I was too busy to see this one in the theater when it came out and it seemed so very far from Herodotus' account that it didn't seem worth it. That was a lost opportunity as my students did go see it and, as with its predecessor, they were ready talk about the Persians and the Greeks.
To begin, I've used clips from both 300 movies in class to generate discussion on Herodotus to great effect (the fact that the students thought our admin looked like Artemisia aside ... not sure how that works...). Even when Hollywood is grossly inaccurate, there is often useful material that can throw students back into the text with a keener eye for detail. Hollywood's preoccupations with gender performance, violence, and orientalism also ensure that concerns at the core of the Greek world picture are front and center. Both 300 movies keep the connection between invasion, masculinity, and rape (explicit in Herodotus' narrative) at the forefront of the drama.
The problem with 300: Rise of an Empire's handling of this quintessentially Herodotean nexus comes in the mechanics of its presentation. My wife, who is particularly sensitive to violence, could watch the entire end of the movie without a flinch. When I asked her how she felt, she told me that the violence was so stylized, so close to its comic book inspiration, that functioned more as a symbol or metaphor. Watching the entire movie on my own, however, I was struck by how unstylized the depiction of sexual violence was in the film. The world of theater has found infinite ways of powerfully portraying sexual violence in stylized fashion (see various stagings of Titus Andronicus and Sweeney Tod) so it's not as though it would have been difficult to do from a staging perspective. My worry, of course, is that the audience is meant to be titillated by it. In light of all the recent media sexual abuse scandals I can't see how that couldn't be a factor.
There is a story-telling layer, however, that contextualizes all the forms violence takes in the film, and it is one that is present in Herodotus via the figure of Artemisia, Queen of Halicarnassus. Herodotus' own queen fought ably for the Persians in the naval battle of Salamis. Herodotus frames this fact as a direct challenge to Persian masculinity, even going so far as to have Xerxes remark that his men have become women and his women have become men. 300: Rise of an Empire appropriates this trope and uses it to talk about how the violated respond to their violation. Artemisia, as she appears in the film, is a former refugee from Greek violence who chooses to wield violence as a violator in turn. She is at first seemingly placed in contrast to the Greek Hero Themistocles whom she attempts and fails to subordinate by both military and sexual violence. This exposes her horribly to the possibility of re-victimization. By the end of the film, however, it becomes clear that Artemisia's real opposite is the bereaved and violated (in the prior film) Queen Gorgo of Sparta. While renouncing both military and sexual violence throughout the film, Gorgo comes out of her victim mindset to embrace the power of military violence and revenge at the climactic battle of Salamis.
So what is the difference between these women and why is one a heroine and another a villainess? Is it just that "good girls" don't use their sexuality to gain power? Again, this is Hollywood, so that must at least be a factor. On a thematic level, both Queens' responses to victimization by subsequent empowerment through wielding violence are linked to the idea of Ordered Liberty. Greek Ordered Liberty in contrast to Oriental Despotism is the major theme (arguably) or Herodotus' Persian Wars, and is highlighted throughout 300: Rise of an Empire. Artemisia's response to violence in the movie is simply to become a violator herself. Through gaining power, she explicitly seeks "freedom with no consequences". Gorgo, on the other hand (men de construction anyone?), uses violence for the sake of defending her community and its unique way of life. It is power used to gain freedom from victimization, but not to become a victimizer in turn (I wonder what the Helots would say to that).
There is a tight thematic unity that holds 300: Rise of an Empire together and keeps it dialog with its distant source material, Herodotus' The Persian Wars. That unity is less powerful than in the film's predecessor, just as its link with its source material is also more distant than 300. The real problem with the film, as I see it, comes in the movie's handling of sexual violence. While the sexual violence in both films is portrayed in a way consistent with the deeply misogynist Greek world picture, the style in which it is presented in 300: Rise of an Empire clashes with the comic book aesthetic of the series and raises questions about the moral commitments of those in charge of the film's overall appearance and message.
To begin, I've used clips from both 300 movies in class to generate discussion on Herodotus to great effect (the fact that the students thought our admin looked like Artemisia aside ... not sure how that works...). Even when Hollywood is grossly inaccurate, there is often useful material that can throw students back into the text with a keener eye for detail. Hollywood's preoccupations with gender performance, violence, and orientalism also ensure that concerns at the core of the Greek world picture are front and center. Both 300 movies keep the connection between invasion, masculinity, and rape (explicit in Herodotus' narrative) at the forefront of the drama.
The problem with 300: Rise of an Empire's handling of this quintessentially Herodotean nexus comes in the mechanics of its presentation. My wife, who is particularly sensitive to violence, could watch the entire end of the movie without a flinch. When I asked her how she felt, she told me that the violence was so stylized, so close to its comic book inspiration, that functioned more as a symbol or metaphor. Watching the entire movie on my own, however, I was struck by how unstylized the depiction of sexual violence was in the film. The world of theater has found infinite ways of powerfully portraying sexual violence in stylized fashion (see various stagings of Titus Andronicus and Sweeney Tod) so it's not as though it would have been difficult to do from a staging perspective. My worry, of course, is that the audience is meant to be titillated by it. In light of all the recent media sexual abuse scandals I can't see how that couldn't be a factor.
There is a story-telling layer, however, that contextualizes all the forms violence takes in the film, and it is one that is present in Herodotus via the figure of Artemisia, Queen of Halicarnassus. Herodotus' own queen fought ably for the Persians in the naval battle of Salamis. Herodotus frames this fact as a direct challenge to Persian masculinity, even going so far as to have Xerxes remark that his men have become women and his women have become men. 300: Rise of an Empire appropriates this trope and uses it to talk about how the violated respond to their violation. Artemisia, as she appears in the film, is a former refugee from Greek violence who chooses to wield violence as a violator in turn. She is at first seemingly placed in contrast to the Greek Hero Themistocles whom she attempts and fails to subordinate by both military and sexual violence. This exposes her horribly to the possibility of re-victimization. By the end of the film, however, it becomes clear that Artemisia's real opposite is the bereaved and violated (in the prior film) Queen Gorgo of Sparta. While renouncing both military and sexual violence throughout the film, Gorgo comes out of her victim mindset to embrace the power of military violence and revenge at the climactic battle of Salamis.
So what is the difference between these women and why is one a heroine and another a villainess? Is it just that "good girls" don't use their sexuality to gain power? Again, this is Hollywood, so that must at least be a factor. On a thematic level, both Queens' responses to victimization by subsequent empowerment through wielding violence are linked to the idea of Ordered Liberty. Greek Ordered Liberty in contrast to Oriental Despotism is the major theme (arguably) or Herodotus' Persian Wars, and is highlighted throughout 300: Rise of an Empire. Artemisia's response to violence in the movie is simply to become a violator herself. Through gaining power, she explicitly seeks "freedom with no consequences". Gorgo, on the other hand (men de construction anyone?), uses violence for the sake of defending her community and its unique way of life. It is power used to gain freedom from victimization, but not to become a victimizer in turn (I wonder what the Helots would say to that).
There is a tight thematic unity that holds 300: Rise of an Empire together and keeps it dialog with its distant source material, Herodotus' The Persian Wars. That unity is less powerful than in the film's predecessor, just as its link with its source material is also more distant than 300. The real problem with the film, as I see it, comes in the movie's handling of sexual violence. While the sexual violence in both films is portrayed in a way consistent with the deeply misogynist Greek world picture, the style in which it is presented in 300: Rise of an Empire clashes with the comic book aesthetic of the series and raises questions about the moral commitments of those in charge of the film's overall appearance and message.
Comments