My initial reaction to the movie was that I want to read â€˜Persian Fireâ€˜ again. I was surprised at the level of historical accuracy, given that this is Hollywood.
Am I slow or is it simply that Iâ€™m not wired up that way? It was an hour and a half into watching before I wondered if there was meant to be an homo-erotic element to the film? Slow? Or a case of â€œto the pure all things are pureâ€? Surely, never has there been such a gathering of â€˜iron pumpersâ€™ and oiled at that! For portraying the 300 Spartans, how did they get so many people with such similar physiques? Was the cast really made up of a load of â€˜gym hauntersâ€™ or were they digitally altered? Or perhaps they were the real actors heads on other peopleâ€™s bodies. I thought the Spartans fought naked, unsurprisingly they were not portrayed like that in the film, they all very tastefully sported leather â€˜Y frontsâ€™.
While the historical accounts tell us of an amazing military feat by so few, I was wondering, before I saw â€˜300â€², how they would manage to make a story out it. The use of the romantic link between Leonidas and his wife, between the battlefield and the home, was a clever one. Though in such a strange brutalising society I am not convinced such romanticism existed. After all, this was a society where boys were taken away from their parents and entrusted to â€˜boy-herdersâ€™ to be turned into warriors, and where girls were similarly treated that they might produce more warriors. A whole society dedicated to breeding fighters, where love was scorned.