Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Thermopylae is a wedge issue!"
To Do this weekend: See 300, the surprise blockbuster about the battle of Thermopylae based on a graphic novel of the same name. Neal Stephenson, author of Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, and The Baroque Cycle trilogy, reviewed the movie last week in The New York Times under the outstanding headline "It's All Geek to Me." The film has gotten a lot of attention as a possible metaphor for the War on Terror (white guys hold out against onslaught of brown guys), or a meditation on gays in the military (both armies are scantily clad), or something else controversial:
Thermopylae is a wedge issue!
Lefties can’t abide lionizing a bunch of militaristic slave-owners (even if they did happen to be long-haired supporters of women’s rights). So you might think that righties would love the film. But they’re nervous that Emperor Xerxes of Persia, not the freedom-loving Leonidas, might be George Bush.
Our so-called conservatives, who have cut all ties to their own intellectual moorings, now espouse policies and personalities that would get them laughed out of Periclean Athens. The few conservatives still able to hold up one end of a Socratic dialogue are those in the ostracized libertarian wing — interestingly enough, a group with a disproportionately high representation among fans of speculative fiction.
More on Stephenson here.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:30AM|#
My advice for this weekend: Read Herodotus.
...not the freedom-loving Leonidas...
Ask the helots about that.
|3.23.07 @ 11:32AM|#
I decided to save my dollar coin pieces and just watched the History channel two hour documentary on this battle. Turns out the title should be "1300".
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 11:33AM|#
I'm not so sure the fact that it's a hit is all that surprising. Kinda like Titanic, it's a good cross-over movie -- plenty of special effects and action for guys, plenty of beefcake for women (and, sure, gay men). My problem with 300 is that it just wasn't nearly as gory as I expected.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:34AM|#
But they're nervous that Emperor Xerxes of Persia, not the
freedom-loving Leonidas, might be George Bush.
Aren't they also nervous about the rampant homosexuality amongst
the spartiate? ;)
Robert|3.23.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Probably like the movie They Live, onto which activists of all stripes project their, uh, stripes.
Bhh|3.23.07 @ 11:37AM|#
I always took Bush for a latin american despot rather than an
oriental despot, but it kind of works.
Anyway I was waiting for someone to figure out that the decadent
swishy overreaching empire is us.
Timothy|3.23.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Grotius | March 23, 2007, 11:36am | #
Tim,
Yeah, the Thespians always get ignored.
If all you did was smoke cigarettes and complain about your dad,
people would ignore you too.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Is there some class in college that focuses on reading in every
wacky personal bias into movies?
Check out this
review.
|3.23.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Timothy,
Good Form.
Also, the parallel of a battle between Greece (somewhat
representative of western society) v. Persia (officially known as
Iran since 1935)...
...is a bit chilling
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Timothy,
Yes, people make that sort of joke about the Thespians all the
time.
|3.23.07 @ 11:48AM|#
A metaphor for the war on terror? I thought it was a metaphor
for illegal immigration.
I remember being e-assaulted on a thread in a Fellowship of the
Ring movie forum for suggesting that jihadists had as good a claim
to resembling the "good guys" in that film as we did. In this case
too, it's hard to cast the US as the outmanned and outshipped
underdog.
|3.23.07 @ 11:53AM|#
it's hard to cast the US as the outmanned and outshipped
underdog.
So Alexander didn't eventually conquer most of the region?
Frunobulax|3.23.07 @ 11:54AM|#
what side would Hiro Protagonist be on if he opted in for Thermopylae?
Andyraz|3.23.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Slate's review of the film originally concluded by saying:
"In a classic example of the epic understatement known as litotes,
Variety's reviewer observes that the picture's vision of the West
as a heroic contingent of sculpted badasses and the East as a
cauldron perversion and iniquity "might be greeted with muted
enthusiasm in the Middle East." Replace the words "muted
enthusiasm" with "a roadside bomb," and you've got yourself a
tagline for the Baghdad premiere."
That's right - if you see 300, you support the terrorists. Or
something.
|3.23.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Guy: as a matter of fact, that's the heart and soul of
Deconstructionism. There's a local "alternative weekly" rag in my
town where nearly every movie review starts with the first person.
As in "When I was a teenager..." or "While I never liked Meg
Ryan..." It's crappy reviewing, but it's the style amongst
"serious" reviewers nowadays.
As for 300, it does plenty of preaching about "freedom" and the
virtues of the warrior way and therefore deserves a bit of
deconstructionism in return. It's worth seeing just for the look of
the film, however. For the most part, the plot is simple enough
that it doesn't distract from the fight scenes and the decadent
splendor of the Persian armies is a wonder to behold.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Taktix,
Yes, but that was somewhat later. Let's see, thermopylae was in 479
BCE and Alexander's efforts to conquer the Persians started in the
mid-330s BCE.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 12:00PM|#
James,
Deconstructionism is simply a tool. It can be used wisely or not so
wisely.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Anyway, I've read the that film presents the Persians as effeminate. Anyway, that's in part how Aeschylus treated them in his play called "The Persians" (late 470s BCE).
Andy|3.23.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Before we get too heavily into this, let me say that the single
biggest flaw of the film is its absolute obsession with recreating
the graphic novel. Shot for shot, line for line. Sometimes, it
comes off as pretty cool. Sometimes (See the ridiculous "panel" sex
scene) it just looks silly.
But my central point is this, it's a graphic novel released during
the Clinton administration, and it made little or no attempt to add
anything - commentary, interpretation, or the like. So people who
accuse it of cheerleading for the war, or Bush, or whatever the
heck else are kind of silly. Its like when the new Star Wars came
out and everyone started complaining how the Empire was veiled
criticism of the American government (which was extraordinarily
depressing, of course, because it was originally conceived as a
critique of fascism).
Andy|3.23.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Thanks Grotius -
That's another point. The comic, and with it, the movie, were
designed to show all this from the Greek perspective. OF COURSE the
opponent is seen as simultaneously animalistically (not a word, but
it will do) brutal and effeminately weak. They're the ENEMY. There
were also not millions of them - but it sure must've felt like
it.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Andy,
Does the film also mention the fact that much of Persia's army was
made up of Hellenes?
Anyway, the war between Persia and its allies and some of the Greek
city states is very complex and very interesting.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 12:13PM|#
What I find humorous is how some conservatives have rallied around a society many of whose aspects they would find, hmm, less than pleasing.
Andy|3.23.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Grotius,
Oh, no way. The bad guys are the bad guys. They are different and
evil and must be stopped. And so forth.
It's incredibly interesting - but this film isn't really aspiring
to that history. Have you read "Gates of Fire" by Steven
Pressfield?
|3.23.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Guy,
Is there some class in college that focuses on reading in every
wacky personal bias into movies?
Yes, it's called women's studies.
If the personal is political, then all personal reactions to
politics can be externalized as objective truths. Since the human
animal's favorite subject is always themselves, everything that
offends them must offend everyone else if they are to be considered
an honest actor. If someone disagrees with you, then they are
denying the objective truth of the matter that is plain for all to
see.
This is, in fact, the key to my understanding of the left and the
right in this country. They both "see" objective truth. The left
believes anyone who doesn't agree with them just hasn't seen the
truth yet (note the title "An Inconvenient Truth" and the language
about "denying" global warming) and the right thinks everyone sees
the truth and knows it in their hearts, but are willfully refusing
to walk the "right" path in life (aka "sin.")
|3.23.07 @ 12:19PM|#
"They're the ENEMY. There were also not millions of them - but
it sure must've felt like it."
The controversy over the numbers is big, but there is a good
argument for the force being in the millions.
Maybe not the 5 million that ancient histories report, but some
historians consider a figure close to 2 million as reasonable.
|3.23.07 @ 12:21PM|#
A good deal more than 1300 really. More than 4000 is more
likely
The Spartans likely had armed servants with them.
Herodotus says of the spartans "Spartieteoon te triekosioi
hoplitai" or "Of the Spartiates (there were) three hundred
fully armored men". The hoplites were the heavy
infantry of greek warfare, but the Spartans were known to go into
battle with armed Helots (their underclass, essential serfs ala
feudal europe) attending and supporting the hoplites.
Additionally, there were Greek forces from the sorrounding tribes
and Sparta's allies.
Herodotus gives the following list:
Assorted Greeks:
500 Tegeans
500 Maniteans
1120 Arcadians
400 Corinthians
200 Phlians
80 Mycenaens
Fellow Peloponesians:
700 Thespians
400 Thebans
I make that 3900 at least.
The 300 refers to the Spartiates, full Spartan citizens, who get
special attention for remaining behind on the last day after the
Greeks learned that Hydarnes and the Immortals were circling around
them through the mountains.
Even then it wasn't only the 300 Spartans...the Thespian contingent
voluntarily stayed behind and died as well.
One extra tidbit to consider: When an ally would call for help,
Sparta would often send on 50 or so Spartiates, and that was
considered just as good as another city sending hundreds of
soldiers. The senior Spartiate was always the commander of the
allied army, and the rest served as advisors to the allied armies.
So while 300 Spartiates may seem a small force, it was a big deal
in ancient greek warfare.
Of course 300 the comic takes extreme license with the story (ex:
Epialtes was a Melian and not disfigured, the ephors were just a
council of elders)...and the movie takes some serious liberties
with the comic (like the entire stupid homefront
storyline)... so it is important to sit back and say "This isn't
history, and this isn't 300 the comic" and it is a fun flick.
I recommend
Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield for a slightly more
historical account.
|3.23.07 @ 12:25PM|#
I'm confused, and I certainly don't want a mushroom cloud to be proof of Iran's danger. Attack!! Wait, what is this thread about?
Bhh|3.23.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Are they shirtless the whole movie? When you're buffed it's tempting to go around like that all day, I know. But you really should put on your breastplate when dealing with 100,000 charging gay orcs. Hoplites were the tanks of the day.
GILMORE|3.23.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Stephenson was right: Libertarians *are* nerds.
Now that I've read the wikipedia entry on Thermopylae, whats the
point of seeing the movie? I know how it ends.
Funny, they didnt mention the mutant-looking guys though
|3.23.07 @ 12:44PM|#
The fact that people of all political stripes look to a fucking
movie to somehow illustrate or explain the war in Iraq or domestic
politics really points to a major failure on the part of the media
and politicians to present any sort of context or explanation as to
where we are as a country, or where we are going.
I think there has been more analysis of Anna Nicole's life than any
one single serious issue facing our country.
|3.23.07 @ 12:44PM|#
bhh,
Some magazine (SciFi?) called the movie "600" because they found it
so nipple-centric.
Ask the helots about that.
Actually, I find a character that strongly believes in freedom "for
me and mine not thee and thine" to be particularly relevant to
modern day.
|3.23.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Marcus,
Undoubtedly, one could arrive at several profound truths on serious
issues by closely examining the life of Anna Nicole Smith. I'll
leave it to others though.
|3.23.07 @ 12:50PM|#
When, in the ad, the Greek commander shouted "Spartans! for freedom" or some such, it was a good tipoff that historical accuracy was not tops on the list of priorities for the director.
|3.23.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Have you read "Gates of Fire" by Steven
Pressfield?
One of my favorite books of all time. I was so hoping for a movie
version of it. Can't decide if "300" makes that more or less
likely.
tijjer|3.23.07 @ 12:58PM|#
I'll second the recommendation for Pressfield's Gates of Fire. I
read that about two years ago and with it still somewhat fresh in
my head I saw 300.
On the continuum of
Documentary
Based on True Events
Inspired by True Events
This Shit Was Made Up
I'd put 300 at around 'Inspired by True Events' while Gates of Fire
is somewhere around 'Based on True Events'.
Of course, given that Herodotus' account seems to fall somewhat
short of 'Documentary' status, who knows about any of that.
In retrospect, this post maybe should be toward the bottom of my
hierarchy.
|3.23.07 @ 1:00PM|#
I'm hoping for some decent film adaptations of Mary Renault's
Greek Historical novels. But I know that the movie studios are
still not ready to embrace that much "teh gay" in films yet.
They could do the Theseus books maybe, He was pretty butch.
Crestfallen|3.23.07 @ 1:02PM|#
I saw this Hollywood movie and it was NOTHING.. *NOTHING, I tell
you* like reality!!
I've never been so surprised and disappointed in my whole life.
LarryA|3.23.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Video games have turned everyone under the age of 20 into
experts on military history and tactics; 12-year-olds on school
buses argue about the right way to deploy onagers and cataphracts
while outflanking a Roman triplex acies formation.
This is a culture change. I recall when Red Dawn came out
in 1984 the most common criticism was, "Why would invaders want a
town like Calumet, Colorado?" The answer, "It sits in a mountain
pass" usually drew a blank stare or "What difference does that
make?"
What I find humorous is how some conservatives have rallied
around a society many of whose aspects they would find, hmm, less
than pleasing.
Sort of like praising the family devotion in March of the
Penguins as an allegory of moral marriage while ignoring the
fact that the birds choose a new mate every year.
But you really should put on your breastplate when dealing with
100,000 charging gay orcs.
Spartan helmets weren't that open either. I always like the
Hollywood "emote quotient" that means the hero can't wear anything
covering his expression. Other incarnations include fighter pilots
who always shed their oxygen mask before saying anything pithy,
ninjas who can't keep their hoods on, knights with open helmets,
and the grunts in Starship Troopers who wore old-timey
football helmets instead of Heinlein's combat suits.
|3.23.07 @ 1:15PM|#
But I know that the movie studios are still not ready to
embrace that much "teh gay" in films yet.
You obviously haven't seen Alexander. BTW, don't, even if
you're a fan of man-on-man action. I'm not, but I could have dealt
with that if the rest of it had been good - instead, it's one of
the worst movies ever made.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 1:17PM|#
LarryA,
On the Athenian stage in the classical era actors had their faces
and bodies covered. Their voice was basically their single tool. It
is one of the reasons that the plays of Aeschylus, etc. are rarely
ever done as they were in classical times.
|3.23.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Video games have turned everyone under the age of 20 into experts on military history and tactics; 12-year-olds on school buses argue about the right way to deploy onagers and cataphracts while outflanking a Roman triplex acies formation.
Considering that a lot of gaming online involves people yelling,
"Dammit, no rushes!" and "OMG HAX!", I'm skeptical of this
idea.
|3.23.07 @ 1:27PM|#
The one thing that troubles me about the esitmated size of the
Persian army is how do you feed an army of 2 million?
Assuming each soldier eats half a pound of food a day, your army is
eating 3.5 million pounds of food a week. 15 million in a
month.
How do you procure that much? How do you store that much without it
going bad? How do you transport it? If your transport is animal
powered, then you must have food for the animals also.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Is there a postmodernest review of this movie out there anywhere? Deconstructionists are too easy to follow.
|3.23.07 @ 1:56PM|#
On the day of the November 2008 elections, I want to post:
"Libertarians! Tonight we dine in hell!"
Somebody be sure to remind me.
--------------------------------
D.A.R. -- Good Inactivist post, with great links.
--------------------------------------
300 has provoked this interesting question around the Web:
"Could the ancients have actually used rhinos in war?"
"Almost
certainly not."
"Yeah.
But wouldn't it be cool if the Hurons in Last of the
Mohicans had war grizzlies?" (Picture on page 2.)
-------------------------------
Sci Fi (magazine of the cable channel) referred to
300 as "My Big Fat Greek Bloodletting."
|3.23.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Saw the movie at the IMAX last night.
Loved it. It's one of the most gorgeously created films I have
*ever* watched. I don't quite understand all the people who are
upset about how the movie is stylized, with crazy rhinos and such.
After all, it was never misrepresented as being historically
accurate. The film makers were quite open about the film being a
recreation of Frank Miller's graphic novel.
I've been meaning to read Pressfield's book for a couple of years
now.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
|3.23.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Also, the girl didn't much care for it. Her response:
"It was a total guy movie!"
When I pointed out that there was plenty of ripped shirtless abage
for her, she just rolled her eyes.
ed|3.23.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Assuming each soldier eats half a pound of food a day, your
army is eating 3.5 million pounds of food a week. 15 million in a
month. How do you procure that much? How do you store that much
without it going bad? How do you transport it?
And where do you get enough toilet paper?
|3.23.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Grotius,
Helot is an offensive and racist term. The Messenians prefer, well,
Messenian. What are you, some sort of Spartan apologist?
☺
|3.23.07 @ 2:45PM|#
The one thing that troubles me about the esitmated size of
the Persian army is how do you feed an army of 2
million?
Yeah, that's the key right there. Ancient chroniclers were
notorious for such exaggeration, and a 'good story' with the proper
moral was considered to be more important thank historical
accuracy.
Even the Romans during their highest point never fielded armies
nearly that size, and they were considerably more prosperous than
either the Classical-era Greeks or Persians. Those societies simply
did not produce enough excess food to feed armies that large, and
of course food is not very portable in large quantities and is
subject to spoliage.
Also consider that in a world of mano-a-mano combat, an army of
50,000 men was a formidable force, indeed. How would you even
marshal a force of 500,000 men on a single battlefield without
modern communications devices? It would be nothing more than a mob.
Some of the Germanic barbarian armies might have been that big, but
those were semi-nomadic societies with the "army" being literally
every single male in the tribe in nothing more sophisticated than a
headlong, unorganized rush. The Romans cut them to pieces.
|3.23.07 @ 2:54PM|#
The Persians fielded 150,000 soldiers, 800,000 servants, 1,000,000 prostitutes, and 50,000 pistachio vendors.
|3.23.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Considering that a lot of gaming online involves people
yelling, "Dammit, no rushes!" and "OMG HAX!", I'm skeptical of this
idea.
There's no time for philosophizing WHILE you're (virtually) killing
people. That should be pretty obvious. You geek out and discuss
tactics during off-times.
|3.23.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Baked Penguin,
True, there were some passionate gazing into each other's eyes in
Alexander but there are scenes in Renault's The
Persian Boy that would make John Waters blush.
Stevo,
On second thought you are right. I heard the "600" comment from
some guy on Pajiba.
My Big Fat Greek Bloodletting is pretty funny though.
|3.23.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Speaking of homosexual Greeks--not that there is anything wrong with that--I'm re-reading The Iliad, and I have to say that the conventional wisdom that says that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers is almost certainly wrong. There are some inconsistencies with that view within the epic itself, but it also goes against the way Greeks did things. Peers loving peers was a no-no. It was more an old man-boy thing, which, of course, grosses us out. As it should.
|3.23.07 @ 3:24PM|#
the hero can't wear anything covering his
expression
One of the things that I found amusing about Kingdom of
Heaven was that Edward Norton out-acted Orlando Bloom even
while having a silver mask completely covering his face.
|3.23.07 @ 3:25PM|#
I've never even seen that movie Gates of Fire, and I never will because I'm already sick of that damn Vangelis music.
|3.23.07 @ 3:40PM|#
mk,
I just saw that. Yeah, what friggin' genius cast Orlando Bloom? I
guess teen-aged girls like him, but you'd think that wouldn't be
the target demographic for a historical drama.
Stevo,
Yes, but I'm not giving up Bladerunner.
|3.23.07 @ 4:05PM|#
There's no time for philosophizing WHILE you're (virtually)
killing people. That should be pretty obvious. You geek out and
discuss tactics during off-time.
Genocide is the most exhausting activity out there. Except for
soccer.
|3.23.07 @ 4:17PM|#
mk - Was it pointless and irrelevant in Persian Boy,
too? (note, this was just one of the many, many
things about the movie that was pointless and irrelevant.)
Edward Norton out-acted Orlando Bloom even while having a
silver mask completely covering his face.
If Norton played a mute quadriplegic, he could out act Bloom.
Dan T.|3.23.07 @ 4:53PM|#
SugarFree says:
This is, in fact, the key to my understanding of the left and
the right in this country. They both "see" objective truth. The
left believes anyone who doesn't agree with them just hasn't seen
the truth yet (note the title "An Inconvenient Truth" and the
language about "denying" global warming) and the right thinks
everyone sees the truth and knows it in their hearts, but are
willfully refusing to walk the "right" path in life (aka
"sin.")
I like this analysis - I've noticed myself that generally
conservatives are considered "stupid" by their detractors and
liberals are considered "crazy" by theirs.
So where do libertarians fit in?
Paul|3.23.07 @ 5:36PM|#
I feel some negative criticism about the movie was unfair. The
movie is what it is, a fantastical representation of an historical
event, done very in a hyper-stylized manner. Personally, while
everyone talks about the beefcake men, I found the women to be my
personal favorite. They use the 'two pieces of linen' dress-form.
Evening: Two vertical pieces of linen. Daytime: Horizontal piece of
linen. Sportswear: Two pieces of linen going cross-ways. The
women-folk never looked so damned good in a piece of linen.
My only complaint-- and it's minor- was the overt Jesus Christ
symbology in the last scene. They were Greeks, for chrissakes, why
do we need more Hollywood fascination with the Jesus Christ
Pose?
Paul|3.23.07 @ 5:41PM|#
So where do libertarians fit in?
Libertarians are the ninja-assassins of politics. Everyone fears
us, few understand us. We remain under the thumb of no emperor, no
dictator, no tyrant. We are feared and loathed because we are not
understood. The traditional left and right hate eachother but they
understand eachother. They're two old empires that know one
another. Libertarians come in the dark of night, kill all of your
long-held beliefs with a martial-art-like efficiency, and are gone
as quietly as we came in. We are everywhere and nowhere. We are the
night.
|3.23.07 @ 6:40PM|#
Before this movie came out, there was a huge hue and cry on
discussion forums at The Miniatures Page about it by historical
gamers (who tend to be the most anal in wargamer circles) due to
its "historical inaccuracy." Now that the movie is actually out, a
lot of those same critics are now comparing it to "Birth Of A
Nation" or "Triumph Of The Will" and accusing anyone who liked it
with either racism and/or stupidity. I guess if invoking academic
nitpicks doesn't work, invoke political incorrectness or question
your opponents intelligent.
On the other hand, a lot of this sounds like some sort of political
and cinematic equivalent of pareidolia. Only, rather than seeing
Holy Virgins in grilled cheese sandwiches, you look for political
messages in movies.
I just spoke with a friend of mine who saw "300" last night and I
think his view on this is the best: "I went to see a movie with
interesting visual where guys with swords and spears thought other
guys with swords and spears. I didn't go looking for any sort of
allegory, and as far as I could see, there was none."
GILMORE|3.23.07 @ 7:43PM|#
Lurker Kurt | March 23, 2007, 1:27pm | #
The one thing that troubles me about the esitmated size of the
Persian army is how do you feed an army of 2
million?
Read the wikipedia piece on the battle. It actually questions the
#s and compares many different analyses of the question, and the
reality is that a) yes, the invading persian army was - in toto -
in the millions...but b) the actual fielded, combat-active force in
any given engagement could have varied between 200-600,000.
The truth of the matter was that the greek composed forces overall
in the theatre was in the 10's of thousands, and the persian was in
the millions. In the actual Spartan 'protection of the retreat'
(which is what the '300' Thermopylae stand was actually about), the
weight of numbers, proportionately, was easily 100-1 to 1000-to1,
persian/spartan. When you consider what form of war was fought in
that age, which relied almost entirely on individual strength,
courage and endurance in hand to hand combat, the battle was of
monumental significance regardless of what the exact numbers were.
The defeats significantly slowed down and damaged the persian
capability and resolve, and gave the greek navy time to eliminate
the invader's fleet, eventually destroying their supply lines and
neutering the campaign.
I dont think any of the broad strategic stuff is touched on in the
film, but i havent seen it.
Good book to check out is The Mask of Command, by John Keegan,
which compares generalship in the ages of Alexander, Wellington,
Grant, and Hitler... his analysis of alexanders successes was
really enlightening about how ancient armies managed themselves
logistically when on exetended conquests abroad, and how battles
were fought in pace and scope, and what qualities were required in
these conflicts between often vastly outnumbered groups.
Alexander, for example, fought at least 2-3 battles of huge scale
where his army was outnumbered 10-1, yet his force took the field
by thrusting directly and immediately at the strongest elements of
the enemy position, and quickly routed and executed 1000s in rapid
charges... leaving often 50-60% of the enemy force to flee in the
ensuing confusion of lines. Command and control was very poor in
ancient war, so ususally battle was decided on the individual
fortitude of the single soldier, and the ability of a commander to
maintain a coherent line of attack at all times on a sustained
basis until the enemy was in complete disarray.
when you realize the nature of ancient warfare, it becomes easier
to believe that 300 badasses+500-100 supporting fighters could
cover a narrow pass against 1000s of thousands of poorly trained or
sustained troops for at least a day or more. There was the very
real detail that Spartans created piles of corpses that fighters
had to climb over to reach them, which i imagine could be mildly
demoralizing. It certainly makes great film imagery. :)
JG
|3.23.07 @ 9:20PM|#
Good book to check out is The Mask of Command,
Cher was also pretty good in the movie.
|3.23.07 @ 11:13PM|#
I'm the rare female ancient-history geek, so I really wanted
this movie to be good. (I mean, by the way, real ancient history,
not made-up-around-1965 stuff about the harmonious and beautiful
Goddess worshipping matriarchies.) I also really liked Gates of
Fire and the Mary Renault books. The Persian Boy
would be an excellent movie, as would my personal fave, The
Praise Singer. Actually, I think the latter, which takes place
partially in Ephesus during the Persian conquest period would be a
really good movie to make now.
Pro L, I had a professor in college in a class on Alexander who
agreed with you that the Achilles - Patroclus romantic affair was a
bit of Hellenistic retconning based on Alexander and Hephaestion.
On the other hand, there were things like The Sacred
Band of Thebes, about which someone else can comment.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:29PM|#
mediageek,
Well, what if I don't like this sort of stylized storytelling? I
suppose - being the rather dull fellow that I am - that I find
narratives which hew closesly to the sources to be more, hmm,
"entertaining" that other approaches.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:31PM|#
Gilmore,
The Athenians won a large number of sea battles in the
Peloponessian War due in part to their ability to confuse their
enemy. That they were better seamen also helped. Of course they
lost that particular advantage as the war drug on.
|3.23.07 @ 11:40PM|#
I would be lying if I didn't say I wasn't a little disappointed
in the movie. I liked it, but it could have been better. I love
that period of history and for a time consumed every book and
documentary there was on it. So it was probably impossible for me
to just ignore certain aspects of the film that were lacking.
I liked that he took a more "mythic" approach and didn't try to hew
too closely to history. It was obvious Zakk (the director) wanted
to do something more stylized that fit with the look of the film.
So that was an interesting decision.
However, the biggest issue with it I had was Frank Miller. Maybe
it's sacrilege but I just don't think his writing translates well
to the screen. What seems subtle or clever in his comics comes off
as hammy and over the top in film. Maybe it's just the way the
actors are reading it. I had the same problem with Sin City.
Combining that with the pacing of a comic book, which is obviously
different than a movie, and there are further problems. I think
they should stop these experiments with trying to make a one to one
translation. Just take what you need to make a good movie and leave
the rest.
Robert|3.24.07 @ 1:46AM|#
The bit about badasses makes perfect sense. If you were in a small space, as long as no individual could fight better than you, you could kill them all, one by one. The only thing they could do would be wear out your arm by making you stab them one at a time. In a really thin space you could save effort by shish-ke-babbing them. Or if you had a really long skewer you could just hold it for them to shish-ke-bab themselves on.
Guy Montag|3.24.07 @ 9:20AM|#
One of the things that I found amusing about Kingdom of
Heaven was that Edward Norton out-acted Orlando Bloom even while
having a silver mask completely covering his face.
Same with that robot in the "Lost in Space" TV show.
LarryA|3.24.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Well, what if I don't like this sort of stylized
storytelling? I suppose - being the rather dull fellow that I am -
that I find narratives which hew closesly to the sources to be
more, hmm, "entertaining" that other approaches.
Watch the History
Channel version. Inspired by a comic book
movie!
eb|3.24.07 @ 11:37AM|#
A friend and I saw it and loved it. And it seemed that the full
theatre loved it too. I don't think anybody was that concerned
about historical accuracy. I think the point that the movie was a
fantasical retelling was probably revealed...oh, by everything in
the movie.
I've quite enjoyed everybody getting their panties in a twist over
the various issues that come up in a comic book. I've been trying
to convince my friends that space ships are not able to make a 90
degree bank in zero gravity space ever since the original Star Wars
came out and they just will not listen to me.
|3.24.07 @ 1:23PM|#
Guy Montag,
Little-known fact: Robot won three Emmys for his role on Lost
in Space.
Guy Montag|3.24.07 @ 8:49PM|#
Little-known fact: Robot won three Emmys for his role on
Lost in Space.
He was on the DC based "Don & Mike Show" once, but they were
thinking (maybe) that he was the voice rather than the guy in the
robot suit. Was a funny segment.
|3.26.07 @ 2:57PM|#
"Libertarians are the ninja-assassins of politics. Everyone
fears us, few understand us. We remain under the thumb of no
emperor, no dictator, no tyrant. We are feared and loathed because
we are not understood. The traditional left and right hate
eachother but they understand eachother. They're two old empires
that know one another. Libertarians come in the dark of night, kill
all of your long-held beliefs with a martial-art-like efficiency,
and are gone as quietly as we came in. We are everywhere and
nowhere. We are the night."
Totally agree. You only forgot the part where the side whose
long-held beliefs are being killed at the moment immediately
attributes us to the other side. (Paging joe...) Ninja tactics
indeed!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245