Blood Runs Deep

No Persians were depicted being killed in the recently released movie: 300. No Greeks or Spartans were depicted as heroic figures of tragic sacrifice. 300 Spartans did hold the advancing “Persian” army at the battle of Thermopylae, along with 900 supporting personnel that rarely get mentioned in history books or Hollywood movies. Stories were not written in the time of 480 BC to capture for posterity the facts of an event. Cicero and Herodotus were far more interested in making their tribe of people look great and everyone else look lousy. The story of the 300 is very ancient propaganda. If Cicero were alive he would claim the movie version depicts events exactly the way he remembered it. Cicero I should mention lived 370 years after the battle and was Roman not Greek but I'm sure he believed it happened just the way he wrote it.
The question being asked today is why this 2500 year old war propaganda story is making such an impact in the minds of the modern viewer. The 300 has been called vapid, violent comic book drivel by critics and columnists. However, people from a wide demographic are going to see this film. The political and social media is talking about the film as an allegory to the war on terror. The cultural advisor to the Iranian President called the movie: “part of a comprehensive U.S. Psychological warfare aimed at Iranian culture.” Is it possible that they are all right? That underneath this violent and simple story shot on blue screen, there is potent cultural symbolism being expressed.
Xerxes was a Persian king. Iran is at the center of what was the Persian empire. Xerxes however was never 12 feet tall as depicted in the film nor were elephants 35 feet tall in the year 480. Persians didn't file there teeth and call themselves immortal. The Spartans for their part were not protectors of democratic freedom and liberty as the film depicts and you can't climb a crumbling rock cliff side with a 40 pound red cape in your underwear. Those that claim that this movie is a mindless comic book romp are half right. The invading army are the “bad guys” the few defenders are the “good guys.” Each person within this fictional structure is now free to identify with whoever they want to.
Allegory is a tricky narrative device. Depending on who's point of view a story is interpreted it can mean many things to many people. If the 300 is not intended as accurate representation of a historical event then it must be symbolic of something deeper. Those that claim that the 300 is a allegory of the war in Iraq and a cultural struggle against modern Islam terror (Islam was founded almost 1200 years after the battle of Thermopylae) I would say they are half right. U.S. Marines that have seen the movie in Iraq have reportedly embraced the figures of Spartan soldiers fighting a desperate battle. I can certainly understand the identification with the clearly heroic figures in the film. However, Iraqi insurgents and terrorist might also identify with the same warriors. They see themselves taking on the greatest nation in the world with few men and less equipment. And of course it is the United States that invaded their country. Using the symbolic model of the movie couldn't an argument be made from either perspective being the ones wearing the red capes. King Leonidas, the heroic leader of the Spartans also scoffed at religion and actively discarded infants and people that didn't measure up to his ideal. Who does that represent? Us? Or them?
This bloody film, inspired by Frank Miller has sparked an examination of ourselves and of the world we live. It has inspired thoughts of heroism and sacrifice. This movie continues to generate ideas and conversation around the world. That having been said, it is possible that we might have to give a little more respect to silly comic book movies.