Zaman, Turkey
Lessons on
'Freedom' from Spartan Babykillers
"What's the thesis? That the
West began its fight for freedom and democracy all the way back in 480 B.C.,
whereas the East was - just like today - a slave that was enslaving."
By Nihal B. Karaca
March 23, 2007
Turkey
- Zaman - Original Article (English)
If it's crucial for a movie
to have blood splattered at angles that defy physics, exaggerate the arm and
abdomen muscles of its characters in shocking fashion, give Spartan King Leonidas 
a strange haircut and Persian King Xerxes a glamorous look thanks to piercings and a
bangle, then yes, 300 deserves a "bravo" for its visual
effects and graphics. But the craftsmanship of the letters can't conceal the
meaning of the words.
It should be left to
historians to discuss what kind of historical mistakes 300 contains. But
let's look how the basis of the movie's theme contradicts what the movie shows.
What's the synopsis? That the courage showed by 300 Spartan soldiers in the
battle against the Persian army at Thermopylae led to the unification of Greece.
And what's the thesis? That
the West began its fight for freedom and democracy all the way back in 480
B.C., whereas the East was - just like today - a slave that was enslaving. On a
path marked out by 300 Spartans, was laid the foundation of a free future,
saving the world from mysticism as well as tyranny. There's no exaggeration in
my words; in the movie there is actually an expression like "goddamn
mysticism"; but the "mystics" being referred to were the Spartan
mystics called the Ephor , whereas the
tyrants imposing tyranny are of course the Persians and accompanying Asians.
Spartan King Leonidas not only fights a war against the Persians, but
against religious rulings considered "holy" by the council of the Ephors, who are depicted as ugly creatures. It's as if
secularism is the only way to have fully-fledged freedom. Yet it's neither
likely that such a conception of "freedom" had been developed at that
age, nor that the characters in the movie could be absolutely unaware of the
meaning of the term.
Let's assume that we can
understand how and why Spartan boys received "agage,"
a kind of training beginning early in childhood, the most basic principle of
which is "no mercy, no fear." But this isn't the end of it. The movie
- which depicts the Persian king as an enslaving tyrant that reigns over an enslaved
community - is audacious enough to show us newborn babies - if found to be too
weak - thrown into a large hole in the ground filled with baby skeletons; and its
loutish enough to present this as something good that reinforces the myth of
"heroism."
No one should be offended,
but this reveals a great irony of Western civilization. Taking things one step
further - this movie takes an epic legend and turns it into an American version
of imbecility. Leaving aside for the moment that we are referring to individuals
who once lived in the womb of their mothers, after birth all human children are
thought to gain an absolute right to live. Is it not wrong to call people who kill
children because of their frailty freedom fighters? Don't such people deserve
to be called savages? Even in this case, can art and the artist remain so
completely disconnected? I think not: What we have here is only a deception,
using art for sleight of hand.
It's common knowledge that
the past is forever rewritten. The aim of this particular rewriting is to
beautify the past to affirm the political positions of the current winners and
argue that the defeated were ontologically wrong or imperfect.
Don't be fooled by the words
of 300's producers who say that this is the wrong way to see the movie.
Some people will do anything to twist the idea of a clash of civilizations,
thinking that they can get away with moral supremacy by explaining it away as a
"difference of perception." This doesn't work.
This isn't a movie like Tarkovsky's Mirror , which can be
interpreted from a thousand angles. I would like to remind you of a sentence
from the movie, as King Leonidas orders the messenger
of Kink Xerxes into the death pit: "Sebastio,
show our guest the way!" This is the agreed-on movie translation of
"slave." What's more, is it possible that those involved with making
this movie haven't seen Steven Spielberg's Amistad, produced by a man
who assumed the role as cultural ambassador to the neo-cons?
Those who sell freedom must
have forgotten how many of their movies we have seen.
n.bengisu@zaman.com.tr
