Clash of the Titans (2010)

[A Black Falcon]

I prefer realism to all this flowery poetic foo-foo artsy shit. GLADIATOR > 300 just because it looks immersively real--compared to 300 anyway.

Gladiator's not exactly realistic either, you know... you're right that it's more so than 300, but realistic? No way.

You mean just as ridiculous as the nude statues depicting war heroes?

HUH? DO YA?

Those were just statues, not how they actually dressed in combat. :)

What I didn't like about 300 was Xerxes being... whatever the fuck he was... with chains and jewelry and having that voice... and the general total abandoment of reality for stimulating imagery. The darkness I loathed... I don't enjoy watching two hours of dark, dreary scenery. Furthermore, in ancient Greece, all the Spartans have glistening, ripped, smooth, hairless chests? Really? And I've never been to Greece but I'm rather sure they don't have big, gaping bottomless pits laying around. And the wolf--belonged in a fairy tale cartoon, not in an adult movie I'm supposed to take seriously. The greatest tragedy is that this sort of dreary, comic book-like fantasy film has spread all over the industry. Clash seems to echo these nauseating sentiments.

Xerxes... propaganda pretty much, I think. I mean, his costume is utterly insane historically, with absolutely not even the slightest shred of connection to anything any Persian monarch would ever have worn. They wore clothes you know. :)

Essentially, the critics of the film sya that the idea was to present the villanous Eastern Middle Easterner Xerxes in a negative, effeminate light, and the Western Greek Spartans in a positive, masculine light, as a part of the flim's general "the West is better than the East" tone.

While it is true that at the time some Greeks did think of it as a West vs. East matter, and they talked in terms of resisting Eastern tyrrany, the movie is pretty heavy-handed about making its point, to say the least. I think that the Iranian government's protests about the movie are entirely accurate, the movie's portrayals of Persians is unfairly negative.

I mean, sure, Persia was autocratic and crueler than Greece, and today the Iranian government is one of the most evil in the world. No question. I just don't think that that justifies making things up and stereotyping in that way.

For further evidence that the author of the original comic books would have wanted to make such anti-Eastern propagandistic things and it wasn't just an accident or just done for the spirit of the film as opposed to making a modern-day political point, see this, said by Frank Miller, the guy who did the original comic book. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Mille...cal_stance

and

http://www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/612.php

Frank Miller is a conservative and supporter of the Iraq War. The movie's pro-Western, anti-Eastern propagandizing is not accidental. Conservatives probably don't mind that of course, they agree with such views... and as I said I certainly agree that many Middle Eastern countries have absolutely horrible governments, no question. But still, the negative stereotyping just isn't right, particularly on top of the warmongering machismo spirit of the film.

He's not wrong that their culture has some huge problems with its treatment of women, etc., but his solutions... no, I mostly disagree. (I do agree with the invasion of Afghanistan, but not Iraq...)


... Bah, I couldn't resist. I'm mentioning a bunch of the historical inaccuracies in the film. First, yes, I know that it's just a movie, and a fantasy movie too... but as it is supposedly based on real events, I think this stuff does matter. They don't need to be entirely historically accurate or anything, but some of the things they do in the movie are just so stupid, Xerxes above being one of the most notable.

The wolf -- It is true that Spartan boys had a very harsh training regime, which cumulated in, somewhere in their teens, having to fend for themselves, with only a scant robe to wear, for some time. They weren't sent to fight wolves though, but to survive. If they had to kill a helot during it, that's fine... but don't get caught, they'd be punished if caught (Teaches stealth!).

It's not true that "Spartans never retreat", though. They'd retreat just like anyone else when it seemed right to do it; actually, in fact, it's more like Thermopylae created the whole myth of "Spartans never retreat", not the other way around.

Other major inaccuracies include of course the monsters and the clothing (male Spartans, female Spartans, Persians... all wear costumes that are entirely fiction with only tiny shreds of connections at best to anything the actual people then wore). That's obvious, for Xerxes and the armor and stuff at least, of course.

Sparta actually had two kings at a time, not one. The movie never mentions this, but Sparta had two kings at all times. They had a complex multilayered political system designed to bog things down and keep change from happening, because Sparta was a very traditional culture highly resistant to change.

Gorgo (Leonidas' wife) says "only Spartan women can speak to men because only Spartan women give birth to real men" or something along those lines in the film to the Persian ambassador. The actual saying was supposedly said to some unknown Athenian woman, if it actually is real; many of those sayings are likely mythological, though they have a basis in reality, as Spartan women clearly did have many more rights than women almost anywhere else in Greece. Also the whole thing with her going before the Spartan council during the battle was invented; no such story exists in history. Gorgo was mentioned much more than most women by historians like Plutarch and Herodotus, and Herodotus does say that she did go to the council meetings sometimes and say her opinions, which were listened to, so that's clearly the origin of the story in the film -- Gorgo was an important leader, it seems clear. Still, the scene in the council with Theron (a character made up for the film) didn't happen.

As I said, Sparta was in fact the most religious state in Greece. They were deeply devout, Leonidas included. He had had a prophecy from one of the oracles some time earlier that said that in order for Sparta to be saved, one of its kings would have to die. One theory says that the reason he stayed at Thermopylae was to make the prophecy come true... but of course because he didn't survive, no one could exactly ask him. In any case, Leonidas was in no way opposed to the gods, prophecy, or anything like that, like they claim in the movie. That's just another element of that modern-day "the gods are awful" stuff you see in God of War, the new Clash of the Titans, etc, etc.

The later Roman historian Plutarch claimed that "According to Plutarch, before the Battle of Thermopylae, knowing that her husband's death in battle was inevitable, she asked him what to do. Leonidas replied "marry a good man who will treat you well, bear him children, and live a good life."". In the movie Leonidas says nothing of the sort when they part, quite the opposite in fact. Of course Plutarch was writing hundreds of years later; at the time I think the stronger evidence says that they weren't intentionally going to their deaths so the anecdote is probably wrong, but that is the myth at least and the movie certainly does not follow it.

And again, the Spartan religious leader people were not horrible old men like they showed in the movie, all in the pocket of the Persians (they weren't, in reality), and Leonidas did not leave without permission. In fact the decision to let him leave with 300 troops was the compromise between the fact that it was a Spartan holy festival that week that ordinarily would not have allowed any military action -- and the Spartans were very, very serious about holding their festivals at the appointed time. For instance, even during wars Spartan soldiers from villages holding certain special festivals would be sent home to participate.

Another big one of course is the whole "300" thing. There weren't just 300 people there. The Spartans had allies there, both from towns in the area and from around Greece, totalling in the thousands at first. Also, the "300" Spartans would have each had between 1 and 3 servants with them, who presumably stayed and were also killed. The movie has just a few allied Greek troops and no servants for the Spartan warriors, not the thousands that were actually there. This focus only on the Spartans began shortly after the battle, pretty much, but the other troops WERE actually there! The sevants of course have been 100% ignored essentially all the time, unfortunately, as such people always are. Most of the allied troops did leave, as the movie showed with its few allied troops, after the Persians found the path around the army. A Greek force had been left guarding that path (some troops are referenced in the movie I think), but the Persians went around them and the troops didn't really try (or weren't able) to stop them. The traitor was not a spurned misshapen Spartan, but a man from the area lured by Persian promises of gold. Of course, all he got long term was a Greek price on his head, which someone did eventually collect.

Anyway, after the Greek army learned of that, most of the allied troops left, but a few hundred others from two cities did stay. One other city's troops were wiped out along with the Spartans, but the other city's troops surrendered near the end.

Near the end, two wounded Spartans were told to leave. However, one turned back anyway and fought, while the other did leave. This is the one that the movie twists into being someone told to leave "to spread the story"; this is historically false. He did later participate in the great battle of Platea, as seen at the end of the film, but that was in part to try to redeem himself and reclaim his honor, because he had been so strongly criticized for not turning back as the other man did.

One other Spartan survived the battle, because he had been sent elsewhere earlier and did not get to the battle site before it was over. He was so criticized for it that he committed suicide.

The battle was also not a victory or a success for the Greeks in pretty much any way. Delaying the Persians for just a few days didn't change things that much. It was the naval battle of Salamis that won the war, some time later. After that Xerxes and most of the Persian troops left. It was some time after that that the battle of Platea was held, where the Greeks defeated the remnant Persian force.

As for Plataea, actually the Spartans did not charge. In fact, the Greek lines started the battle by retreating (the army had three parts, Spartan, Athenian, and other, I believe, and they didn't coordinate well as always, they weren't sure if the enemy was stronger, etc). Only when the Persian army decided to go after them did the Greeks solidify their lines and fight back. The Greeks did end up winning the battle, but no, they didn't start it with a charge. :)


Also, later on the Spartans did at certain times accept Persian money, for instance to fund opposition to Macedonian rule after Alexander's death. By that point of course Sparta was weak and their opposition was ineffectual, but it's worth mentioning anyway.