"Everyone looks at me like I'm the biggest moron in the world."

If it was any other crowd, I'd chalk that up as the natural reaction to the moron who loudly says something blindingly obvious, as if it was some kind of profound insight.

In this case, it's more of a well-timed Emperor's New Clothes moment. I admire your courage, which I do not mistake for feeblemindedness.

Good catch, Robert.

Perhaps they would have preferred that 300 had been called Brokeback Mountain Pass?

The former chair of my lit department in college is a Classicist who specializes in "queer" theory. Today he's a college president at a private, New England college. It's one thing to acknowledge homosexuality in the Greco-Roman tradition, it's another to turn that into the pink- --oops, I mean rose- -- colored glasses through which to study history.

I see you have to walk a tightrope in Hollywood -- dare you cross the wire, without a safety net, when you choose to make very independent, seemingly sound comments? Bravo, Robert! Sometimes "morons" get the brightest spotlight.

I just saw the original "300" (it had a longer official title), from 1950's Hollywood. It was unintentionally very funny at times. Something tells me the folks who made this movie were intent on not repeating that mistake, for fear that someone could find some campish humor in this new film. I would say they succeeded.

Sorry, the original came out in 1962:

"The 300 Spartans"
http://imdb.com/title/tt0055719/

Well, that is typical though. If Hollywood was to admit that a movie's success is ultimately largely about the question of whether it is a good movie that tells a good story, then vast numbers of people in marketing and market research departments (and the rest of those portions of studios not actually involved in production of movies) might have to admit that they are less important than they think they are. We couldn't have that.

Kent:

Thanks for the kind words.

I'm not sure it's courage. I'm afraid it's what my beloved wife, the Ph.D Psychologist would diagnose as, "lack of impulse control."

Jane Austen, Body Double, Sparta and Frum. Get a grip on yourself, man!!!

Jeremiah:

I think my Hollywood collegues would have preferred if "300" would have just flopped at the box-office so they would not have to strain so hard to puzzle out why the great unwashed like it so much.

This from a group who's collective sheepskins include: Harvard, Yale & Princeton.

If I was mommy or daddy, I'd demand a tuition refund.

It absolutely sickens me that Hollywood will undoubtedly take the wrong lesson from 300's success. Instead of embracing your explanation, instead they're probably developing a series of homoerotic, morally (and sexually) "nuanced" historical epics right now.

Hollywood had great success with Braveheart and Gladiator, and as a fan (and writer) of historical epics, I was pleased. But they threw away a good thing with the morally confused (at best) Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven. And word was that all medieval/ancient war movies were on hold, because they thought the market had dried up.

No, you fools! As 300 has abundantly demonstrated, the audience for sword-and-sandal epics is still there. It just won't buy Orlando Bloom or a bleached-blonde Colin Ferrell as a war hero, and it wants to know its good guys from the bad, and it doesn't want its own culture disparaged and spat upon.

Pearl:

I have no desire to be in the spotlight. I just want to make Hollywood movies. Unfortunately, Hollywood is more enamored of the wretched Michel Foucault than the great John Ford.

Jake:

I will bet you these people never even saw the that film. Let's face it, most of the Hollywood sand and sandal epics really stink.

A few, like "Spartacus," are great, but most are just laughable. It's a very difficult form and period to make work.

I happen to like "Rome."

Michael:

Tossers.

Dear Robert,

" ... the courage of the few against the many, ..."

Now it seems to me you are saying although invertedly: "ve'rabim b'yad meatim" and to think that that little line of the many into the hands of the few enjoyed any applicability outside the context of the Hanukkah "al Ha Nissim"! and that the indomitable fighting spirit of the 300 Spartans, the elite royal guards of Leonidas, advanced to the front to stave off the Persian hordes while the rest of the country celebrated a religious holiday at home, could parallel the earlier model of Mattisyahu and his sons, well ... "who woulda thunk?" and to think that your praise of these giborim, those "brave and loyal warriors willing to sacrifice, to die for their country." could have had its source in the account by Herodutus, the "Father of History"-surely Robert you jest that such movers and shakers were "educated" men of Harvard, Yale & Princeton ... :)

I remain,

Very Sincerely Yours,

Alan D. Busch

Cato:

I'll stand in a shield-wall with you anytime.

Gay postmodern philodsopher Michel Foucault doesn't deserve mention alongside Spartan valor. While teaching at UC Berkeley c. 1980 he lived in flagrant promiscuity, contracting HIV and soon dying of it. You can read about in his Wikipedia entry (which conveniently omits the obvious corollary -- i.e., that he widely spread the HIV virus as well).

Barzilai:

Been trying to get a grip for a very long time.

I was surprised it was even made, considering that the message it sends is so contrary to the general Hollywood atmosphere.

Now I'm wondering what they will make of that Daniel Pearl biopic.

I can just hear them thinking, "How dare he try to slip in some insight where vapid frivolity reigns?" It is a bit unnerving that the nerve center for the popular culture that pervades America is generated in a place where people are stuck, not on stupid, because they're not, but on shallow. Kudos to you for sticking around and adding some depth to Hollywood discourse.

Irina:

300 was made for very little money.

Daniel Pearl biopic will focus on his wife. The message will be that Islam is a "religion of peace" and we should all just sing kumbaya.

Strongly suggest that if you go, bring big barf bag.

Me, I avoid brainwashing.

Bookworm:

No, these people are not stupid, not at all. In fact they are very clever. And that's the problem. So clever that they, like their oh-so-fashionable post-modern buddies on campus, must construct elaborate theories to "deconstruct" a "text" when a simple and down-to-earth message is staring them right in the face.

The thing is: they do not want to read that message. It is politically and socially unacceptable.

Hollywood was founded by poor Jewish immigrants who barely spoke English. But they understood America, loved America, and were in lock-step with the American dream.

These Hollywood people, like their counterparts in the halls of academia, are, by choice, shut off from ordinary Americans, and have contempt for the most simple American values.

People prefer to believe in black and white, except when it comes to making moral judgments. Some values are superior to others, unfortunately we live in a time where many people are afraid to accept that.

Robert: You are definitely getting it. People will be mistaking you for a Londoner in no time.

Jack:

Well said.

Michael:

A Londoner who owns several handguns? Gee, you think?

Bravo! I have already seen the movie both for the premiere and then again with other friends last weekend :)

The liberals must be in convulsion seeing the Spartans sacrifice themselves for "democracy and freedom"...

In my opinion, it is exactly where you say the movie succeeds that it fails misrably. The constant references to "freedom from tyranny" and especially to "reason" are totally out of key, when one considers the actual content of Spartan society as it is depicted in the film (or as it actually was). The incongruity between rhetoric and reality in this script is so obvious--and Spartan society so horrifically cruel and hostile to the role of the individual--that I am actually dismayed by the reaction of conservatives.

The film would have done much better to resist the (obviously studio-imposed) pressure to put anachronistic 21st century American political rhetoric in the mouths of godless, bloodthirsty pre-Christain Greeks. All the talk of "resoan, liberty, and the rule of law" we get from the film's protagonists is so obviously out of place that it reeks of manipulation. I kept thinking, "OK, so now you're going to sell me on these people--who tossed weak infants into a pile to die at the edge of town and viciously abused their children so as to turn them into bloodthirsty killing machines--as some kind of Jeffersonian democrats fighting for liberty and reason?" When the Queen refers, bizarrely, to the "principles these walls were built upon," one cannot help wondering, "And what are those, exactly, beyond the assertion of the raw will to power?"

The sad attempt to conflate the Spartan political system with that of the Athenians--who are ridiculed precisely because they are citizen-soldiers rather than vice versa--reveals an unsettling confusion about what this "freedom thing" is really all about. It is also revealing that so many American rightists do not see anything disturbing about Miller's attempt to identify us with the Spartans, for whom freedom and power turn in on one another in infinite regress. They yearn to fight, and fight, and fight so that they may be free--but free to do what, exactly? Oh, yes. To be excellent fighters, which is about all their society amounts to.

They would have been much better off leaving out all the pious effusions over political ideals that obviously have no place in Spartan society, and stuck to giving us a tale that extols the martial values of solidarity, courage, and sacrifice. Trying to convince us that these hideously brutal men were sacrificing themselves for something actually worth preserving is just a bridge too far, and a step conservatives never ought to take.

We can appreciate the role of providence in setting these men in a position to save Western civilization--but let's not kid ourselves that they had any ideas about preserving political and philosophical values that were not their own, the values of the sworn enemies.

It occurs to me that, since we drone on about freedom without understanding anthing much about it, and since we do in fact cull our young and discard them if they are found to be defective, and since we have moved almost entirely to the professional warrior model of soldiering, that maybe there is a reason we American rightists can so thoughtlessly empathize with the Spartans of 300.

Robert, I admire your courage. It's true that Hollywood doesn't get it, but the "suits" that have been at the helm of plummeting box office receipts created the current climate and cannot understand classic themes of good versus evil. Since they caused the problem, how would they be able to recognize the solution?

Thanks for standing up and voicing the truth. We shouldn't be afraid to say what we think. Maybe if we all do this, we can drive some change.

Sage:

I'm sorry I don't get what you're referring to here:

"since we do in fact cull our young and discard them if they are found to be defective"

I'm really at a loss here.

It occurs to me that, since we drone on about freedom without understanding anthing much about it

Could you expand upon this?

Jake,

Sage is referring to abortion. Pregnant women are offered a number of tests during her pregnancy. Some can reveal that fetus may have congenital disease, developmental disorders, or be of the wrong sex. If something is "wrong," she can ditch the pregnancy.

Good thing you didn't mention a subtext of resistance to an "occupation army," and its relation to rising global anti-Americanism. Someone might have lapsed into a coma ;)

Morey

Sage:

Nice job applying 21st century Californian viewpoint to ancient history.

And the movie gave a very clear and concise picture of Spartan society complete with mounds of baby bones, nothing was glossed over. We can respect their facing certain death to preserve their way of life, which included a limited democracy and more "womens rights" than Athens, and retaining their nations independence. Yes, these men had freedom and democracy at stake and more right to them than those today who will neither serve or honor the soldiers who protect them.

The survival of Athens, with its slave based limited democracy, was part of what was at stake in this war. Athens was closer to this battlefield than Sparta.

As far as "godless", they had gods and invoked them constantly throughout the film. Not Christan, but pretty successful since we still know their names and their attributes 2500 years later.

sage: "The film would have done much better to resist the (obviously studio-imposed) pressure to put anachronistic 21st century American political rhetoric in the mouths of godless, bloodthirsty pre-Christain Greeks."

Actually the rhetoric reflects the graphic novel source material, and it's writer, Frank Miller. Those are a few of Miller's general themes.

Sage: "All the talk of "resoan, liberty, and the rule of law" we get from the film's protagonists is so obviously out of place that it reeks of manipulation."

I think you're over-intellectualizing the film, since it obviously has only a tenuous direct link to historical reality. The film plays as tribute to a general set of ideas, not to the Spartan culture, except in the case of the attributes it highlights, which is autonomy and an attitude of defiance. Of course the film is trying to have it both ways, and I guess the individual viewer chooses whether it succeeds or not. An average film-goer will have precious little prior knowledge of the grudge between Athens and Sparta, and all that is specifically called out as a historic fact about it is that the Spartans and various volunteers bought time for mainland Greece to get its defense together, and that the Persians suck.

Here via Libertas.

Wow, really? I guess I assumed that all of the things you mentioned are universal themes that many films take on, and that audiences are drawn to.

In other words, it never entered my mind that the success of this movie would be 1) a surprise and 2) so hard to figure out!

Robert -- good observation on the pulp origins of Hollywood by emigre Jews who knew America. I had thought when Ovitz made his "Gay Mafia" charges he was totally looney.

Now upon reflection while I don't see a conspiracy, I do see a domination of Hollywood by the Gay Aesthetic. As in Broadway. This isn't surprising, look at boxing. It went from Irish to Jews/Italians to Blacks to now Mexicans and hard, hungry Eastern Europeans. Certain groups can just dominate economic niches. Like Hollywood.

Look at the "Finicky Assistant" who finds things fabulous. Multiply that by a thousand and you get stick figure women (instead of real women with figures and curves). Scarlett Johannsen's niche is that she's the only actress in town who hasn't starved herself out of curves, and I've heard her call herself "fat" on Leno (I about fell out of my chair). Leading men are all Pretty Boys like Leo or Orlando Bloom or Bad Pritt or Josh Hartnett. Scripts are all Focaultian "shades of gray" no right and wrong.

And just like Broadway, men are avoiding Hollywood like the plague. Broadway has always had the Cole Porters and such, but also guys like Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly who certainly did not lack for masculinity or heterosexuality. I couldn't imagine those guys in Broadway today.

All these clever people have forgotten that appealing to men is critical for making lots of money. That they could end up in the Broadway ghetto as video games (Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Ghost Recon all tell you by their names what they're about and who they appeal to) siphon away men from Hollywood.

What made the old moguls so successful is that they never forgot their audience, even though they were far from Middle America in background. IMHO the very smart people from Harvard and Yale have been taught to have nothing but contempt for Middle America and have assumed that Middle America will always look up to them for guidance.

This is essentially Detroit circa 1973 all over again. Detroit was full of smart people disconnected from their customers too. I would not be shocked to see EA or other game companies branch out into movies based on their games.

"The film would have done much better to resist the (obviously studio-imposed) pressure to put anachronistic 21st century American political rhetoric in the mouths of godless, bloodthirsty pre-Christain Greeks."

Utter nonsense. The references to reason and democracy come from the original Frank Miller comic, not imposed by the studio: and Mr. Miller in turn got this language and atmosphere from the ancient Greek's own accounts of the reasons why they fought. Such words come from the mouths of the original Spartans.

For example:

Herodatus tells the tale of the attempt by a high official of Persia, Hydarnes, to recruit two men of Sparta in to the service of the Great King of Persia. Hydarnes tells them Xerxes knows well how to honor valiant men: and promises they will have countries of their own to rule.

Then they answered him thus: “Hydarnes, thy counsel as touching us is not evenly weighed. For, of the one thing thou hast made trial, but of the other thou art without experience: what it is to be a bondservant thou knowest full well, but of freedom thou hast never yet made trial, to know whether it be a sweet thing or not. For if ever thou hadst experience thereof, thou wouldest counsel us to fight for it not with spears only but with axes.”

It seems like Hollywood's analysts have a huge blind spot to the obvious.

I remember the late 1980s when someone wrote that "biblical dramas" were out of favor with the public, and their examples were the poor showings of "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "King David", both of which took liberties with the source material in ways that Christians/Jews would not like. (That was not mentioned in the article.)

Don't like the movie where Jesus sits outside Mary Magdalene's room as she services clients and then snivels that he is unworthy of her? Must not like the Biblical drama, then!

Sage is right on the money, insofar as it's entirely pathetic that, here in the strongest military power in human (not just Western) history, it takes a comic book artist (?!) to impart our existential martial valor.

Frank Miller, thankfully, is on the right side. And he does what he does well. And 300 is a suitable metaphor for our relatively small, all volunteer forces currently deployed. But it's based on a comic book!

Following his generalship in the Pelopponesian War Thucydides became a historian — not a pottery-painter.

All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters.
-- Gen. George S. Patton.

I hope this is right. I am joining a computer club

"Nice job applying 21st century Californian viewpoint to ancient history."

I have no idea what this could mean. It seems to me that my entire point was that the utter incongruence between modern American liberalism and the Sparta of 300. I'm a traditionalist, a paleo-con, a reactionary, what-have-you. "Californian" world view? Whatever that is, I'm confident it's been misapplied to my particular case.

It's been a long time since I read 300, so I'll accept the correction that the script was true to the source material. A friend who is very much an authority on comic books tells me this is not so, but whatever. If it is, then that says nothing good about Frank Miller (who I have never thought was in the remotest sense a conservative).

Saw 300 myself Friday. I was conflicted, as I told some friends, I'm a big enough history geek that anachronisms ruin a movie for me. I finally let Professor Hanson convince me that the Greeks, after they got over the technology, would have seen things like Heroic Nudity as Dramatic License, and enjoyed it.
Still, I kept twitching. Go on and on and on about maintaining Shield Wall, and at the first charge they break it and engage in melee. Matter of fact, Spartans going on and on and on about anything, these were the people who gave us the word "Laconic" for crying out loud!
Dramatic license again, of course; also, if this was staged as a Greek tragedy, instead of the voice-over narrative, they would have had a chorus.
I laughed when I saw the Persian Immortals, all I could think of was the interminable preview of the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie...

Yes, having Spartans talk of "Freedom" and "Liberty" sounds odd to us. Did they do so? Would they do so? Maybe: It wasn't all that long ago that a person living under what we would consider to be intolerable conditions could speak of "Our accustomed English Liberties" and simply mean "Under an English King and Parliament." (Even if the King was German... and those English Liberties were harsher than the conditions that lead to the American Revolution.)
Anyway, it is all too easy to see that Spartan societyu was structured as it was so that the Spartans could maintian an iron hold on their slaves, and therefore to scoff at their defending their freedom, just as it is to scoff at George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for fighting for freedom while holding slaves, but it was the system they had, and to change it wold have destroyed their entire society. We should try to keep in mind that many slave holders in America were aware of what a devils' bargain they had, and swore to free their slaves but never did, because it would have ruined the, and they recognized that their freed slaves would have had their freedom, and nothing else--no jobs, no property, no rights, and nowhere to go. (Washington did it in his will, as the only time he could do so and still provide for his obligations.)