I really don't have much to say about it. It's ok. It's just ok. Other than one scene that I will talk about, there's nothing remarkable about it. It's just like the first 300 movie. They even added stock footage from 300. It's just ok. The acting was goofy, over the top, melodramatic, and silly as hell; but so was the rest of the movie so it's ok! The same can be said for the action scenes! It fits the overall tone of the movie as an over the top, macho celebration of all things manly so it's ok.
This movie is about as historically accurate as Birth of a Nation. But I'll get to that at the end. I'll talk about the movie first and then bore whomever wants to know about ancient history.
The one scene that stands out to me at all is the sex scene between Themistocles and Artemista. There they struck a nerve with me and no not just because Eva Green has the body of a goddess. I really liked that scene because it was violent and sensual. It mixed elements of love, hate, desire, greed, ambition, and politics. It all came out like Cleopatra seducing Marc Antony. And it was that love/hate relationship that came out in the climax of the movie that saved it from what would've been a very forgettable movie.
Stylistically, there's not much to say. It's exactly like 300. Gruesome and over the top. But there is a problem; at least from my point of view. If you disagree with me on this, that's fine. I'm not going to argue the point any... but I hate rape scenes. I especially hate rape scenes that involve children. I don't want to see it. I don't want to think about kiddie rape. Everyone has a line as far as what is acceptable and unacceptable in terms of what can be portrayed in a movie. For me, it's rape. Realities of the ugliness of rape aside, why have rape in this movie? Why have rape in any movie? Because rape is one of those things that is so basic and so repulsive to any civilized human being, that the presence of it in a movie is a cheap way to establish someone as a villain. Rape is an animalistic act. When we see a guy... usually a guy... rape a woman (sometimes a man but far less common aka Deliverance), it's hard for us to ever like that person because we don't see that person as a human anymore. That person is now an animal. He acts as an animal, therefore he is just an animal. That character is now a way for us to feel morally superior and death is too good for him. And on the other side, it's a cheap way to build sympathy for a character. This woman Artemista had her family raped and murdered in front of her. Then she as a kid was taken as a sex slave, and eventually discarded. It's cheap sympathy for a character that is a mustache twirling villain. She is so one note it's hard to really have any defining characteristic to her. She kills and she hates Greeks because Greeks killed her parents and brutalized her. Rape is added to make the audience uncomfortable and get some cheap heat. I don't like it. It's unnecessary and quite frankly I think it's lazy writing.
The movie review part I'll end here. Basically it's ok. It's a stupid action/popcorn movie. There are better movies and there are worse in that genre. If you enjoyed 300, you'll probably enjoy this.
**Here I start a long-winded history of the ancient world. If you don't care, there's no need to read further**
This part I plan to talk about the history of the events presented in the movie. Basically the Battle of Salamis. See, I'm a history guy. I got my bachelor's degree in history. I've studied this stuff. I hesitate to say I know more about the Greek/Persian war than the average American, but I did study this in college. I'm guessing most Americans never studied ancient Greek history in high school, and if they did, it was just the highlights. What rubs me the wrong way is the political messaging of this movie. The whole idea of, "they hate us for our freedom" is such a simplistic view that I have to talk about it. Especially when they got the history of this particular conflict so horribly wrong. But this is a movie website so one need not read further to learn any more about the movie. This is just my ranting on what I can only call the dude/bro revisionist history.
The Battle of Salamis was a huge turning point in the Greco-Persian war. Basically, this was the battle that forced Xerxes out of Greece. There were other battles and I'm not saying this one battle ended the war, but much like Gettysburg changed the tide of the American Civil War, Salamis was such a victory for Greece. The biggest problem Persia had was for a long time it's greatest strength, the numbers. They had too many ships. Where the battle took place was too small. The Persian army crowded their side of the field and couldn't maneuver. Greece just swept in and took them out.
The best historian we have to talk about this battle comes from Herodotus. And that's one of the biggest problems as well. Herodotus is the father of modern history. He's the one that started the idea of having corroborated fact as history and not just oral tradition. Back in the day, history was basically decided by the winner. Whoever won the battle, they get to say what happened. And guess what? Most of them portrayed themselves as glorious warriors fighting off a monster of an enemy. Mostly because it made themselves look good, and it was good political propaganda. Herodotus cared about why the conflict happened. He wanted to know what built up to the conflict and not focus so much on the glory of who won. So, why is this a bad thing? Well, first off Herodotus was born in modern day Turkey. About 4 years after the battle took place. He had to go by documents to figure out what happened and as I said, historical records back then were about as useful as a bicycle to a fish. While this was still recent history to him, he was writing his history roughly as about the same time as when the war was wrapping up.
Herodotus was a controversial figure in his own time. Fellow historians criticized his work basically for not being propaganda. Another well-known and highly regarded historian named Plutarch even called him a barbarian lover because he didn't praise the glory of Greece enough.
So, what caused this war in the first place? The Ionian Revolt. Despite what this movie wants you to think, Darius wasn't a mindless sadist. Nor was Xerxes for that matter. Darius I wasn't some iron handed dictator. In fact he had a hell of a time holding the empire together at all. The Ionian Revolt started in 499BC and ended 493BC. And, if I can be simplistic for brevity's sake, basically it boiled down to the local governor in that area being threatened with removal from office so he incites a revolt against the king. Long, bloody story short, Darius I manages to stop the revolt and instead of having some grand inquisition, he generally acts in a fair manner. There weren't any serious consequences, there weren't any mountains of dead bodies. Yes there were executions, but nothing like what you see in the movie. I take offense because Darius did do a lot to bring order to the region. He decreed that instead of bloodshed, all arguments would now be settled by arbitration. It's basically the code of laws that we in the 21st century enjoy today. If someone wrongs you, you sue, and an impartial judge settles the matter. But because the local governor in a bit of propaganda of his own tried to declare Ionia a democracy and a free city-state, that led to Athens supporting the revolt and now there's conflict between Persia and Athens.
And NO. Darius was not killed at the Battle of Marathon. He died 3 years later because he got sick. Because there was yet another uprising. This time it was in Egypt. And another in Babylon. Like I said. The guy had a hell of a time keeping the "mighty" Persian empire in one piece. Darius got sick and died at age 36. Then in comes Xerxes I.
So long history lesson summary: Xerxes led a war against Greece after he quashed rebellions in Egypt and Babylon because Athens chose to side with the rebels in Ionia. But even that standing, Sparta was the city Xerxes targeted. Not Athens. And I know there's reports about Xerxes burning Athens. But really that's hard to say if that actually happened or not. Some say it was propaganda, some say it was an accident and then blamed on the Persians, some others say it was just rumor meant to incite more hatred. I don't know. Nobody really knows.
Another reason Xerxes left Greece was because yet another revolt started in Babylon. Plus, he had become tired of war. He wanted to build things in his country. He built infrastructure. He built the Gate of All Nations which still more or less stands in modern day Iran. It was a project started by his father Darius that he felt would honor his father's legacy.
Xerxes himself never thought of himself as a God. He was a Zoroastrian. Basically, he believed there were only 2 Gods. One of good and one of evil. In the movie they try to claim that it was Artamista that put Xerxes on the throne. No, actually the transition from Darius to Xerxes was actually very painless. He was the eldest son of Darius. His mother was Atossa, Darius' wife and she was a descendant of Cyrus the Great. Cyrus being the guy that built the Persian Empire by defeating the Babylonians.
So, yeah. I'm just about tired of calling BS on this movie historically but I probably could continue. I think I made my point though.
No comments:
Post a Comment