And now that I've watched more of it, that is absolutely the worst riot control squad EVER.
You don't break formation, you don't use your shied as a weapon (where are their batons) and you certainly don't just run off and leave a gap in the line. Riot control is very much akin to the techniques of the Spartan soldiers. Not that 300 Bullshit, but the real kind.
And yes, I've had full training in riot control.

Raven, compare this with the above and be amazed.

Although I missed out on it, guys from my uni dressed up as the 300 Spartans. I heard it was awesome.

"Maybe one of these days Hollywood will get it right and do their research and use the facts, which are even more interesting than the half truths they sell to get the average person to go and see this garbage."

As skrob says its best to think of 300 as a stylized story the Greeks would have told among themselves and in that respect the film is extremely accurate.

Much has been made of how the Spartans don't wear any armor in the film, which is of course completely ahistorical. In a stylized account of Thermopylae, the near-naked bodies of the Spartans is entirely Greek. Were it not for US homophobia I'm sure the film-makers would've filmed the Spartans without their loincloths. In Greek art there is something called heroic nudity. All Greek men worked out nude, daily, as a community in preparation for when they would have to fight shoulder-to-shoulder together in the phalanx. This obsession with physical fitness caused them to idealize masculine beauty. As a result, much of their more stylized art depicts heroic men as being nude and buff as hell. Hercules, for example, frequently shows up just wearing his lion skin cloak. Were the Greeks to have had access to film, and decided to make a movie about Thermopylae, I am certain that the Spartans and other Greeks would have been depicted naked, just like in 300.

Another issue that is often raised is the depiction of Xerxes. No, he probably wasn't 10 feet tall and probably didn't have the voice of god. That however isn't the point. Xerxes was treated as god-king by his subjects and he ruled the largest, wealthiest and most powerful empire in the world. The Greeks were well aware of how powerful and impressive a guy he was. In fact, they frequently referred to Xerxes, and his descendants, simply as the King, as if the Persian Emperors were the only rulers of all that wasn't Greece. Given all of this, it is entirely appropriate for Xerxes to have the appearance of a god in the movie.

Another interesting thing they did with Xerxes was gold imagery. This goes back to Aeschylus's Persians where the imagery of wealth permeates the entire play, shifting in meaning to symbolize Persian wealth and power in the beginning of the play, to symbolizing Persian weakness and downfall. Ancient Greece was not a wealthy land by any measure. The great public works projects of Classical Athens were payed for by imperial tribute, not some inherent money-making ability of the Athenians. The Greeks, therefore, viewed extreme wealth with suspicion. They felt that a man that doesn't work for his living isn't fully a man. Wealth and leisure was therefore associated with effeminacy. Going back to 300, note how Xerxes wears golden chains over his body and has both golden nail polish and eye shadow. The effect the filmmakers were clearly trying to acheive was the association of gold with makeup, and therefore the feminine. Xerxes, despite his god-like stature, strikes the audience, with his makeup, as being much less manly than Leonidas. This is of course exactly how the Greeks viewed it.

I could go on, there are plenty of interesting examples of "Greekness" in 300. The point is that while 300 is not completely historical, it is very, very Greek. The filmmakers clearly did their research and read their classical texts.

I try to think of the film as the myth that the Greeks would be passing around of the Spartan feats at Thermopylae, a bit of propaganda to help rally the armies to deffend against the persian invasion. It helps me enjoy the film alot more since, as has been stated, it's terribly inaccurate from a historical standpoint.

Fun to watch, but pointless to overthink.

My two cents.

"Anybody who says that "300" isn't the latest example of Hollywood pro-war propaganda aimed at the young and the gullible just isn't paying attention."

That argument can certainly be made but on the other hand the director has denied any such intent. Instead, that the film was intended as entertainment, and had no political intentions.

Whatever the case I suggest reading Aeschylus's Persians which was written and performed in 472 B.C., only 8 years after Thermopylae and Salamis, and 7 years after Plataea (the battle that the Spartans charge into at the end of 300). The play gives an insight into how at least one Athenian responded to the Persian Wars and his interpretation of the East-West rivalry. You'll find some similarities and one striking difference between the play and 300. They are similar in that Aeschylus clearly defines the differences between Greek and Persian society, and while acknowledging Persian greatness, ultimately draws the conclusion that Greek culture is more humane and therefore superior. The striking difference however is in how war itself is treated. In 300, war is glorious entertainment. The film does not want us to question the consequences of war because if we do so then the violence becomes less entertaining; it's really cool when blood spurts in slow motion through the air, it's less cool when collects in a dark pool beneath the body of a dying man. The Persians however is structured around the idea that suffering is a universal human experience and that war, no matter how just and necessary, brings suffering to innocent people. Aeschylus therefore both glorifies Greek culture, and Greek victory in the Persian Wars, while also asking his Athenian audience to consider the suffering Greek victory wrought upon the Persians. Poignant stuff, and it's for stuff like this that I study Classics.

I enjoyed this scene quite a bit in the theatre because the first few moments of it are quite realistic. The bit where the Persians slam into the shield wall of the phalanx is exactly what phalanx warfare would have been like. It's unfortunate that they didn't have a first-person shot from within one of the helmets as that would've completed the effect. You'll notice that the helmets have no ear holes and have extremely limited peripheral vision. Couple that with the dust clouds that would be kicked up by that number of men, and your individual Greek hoplite would be unable to see or hear anything in the chaos of battle. What it would come down to is maintaining your place in formation and trying to find an opening for your spear against the enemy in front of you, an effect that I thought this scene conveys pretty well when the two bodies are pressing their shields against each other. The realism of course breaks down once the Spartans start killing people but it was nice that they throw in those few moments of realism for those of us who are interested in ancient warfare.

"Natraps" backwards is "Spartan".

Spartans! What is your occupation?

JAVELIN! Uh... I mean... Hoo-ah.

Farhad2000--You ARE the ignorant one aren't you! The premise of the protest is wrong and any future protest waged by and for illegal immigrants is wrong. I heard from people at the protest that the police were taunted and objects thrown at them from protesters. It was a violent protest. In my opinion they should not have fired rubber bullets or responded violently. They should have arrested anyone who is here illegally and then deported all of you who think America is so oppressive BACK TO MEXICO where, of course, the government is wonderful. Why don't you protest the repressive government in Mexico? You have a false cause here. You need education and have no idea what humanity is. It's peculiar that your picture logo looks like a Greek Spartan. The Spartan's were a rigorously controlled "state". The Spartans would have removed you from the streets faster than you could blink if you showed such an insulting lack of loyalty to your country which I'm assuming is America. But you are probably here illegally from the home country you rejected---Mexico or you may be here from a Middle Eastern country (as your name suggests) and just hates America. Just go back from whence you came if you can't adjust here peaceably and lawfully.

I think you are partially correct Wumpus, yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran is definitely being hypocritical given their own policy on history.... probably their complaints are an attempt to galvanize one of their own disenfranchised factions in the fight against the Great Satan, I won't argue that.

But I also think that even if there aren't direct, literal parallels, there is enough in the general theme of the film that one doesn't need to read much into it. As for pointing out that the original graphic novel was published in 1998, you must keep in mind that much has been added to that original text... and much of that is what I am taking issue with. The major themes that are repeatedly beat out over and over again may have been presented in that original book but not to the extent that they are in the film.

Also, I think you bring up another salient point (that, no offense, undermines your argument) by noting the similar film from 1962, with its Cold War overtones. The story of the Spartans at Thermopylae is one of those tales that has been repeatedly hijacked to suit whatever current political message is relevant... post-Revolutionary Napoleonic France was noted for the appropriation of many stories of antiquity, notably, during Napoleon's campaigns in the East he was compared to not only Alexander, but also at times Leonidas (the proverbial defender of the West), see Jacques Louis David's (Napoleon's official portrait artist) Leonidas at Thermopylae
http://www.abcgallery.com/D/david/david33.html

Also, Hollywood is exactly where Iran should be looking... the film just did another 31.2 million dollars this weekend. People, lots and lots, and lots, of people are going to see this film. Even if they are uneducated, and have no idea that there are these overtones, they will still get the message. After all, the best propaganda is subliminal, the audience shouldn't know it is being fed this stuff... in fact, it is all the more effective if most of your audience doesn't really know what a Persian is (although I think you are underestimating the viewing audience by saying that no one knew what a Persian was before this story broke).

On top of that, the visuals that go with it, brutal violence, sex and death, are classic primal triggers of all the urges that one could hope to gain through a campaign such as this. Nothing psychologically solidifies a nation of people better than a group viewing of such materials... just look at the long human history of public executions, gladiatorial events, witch burnings, etc, etc. Nothing gets a group of people to rally around the flag better than having them witness the smiting of the enemy, it is a proven fact... and it works all the better if the audience does not realize it is happening and simply thinks they are there to be entertained!

First of all, Iranian [state-run] media comes out and says that it's part of a psychological war aimed at Iranian culture; setting aside their history of exporting terrorism and their nuclear program, what we do not hear about is the impact of Iranian culture. Since the Islamic Republic pretty much disavows history before the rise of Islam, the only real purpose of this statement would be to appeal to Persian nationalists in Iran to see America as antagonists.

Going back to the "clash of cultures", what part of our cultures is shown to be in conflict in this movie? Of course we can't make direct parallels, but how are supposed to view the Spartans and the Persians as representations of America and Iran? I think you're reading way too much into this, given that the movie is based on a graphic novel published in 1998, which was inspired by a movie on the same subject in 1962, which was noted for for its Cold War overtones. They are all still based in historical events, but are all works of dramatic fiction.

If Iran thinks there is a psychological war being waged against them, Hollywood is the last place they need to worry about. Lastly, before this story broke I don't think a single person who saw this movie saw Spartans vs. Persians to be Americans vs. Iranians...or even knew what Persia was.

Yes Wumpus, it is, technically difficult to say that the film is specifically anti-Muslim as you have pointed out it takes place before Islam was even a twinkle in Mohammed's eye...

But you have to keep in mind that this "clash of cultures", this East vs West grudge match, has been a long standing issue, one that keeps playing out over the last three millennia with different peoples, religions, and political entities replaying the same mistakes of our ancestors over and over and over again. That the film is technically about "Persians" (who were by definition the elite people of the Persian Empire, which was an amalgamation of Eastern peoples (as you well know)), is just a detail when looked at as an overall history of conflict... just because the film is not literally Spartans vs. Muslims, or Iranians, it's pretty explicit that these cinema Persians, are the ancestors of the axis-of-evil headliners.

Given that fact that we are currently in the grips of another cycle of this age-old conflict, it is understandable that the Iranians feel they are the target of a hollywood style smear campaign. Having seen the film, I can only say that they have every reason to be pissed, the more I think about it the more I realize that the overall tone of this film aimed to reiterate this this cultural conflict by appropriating history.

That is one of the reasons that chuckle-head at :31 pisses me off so much. People need to start realizing just how much of an impact the respresentation of history has on current political/cultural affairs.

If you need more evidence of this fact and similar controversies, I suggest you look into the current problems between Greece and Macedonia over who has the 'right' to actually be called 'Macedonians', or the various problems in identifying cannibalism at archaeological sites, especially those in the American Southwest. The portrayal of ancient peoples and cultures does have a direct bearing on current attitudes, and one cannot simply write this film off as a good bit of bloody fun.

300 Spartans, 1800 abs.

Skip to 3:11 for the show.

No matter what QM and other right wing pundits say, the overwhelming coverage that the 2008 presidential race is getting now, clearly shows that the American people want change and they can't wait for it.

Anyway,

David Alan Mamet (born November 30, 1947) is an American author, essayist, playwright, screenwriter, and film director. His works are known for their clever, terse, sometimes vulgar dialogue, arcane stylized phrasing, and for his exploration of masculinity. As a playwright, he received Tony nominations for Glengarry Glen Ross and Speed-the-Plow. As a screenwriter, he received Oscar nominations for The Verdict and Wag the Dog. He also is involved with the Delta Force based show called The Unit. Though my favorite movie he worked on is Spartan.

I like that Rose asks Mamet why he doesn't comment on America's policy. Check it out it's simply fascinating, I really get an answer I never expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet

It's hard to believe the guy playing Leonidas is the same dude I was forced to sit and watch as The Phantom in the film adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera.

From pretty-boy wuss to bad ass Spartan in a few movies. The guy should get his agent something very nice for Christmas.