would get used to hearing "President Thompson".

AT the rate the left is backstabbing our troops in the field and slandering Generals giving reports in washington. They have assured it.

And yes, the backstabbing SOB in 300 that Gorgo deals with is very reminding of our own opportunists so called "anti-war" politicians isn't he? LOL

GS--I read your comment, and it gave me pause to wonder.. . Are you--how shall I put this delicately?--retarded?

its a movie watch it wnjoy it get over it.=]

Frank Miller wrote the comic book in 1998 unless he can see into the far future how the hell is this movie pro-bush.

Okay, came here looking for something else, but I have to say something about this subject. First and foremost, get over it. I mean that in the nicest way, but this is a movie. By its very definition, it's meant to entertain us.

What's rather strange to me is that the movie, though done from a graphical novel viewpoint is still based on historical fact. Please, don't throw eggs. Yes, I know that Mr. Miller left rather large chunks out of the actual event. Like it wasn't just those brave 300 huddled together while Leonidas decided to try a slight of hand. The fact still remain that King Xerxes brought the battle to Greece. He was following in his father's and grandfather's footsteps, with no intention of stopping until he had accomplished what he set out to do.

But, really my question to everyone out there is this. Is Hollywood no longer supposed/allowed to produce movies based on actual events? Especially historical ones? Has our society decayed to such a degree that a movie based on history, that means you know it really did happen, should be banned or picketed because someone feels that the alleged bad guy portrayed in the movie, shares some like characteristic with them, (not sure how unless they can pop their butts into a time machine, but okay) which will cause people to treat them badly.

Yes, America is wonderful and we treasure our liberties. I simply wonder sometimes if we spend too much time protesting about how something sounded or appeared, and then asking our government to step in and fix it for us that we might end up with no choices and no liberties.

If you're not sure about a movie's content, investigate. Wait until its been out for a little while and read the reviews posted online at reputable site. Go, watch the show, and if by some strange fluke it turns out that something offends you in any way, shape or form. Simple, move forward in your seat, grab your popcorn and coke, look around for whatever else you can find that belongs to you, and stand up. That's it you can do. Now, walk out of the theatre. You don't have to even throw your snacks away if your not finished, take 'em home, enjoy 'em. Go home and put in a DVD of you favorite movie, then write off that movie and wash your hands of it. See we have all kinds of great rights. There's nothing in the world that says we have to stay if a movie offends us, bores us, or just plain sucks. But, for goodnes sakes don't go out creating websites, forums and blogs to protest a movie that you despised when you sat through the entire show.

What I noticed is that the Persians had a black guy as a messenger. This is probably a reference to the fact that Persians owned everything from Egypt to Turkey (Anatolia) to Bactria. That guy need not be of Aryan descent (Persians are white,but could vary since they're West Asians and such) - he could be Nubian. Then again, is Nubia part of the Persian Empire?

oh, btw, good article. Nice job posting it here, too. I couldn't agree more.

Good movies but only as a visual art. The special effects were well done and well directed. Other than that its a bungled story. But what is disappointing is reading people writing as if the Persians were some monsters who would have prevented the western civilization and democrazy.

What the hell does western civilization and democracy have to do with the battle of Thermopylae? First the Spartans weren't even a democratic society and second the Persian primary target was Athens, not Sparta or the as yet to exist West. And further down the line during the Peloponnesian War the Spartans actually allied with the Persians against Athens.

To claim that film is inherently apolitical and should not be criticized for any moral or political views, is to defend all propaganda -- this seems a foolish (monkey holding hands over eyes) approach.

Now, it is apparent to anyone with even a limited historical background that this film whitewashes the Spartans ludicrously as keepers of freedom (they were a monarchy built on slavery, folks, everyone knows that -- there isn't any controversy at all over that!)

But, to be fair, the previous 300 Spartans movie did the same ludicrous whitewash -- it was obviously aimed at the very ignorant American audience. Frank Miller should not be blamed too much for ignorantly copying someone else's silly whitewash; he is just the ignorant copier, not the author.

And even the author of the original was probably some American with the usual lack of education and lack of basic reasoning ability -- we should not blame them too heavily; they struggle through the mire of their ignorance, their overweight, wasteful lives, their lack of morality, their pride and foolishness, as best they can given their extremely limited potential...