Cinematically fascinating, historical tosh, eye-goudgingly tedious and designed for boys of a mental age of about 13 — such was the general judgment of 300, the film about the holding operation of the Spartans and their allies at Thermopylae against the massive Persian army (480 bc). But how the Spartans would have loved it!
First, Spartans are presented in the film as the only Greeks prepared to take on the advancing enemy. In fact they were the leaders of a coalition of Greek states, who had long debated where to attempt to hold up the Persian advance, only finally settling on Thermopylae. Second, the Spartans are portrayed as upholders of freedom and reason. Given that they were not a democracy, as Athens was, that is a bit rich; nor did they engage in the rationalistic speculation that characterised Greek philosophy. Nevertheless, they might well have enjoyed the kudos that came from such a claim, however much they would have secretly despised it (no Guardian readers, they). Third, they went into battle without much in the way of armour. That would have baffled them — leather swimwear has a limited capacity to protect against spear, sword and arrow — but would probably have pleased them too, depicting them as even bolder and braver than their reputation would suggest. Fourth, it appeared that they alone defended the pass, when in fact they were helped by others. Fifth, the film got some of their sayings right (Persians: ‘Lay down your weapons’; Spartans: ‘Come and get them’). Finally, the enemy Persians were depicted in such terms as to suggest their army was almost superhuman — and yet 300 Spartans in bathing-trunks were able to keep them at bay. Now that is class!
It remains a great mystery why the Iranians should have complained up to UN level about this drivel.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in