"300" and the Troop Surge
sean | 24 March, 2007 15:01"300" is the number one movie in the country, having grossed almost $33 million to date. How does this relate to American foreign policy and the direction our country is moving right now?
The film is based on the historic account of a battle that took place in 480 BC in Greece between the Spartans (a cultural subset of ancient Greece) and the Persians (an ancient culture based out of what is today Iran).
The movie opens with a short exposition explaining Spartan culture. Apparently, (I question any historical accuracy in the film based on subsequent data) when a male baby was born in Sparta, it was abandoned or destroyed if it exhibited any physical imperfection. If allowed to survive, males were indoctrinated into a rigorous regimen of military training and philosophy. (Remember this point)
The real story however begins with a messenger arriving from the ever-westward advancing Persian army. This emissary meets with the Spartan king Leonidas and councils him to surrender to Xerxes, the head of Persia, and the commander of the Persian army. Of course, Leonidas takes exception to this advice, and proceeds to kick the messenger and his escort down a deep well. Score one for the good guys?
So Leonidas marches off with 300 of his best men to meet the encroaching Persian army, without the aid of the rest of Greece, and against the wishes of the ruling council-whoever that is-it’s never adequately explained.
Bloody battles and other semi-fantastical whatnot (a rhinoceros is employed as a weapon of war) ensue throughout the movie, and make no mistake here, it is visually stunning and the pinnacle of the filmic art form at the moment.
However, what is troublesome is some of the rousing speeches and comments made by Leonidas to his men at various points during breaks in the fighting. Picture this: a man from a culture that discards children who don’t fit the required standard of perfection, a culture that takes young boys before they are able to reason and immerses them into a lifestyle of violence and bloodshed; and here he is, making the argument that they fight for freedom, and liberty, and the other good things comprising what will ultimately become western civilization as we know it.
Huh? So the Persians have an army comprised of slaves-Leonidas makes this point-and that’s bad. The Greeks-if I’m not mistaken-also owned slaves, but because we credit them with developing some of the cornerstones of our modern culture, that’s never mentioned or even alluded to. (Effectively insinuating that it’s ok they did) What does this inconsistency mean with respect to any assumptions we might hold about the superiority of western civilization?
So, how does all of this relate to the war in Iraq and the troop surge that is so hotly debated? Well, I had the recognition whilst leaving the cinema, with my adrenaline surging and my ideological hackles raised, that were I a younger man and not in possession of the rudimentary ancient history I’ve learned, I would feel a relatively strong desire to go out and fight; fight for democracy and what I see as the forces that threaten my wholesome and comfortable American way of life.
This in and of itself is not necessarily problematic; I think it’s good for people to feel inspired to go out and fight and strive for what they believe in. The troublesome point arises when our media are inaccurate with respect to historical fact, and when the products they release for our consumption are massively distorted by internal consistency.
I don't know if "300" was an intentional tool of propaganda as some are asserting-the simpler explanation is that it is not-but the salient point is we have serious deficits with respect to our ability to critically think in this country. I personally find the prospect that any person might go to a local recruiting station and enlist based on their experience of this film distinctly disturbing.
Posted in
Movies .
Comment: (0).
Trackbacks:(0).
Permalink
«Next post |
Previous post»