Having heard some high praise for the recent Frank Miller adaptation, 300, I trekked off to the theatre a few weekends ago to catch it myself. What followed was an interesting mix of emotions for me. I am usually easily able to suspend disbelief and enter into the world of a film, and it is indeed almost always my goal to do so when watching a film. But some films make that really really hard to do. Or maybe to put it more accurately; sometimes John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas make that really hard to do.
300 lacks nothing in stylistic cinematography or art direction. Every single frame lives in a creative land somewhere between Miller’s original comic book and modern day Photoshop art. The texture and style of the film exude a larger-than-life mythical quality that enhance the tale of 300 Spartans fighting off Xerxes’ vast armies. It is a story that can only be told in paintings and campfire tales, and in that regard 300 does exceedingly well.
Some have called 300 one-part Art Film one-part Action-Adventure war movie. I would agree, and the first part is done masterfully. But it’s that nagging issue of content that kept irking me about the second part of 300. While I was continually drawn into this Spartan world by the artistic beauty I was constantly ejected from it as I heard Yoder, Hauerwas and especially Jesus ringing in my ears.
The overtones of what Walter Wink calls “redemptive violence” are nowhere more pronounced than in 300. The Spartan culture while shown as a somewhat barbaric solider society is nonetheless glorified in perhaps every barbaric trait other than their systematic killing of “less than ideal” babies. While this is shown in a horrific light, the rest of their violent ways are glorified as essential parts of a “rational” and “democratic” society. The overtones connecting American culture and military (especially American Marines) to the Spartan warriors are obvious. King Leonidas’ wife, Gorgo lectures the politicians about the necessity for violence using today’s popular phrase “freedom isn’t free.” All these themes kept me from truly entering the movie. Instead I held it at arms length, thinking to myself, this is exactly what Jesus subverts in the Roman empire. This society built on violence, the culture that disciples its people in warfare no matter the personal cost to children and wives. The Roman empire Jesus lived under and was crucified by was heavily influenced by the Spartan legends and ethos. This is the same warrior-culture that the Gospel has a harsh judgment for, and while we have tended to privatize our war-making, we Americans buy into many of the same illusions that the Spartans did.
I kept trying to see where Christians would fit into this whole story (had they been around back then). I think that the Jesus people wouldn’t be caught dead on the side of Xerxes, the Persian emperor who called himself a God. The followers of Jesus wouldn’t march with the Persian army in it’s goal to conquer the world. But neither would the Jesus people devote their lives to being discipled as killing machines in the city of Sparta. The Spartan story of redemptive violence would be in direct conflict with the followers of Jesus who practiced redemptive suffering.
Top Gun in a loin cloth
I saw this opening night, not knowing much about it except for seeing one preview in the theatre a month or so before. And, it was probably one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. Like you, I think the only ‘cool’ thing about it was its look, but I wish I could get my 4 hours back (I waited a couple hours in line reading because I had nothing else to do).
I knew the movie would probably be a little pagan, at least, but I wasn’t prepare for the intentionally glorified violence, let alone the completely fascist overtones of the movie. That whole ‘freedom isn’t free’ thing and then the ritual murder of ‘undesirable’ babies, etc., coupled with the pre-emptive war crap was like everything a good science fiction story (or heck, real-life prophets) have warned us about. ‘War is Peace’, ‘Freedom is Slavery’, etc.
Furthermore, what really kinda scared me was the guy sitting next to me (and a bunch of others in the theatre) who were cheering like a rabid sports fan whenever the violence starting erupting.
Also, here is a helpful article:
‘300′ Flick Is Ready-Made for the Right-Wing Crowd
Also, if you’re interested, this review by Neal Stephenson (one of my all-time favourite sci-fi authors — Cryptonomicon pwns!) is really, really disappointing. It’s not the fact that politics exist in the movie that bother me — it’s the fact that the politics that do exist are execrable. He should be smarter than that, considering how brilliant his books are.
Peace,
Eric
This is exactly how i felt watching the movie, i was pumped about it, but the whole idea of not being able to relate or like the ‘hero’s’ of the story really bugged me…thanks for your critique
You guys crack me up. You go to an R-rated war movie and then you’re shocked by the violence. As Christians, why are you even going to these types of movies before finding out more about them first? Plus, you didn’t even mention the sex & nudity. Probably because you kinda liked that part, huh?
JT,
I’m not exactly sure who you are, but your comment is a bit smug and immature.
First, I wasn’t shocked by the violence — I was shocked by the glorification of the violence. There’s a huge difference. I knew it was rated R and knew it would be violent, but compare that to, say, Schindler’s List which I also knew would be violent and horrific, but the violence wasn’t glorified in that.
Second, if you want to be glib about the sex and nudity, I did have a problem with that, but if I really wanted to whine, I would also point out one glaring historical omission in the film: Spartan pederasty. Greek pederasty is almost always left out of popular renditions of the Greco-Roman world, and with good reason. And it’s not like I wanted to see that, either. I mean, JT, why did you have to leave out the Spartan pederasty? Is it because you like it? … see how ridiculous (and uncharitable) such argumentation is?
“As Christians, why are you even going to these types of movies before finding out more about them first?”
Well, because as Christians, we also don’t like to be spoon-fed things (i.e. we’re adult Christians, not 4-year-olds), and actually want to be pleasantly surprised. It’s just that this we were surprised with something that was disappointing. Christians are supposed to hope for the best, aren’t they?
“Plus, you didn’t even mention the sex & nudity. Probably because you kinda liked that part, huh?”
Like I said, I don’t know you, but assuming you’re a Christian, I would offer the following: As a Christian, I would expect more charitable comments in these situations. Again, I would say I’m sadly disappointed. I would have hoped for something better. Maybe your comment should have been rated by the MPAA first so that I wouldn’t have read it?
Maybe you get my point by now?
Peace,
Eric
First off… I wish there was a way to force people to not be anonymous when the post here. Who are you JT?
JT,
I was not “shocked” that there was violence in an R-rated movie, that seems pretty naive. I was however, very disappointed by the story itself. I found the story to be a vehicle for a very real form of politics that I believe Jesus denounces.
Now that being said, I also praised it for it’s artistic beauty. As a Christian I seek out truth and beauty. The film had one in spades and was completely lacking in the other.
Maybe this is just me being a film nerd, but I for one can’t stand to find out too much about a movie before I go see it. Trailers are a pretty poor way to judge if a film will be good, and I think of Christian Movie review sites as some kind of self-imposed “big brother” that “pre-digests” art and spits out simplistic categories rather than encouraging us to engage art for ourselves or within a community. All that is to say that, I’m 25 years old, I think I can encounter and engage art in a mature and discerning way (after all I didn’t enjoy 300), and don’t need James Dobson to discern art for me and then tell me what’s been “family approved.”
I didn’t mention the “sex & nudity” because that didn’t have to do with the political message in 300 that I had a problem with.
Which brings me to another point… we Christians really need to understand that naked does not equal sin. Naked bodies are not evil in themselves. Pornography and objectification of bodies for voyeuristic pleasure is evil, but nudity is not evil. I’m about to get married myself and I’m looking forward to the joyful experience of beholding a naked body. I will enjoy my wife’s nudity.
I think we Christians need to be careful how we talk about nudity in film because in an attempt to denounce pornography (which we should) we very often go too far and denounce naked bodies. So we get people like John Ashcroft covering up the nipples on statues in Washington D.C. That is not a healthy (or Christian) view of the human body, it’s Gnosticism.
I think it goes both ways with sexuality and violence.
Violence can be documented and portrayed in such a way that is appropriate and in context to a story.
Sexuality and nudity can also be appropriate and leave you understanding the situation.
Both can be spun in a way that is pornographic.
But I’d much rather see the nudity over the graphic violence any day. At least no one is getting murdered in the process.
I still don’t understand why TV allows for so much graphic violence but nudity is still censored. (Though smut isn’t necessarily censored.)
I’m extremely sensitive to violence and there are movies that I simply cannot watch for fear of actually passing out. I can’t take it. (I can’t watch Passion of the Christ for this reason.. I am NOT a fan of Mel Gibson.)
I agree with Charlie.. It’s good to use your own adult discernment and not ignorantly shy away from every last questionable exposure.
Thanks Amy, good comments. Who are you by the way? Do I know you?
I’m one of those internet Shadow People.
J/K.. I’m a friend of Eric’s.. he invited me to come join in the conversation. 
Good times. Great blog btw.
I was looking for a review on 300 to determine if I want to see it or not and came across this blog. You lost me as soon as you started talking about Jesus.
If you don’t think Christians were interested in being killing machines you might want to study the crusades or something outside of your pastor telling you ‘homo’s are bad’
Yet another “anonymous” comment, how aggravating!
Hey Anonymous,
I think I have a pretty good understanding of the crusades. To say that the crusades happened is not the same thing as saying that Christians should kill. No one here is defending the crusades, we’re talking about how INCOMPATIBLE Christianity is with killing. Were you reading?
As for the “study something outside your pastor telling you ‘homo’s are bad.’” Seriously??? Where do you get off putting all Christians into that box? You don’t know me, you don’t know the church I go to and you obviously don’t know what I study. Try having more thoughtful conversation in the future.
Not that this is a “conversation” because after all, you’re anonymous.