Jump to content


Recommended Posts

Not sure if this was the correct place for this post, apologies if not.

I go to the cinema with my wife on very rare occasions, to watch historical films (as historical as a big budget production can get).

Today was one of those rare days, we went to watch 300, I had been eager to watch it for a long time.

It is a great film, more imaginative rather than fact based, but very inspiring none the less, definately a bir ras classic.

Unfortunately there was also a share of non-family scenes (unexpected) which is a shame, as if they were not there, parents could watch it with their children.

But the whole story and presentation is truely awesome, some points drawing comparison with the Khalsa, especially the Nihang side.

One scene showed the Queen sending the King Leonidis to battle saying "either return with your shield or on your shield" (something like that), implying comeback victorious or dead. This reminded me of when the 40 mukte had deserted Guru Ji.

Another great scene was where a spartan single handely kills an armoured (on top of its natural armour) gigantic rhino with his spear, similar to Bhai Bachchitter Singh Ji killing the drunken Elephant.

Disabled people not allowed in the fauj (similar to the disabled can't be panj pyare?)

Many of the fighting techniques and weapons used were fascinating, especially the use of the spear.

Another thing was the desire for meeting a worthy opponent and dying from the hands of a true/greater warrior... embracing, looking for and living for shaheedi..

The psychological games being played..

And of course 300 of Greeces finest fighting a million Persions, reminded of my greatest role model Baba Gurbakhs Singh Ji Shaheeds legendery kurbani.

One huge downside for me was the narrator, really annoying, sounded like a BBC childrens jackanory presenter! Be prepared!!

May be when some of our Nihang brothers have seen the film they can draw on more parallels. Maybe the fighting techniques and cultural aspects..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with you 300 is disrespectful in the extreme to the great persian civilization, making them look like evil monsters, i don't think it can be called a historical film. It has been banned in Iran, because it takes the piss out of the persians and maybe it has something to do with propoganda against Iran, you know the country Bush plans to destroy next. Dehumanising the enemy making them evil is the first step, and this society is subtle in the extreme with its propoganda tactics. Like after some massacre in the Vietnam war a soldier said "I didn't know they were human" Making the persians/iranians seem evil is the first step in desensitising people against future violence. Anyway read the quote below to see what persians contributed to the Earth. The Spartans as far as I know didn't accomplish any feats of philosophy/culture, but they did enslave a whole people and spent their time developing their military abilities, to the detriment of everything else needed to become a whole person.

Most people don't realize that the Persian Empire he made war upon was the most civilized in early history. They had developed universities, in order for young people from peasant families to be educated. They had an international postal service, so that letters could be sent all over the empire. They had a form of social security so that their people did not starve during famines. They wanted to share their knowledge, and so built a great library containing works of history, science, and religion.

They had interpreters there so that foreigners could learn the secrets they has so patiently gathered. The entire works of Zoroaster were kept there, inscribed with gold on sheepskin. Alexander, while drunk, thought it would be great fun to burn it all down. Which he and his generals did. They then destroyed the Persian Empire, plunging the Mediterranean world into a series of bloody wars that lasted for generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mekhane'ch Ji,

I agree with you. There was a hint of propoganda and the Persians were portrayed as the "baddies".

If you read my post, you'll see I did say "as historical as big budget productions can get", I understand big screen presentaions will always be biased and influenced by the producers political thoughts, as official history is any case (depending on who records it).

Also, you will see I did not make one comment regarding the Persians, I am aware of their contributions. But we should not glorify each generation of Persia for the contributions of a few. All empires have their highs and lows, depending on the ruler of the time. Saying that I have not looked at Xerxes rule, so cannot comment on his historical portrayal.

Also, an empire can be hugely modern, evolving, cultured, scientific and tyrannical at the same time, not saying Xerxes empire was, but just making a point. Tyranny does not always equal uneducated.

Saying that the killing of disabled babies at birth by the Spartans and the blood thirsty mindset of the soldiers, does not really do the wests propoganda agenda many favours...

To add to my earlier points, one of the area's where the Spartans differed (based on the film), was their attitude towards the injured, all were killed without mercy, which differs from the Bhai Khanaiyas and Guru Gobind Singh Ji's mindset, of treating all as brothers and letting a fallen soldier die with dignity....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first of all, the movie is based on a comic book, and it is completely true to the comic in its execution and tone, it's not a 'big budget blockbuster' etc.

Robert Rodriguez actually quit the Director's guild to keep Sin City true to the comic (it was written by the same person).

second, herodotus' book 'the histories' which is one of the earliest sources for the description of the actual battle has mythological imagery in its recounting the war, with mention of dog headed men etc - the film has a hint of mythology behind it, and is told from the spartan point of view so is obviously biased.

the only change from history that annoyed me was that in reality it was because of the oracle and the ephors that leonidas went to war, not in spite of them, also Leonidas was the ver respectful to his gods, and was in charge of all ceremonies to honour them before battle, contrary to waht Frank Miller may say.

The oracle told him that 'either a king must fall in battle with the persians, or all greece will fall'.

also, the persian messenger that told them that their arrows will blot out the sun was actually friends with a few of the spartans, not a rude bastard as in the movie.

if you want a balanced portrayal of both sides read 'Gates of Fire' - its quite awesome.

no matter what was good or bad about the persians, being that the story is told from a spartan point of view they're obviously not going to be too respectful about them considering the persians tried to enslave them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...