I went and saw 300 the other day and I have to say I was blown away. This historical-fantasy is a quasi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC in which the Spartan King Leonidas and 300 Spartans fought to the death battling the King of Persia, Xerxes, and more than 1,000,000 of his warriors. The Spartans fought off waves of the enemy for 3 full days against impossible odds. The battle has inspired military honor for centuries.
The story events are pretty historically accurate, although the imagery is completely unrealistic (it is “an opera, not a documentary”). Reviews of several of the film’s subtexts have been both praised and criticized. These include the strong role played by women in Sparta, the idealization of Spartan culture (although some of its evil practices were noted), the questionable pitting of “free, democratic Sparta” against “evil Persian slavers” (there is a reason the Spartans could all be soldiers - slaves did their work for them and were even killed during Spartan manhood rites), the portraying of the Persians as evil monsters and Xerxes as an androgynous giant, East vs. West racism, blah blah blah. Some of these concerns are relevant, some are simply sniveling.
The fact is that no one would take this film seriously as a statement of how the enemy really looked or acted. Rather, it depicts them as they looked to the Spartans. That is part of the power of the film - it elicits emotional responses by portraying the characters as they think of themselves (it is narrated by a Spartan) and others - not how they actually existed. (If anyone is this dull enough to think the Persians had human-crab executioners and 50 foot tall elephants, they probably should never have entered a movie theater in the first place.)
The point of the movie is not to teach a history lesson, but a moral one. I suggest that the real problem the critics have is with the unapologetically Western ideal of fighting for one’s culture against all odds and not giving in to evil in the name of tolerance. Whether or not Sparta was actually in the moral right is besides the point. They fought. They died. And they did it for the honor of not giving in to oppressors. The historical issues are besides the point (in this case neither culture was particularly moral - it would be different if, say, Nazi Germany was idealized as being morally upright). The overall message of the film is that it is honorable to die for what you value rather than to give in - under any circumstances - just to live. At one unforgettable point in the film the King of Sparta looks into the eyes of a Spartan traitor and says, “May you live forever.” This might sound like a blessing, but in this case it was a curse. The Spartans desired only to die honorably in battle for their King - and to live past this battle would be to live in dishonor.
The world and the Church (myself included) can learn a lesson from this. All people will ”live” forever - but how we live now, in this life, will affect how we live in eternity. King Leonidas went to war with only 300 soldiers. I wonder how many volunteers we could muster in the Church today if called to stand against evil to the death?
ADDITION: I just read the best review of the film I have yet seen, this is a must-read: “300 Shocker: Hollywood takes a detour to reality.” By David Kahane
13 responses so far ↓
Alucard // March 29, 2007 at 1:56 am
We Die Proud
By William Hendry
Where is the honor of yesteryear,
Of Thermopylae, and the Spartan’s lack of fear?
Where is the ambition to give one’s life,
In the fight for Freedom, Truth, and Right?
Is to be honorable such a sin
That it brings scorn from friend and kin?
O God, to be a Man is such a struggle
That I wonder the meaning of this life of trouble.
Yet, from the back regions of my mind
I hear a lonely echo rise,
An echo that pierces my very soul
And helps me remember my goal:
“WE DIE PROUD……………WE DIE PROUD!”
Davis // March 30, 2007 at 7:25 am
I believe you were supposed to have seen this again last monday night with the vozzman and a few others. Yet you had same lame excuse (something about having an infant to take care of and you had already seen the movie..) and hence were not there. ;=)
MattG. // March 30, 2007 at 9:08 am
I was both depressed and motivated by this movie! Depressed because I am such a freaking wimp, but motivated to see examples of people completely devoted to something bigger than themselves! I want my dedication to God to be that intense, unwavering, and sure. God help us!
Blake Anderson // March 31, 2007 at 10:32 am
Your post reminds me of a Great Movie: Shakespeare’s Henry V.
Great movie to rent if you still can (1989? with Kenneth Branagh)
“Here was a royal fellowship of death!”
Act IV Scene III
KING HENRY:
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse.
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say, “To-morrow is Saint Crispian.”
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say, “These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.”
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words,
Harry the King, Bedford, and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
SALISBURY:
My sovereign lord, bestow yourself with speed.
The French are bravely in their battles set,
And will with all expedience charge on us.
KING HENRY:
All things are ready, if our minds be so.
Aaron Southwick // April 5, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Hi Doug,
I am not sure if you remember me; I am a friend of Larry Blythe’s, and I came and visited you guys back in October (I think).
I want to make you aware of something that is going on in my neck of the woods, which I would love for you, brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, to pray for.
For what I am talking about; go here: http://birdandbabe.blogspot.com/2007/04/tragic-lesson-learned.html
Please pray, and if you can do more let me know, that God will move through this event to touch the lives of many in the near future so that we can eradicate this terrible, terrible atrocity that is occuring every day–indeed, a holocaust taking place in our midst!
nathan // April 18, 2007 at 12:29 am
I think Aquinas may disagree with you about how honorable this war was. One of the qualifications that a just war has to meet in the Summa is that war should not be engaged in if there is not a reasonable chance for success. King Leo’s decision to lead his men into battle against all odds does not make him an honorable leader but a mass murderer.
“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” is a lie unless the war is just.
Doug Beaumont // April 18, 2007 at 8:01 am
Well, when I said “went to war” I should have said “battle.” Just War criteria has to do with whether or not a given war is morally permissible - not whether or not one should fight back when attacked. If 20 guys break into my house to rape my wife and kidnap my son, honor dictates that I try to fight them off even though my chances of success may be zero. Futher, Leonidas actually held off the full scale (and non-just) war for those three days, saving many from what would have been a slaughter had they not had time to prepare. Finally, he accomplished this defense with volunteers! That is hardly murder.
nathan // April 18, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Just War criteria does pertain to what a country is permitted to do when they are attacked. The first criteria is that a just war must be defensive. This means that a government has the right to wage war after it is attacked.
Furthermore, your example about the 20 rapist-kidnappers does not apply to governments going to war. While there may be similarities between the morality of self-defense and waging a just war, there are some key differences.
A government’s responsibility for its army is much different than your responsibility for your life. You yourself, choose to risk your own life while an army depends on its leaders to tell them where and when to risk their lives.
For example: It would be immoral for you, as fire chief, to order one of your men to attempt to rescue someone from a burning building when there was no reasonable chance of being able to save them. It may seem honorable to attempt the rescue against all odds but in fact this is foolish and shows a lack of wisdom and reason.
I retract my contention that Leonidas had no good reason to engage in the battle on the third. It was a tactical necessity that he forestall the Persian assault. The Persian calvary would have easily run down the retreating Greek foot soldiers.
Leonidas’s hard bought delay of the Persian army did preserve the lives of the 5,000 retreating Greek soldiers but it was done at the expense of 2,000 or so lives that were not all there voluntarily. 900 of those that died were Helots. The Helots were slaves of the Spartans that were forced into the battle.
Even the 300 Spartans were not volunteers in the strictest sense. All boys were forced into the military at age seven and were required to serve until the age of 30. These boys were mercilessly trained. They would often beaten each other to death and were encouraged to murder innocent people as part of their initiation.
It is no wonder that they threw themselves with clenched fists on Persian blades after they were weaponless and defeated. They had been raised from childhood to believe that death in battle was glorious and a natural death was dishonorable.
In the Spartans the pride of man exalted itself so high that even God’s curse of death was thought to be tamed and conquered. They do not deserve our acclaim but our pity.
Doug Beaumont // April 18, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Nathan,
I can agree with your observations concerning the historical reality, but I was speaking of the movie’s message via its story. I thought I had made this fairly clear in my original post: “The point of the movie is not to teach a history lesson, but a moral one . . . fighting for one’s culture against all odds and not giving in to evil in the name of tolerance. Whether or not Sparta was actually in the moral right [i.e., historically]is besides the point.”
nathan // April 20, 2007 at 12:21 pm
It is the point in your original post that I disagree with. Fighting for one’s culture against all odds is not necessarily moral. It is not moral if by “against all odds” you mean that there is no reasonable hope for victory.
But even if “against all odds” includes a reasonable hope for success the defense of one’s culture is not necessarily moral either. Whether or not one’s culture should be defended is at least dependent on whether or not that culture is good.
The movie shows enough of the Spartan culture for us see that it is evil. It depicts their love of war and lifelong dedication to it. It depicts their hatred towards the weak leading to the murder of their own children. Fighting to defend a warmongering, vicious culture just because it is your own is not honorable or virtuous.
Doug Beaumont // April 23, 2007 at 2:37 am
The problem is that I am operating on a level of abstraction so high that facts no longer matter . . . oh never mind. You got me. I really just liked the blood and boobs.
Alex Williams // April 24, 2007 at 8:59 pm
But the Spartans were not just fighting for their own culture but for the Greek culture as a whole. On another level it could be said that they were fighting for the right to determine the nature of their culture whether this be a morally right one or otherwise it would be just to fight for the righ to choose it. On the Just war tradition, there must be a difference between a war and a battle or even scirmish within that context. While an individual battle may not have any chance of success were it to lead to a strategic advantage and therefore overall victory could it not be justified? Had reenforcements arrived then it might even have turned into a victory so hindsight is being employed to decide if it has a chance of success.
Doug Beaumont // May 15, 2007 at 8:07 am
The Spartans are shown in all their glory but it also shows their warts. I don’t think anyone would come out of 300 thinking, “Wow, those Spartans sure were great because of their baby-killing.” That was clearly not the point of the film. It would be just as big a mistake to think King David was “a man after God’s own heart” because he was an adulterer and murderer.
300 is a great story to communicate a great message despite its less than great characters. The Spartans are just the vehichle for the story’s message - which is that fighting to the death for what is right is virtuous, while giving in to evil to save oneself is evil. The fact that the Spartans were not morally righteous in every way does not nullify the ways in which they were righteous.
Leave a Comment