Skip to comments.Lessons Of 'The 300'
Posted on 03/26/2007 6:36:58 AM PDT by RDTF
A society that does not value its warriors will be destroyed by one that does.
A low-budget movie with no recognized stars that presents a cartoonish version of an event that happened long ago and far away is a surprising box office hit.
The movie is "The 300," about the battle in 480 B.C. at Thermopylae between Greeks and Persians. Its opening grossed more than $70 million, more than the next 10 highest grossing movies playing that weekend combined.
"The 300" has been denounced by the government of Iran, and the battle it describes was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his congressional testimony Wednesday as inspiration for Americans to fight global warming. That's a lot of buzz.
"The 300" has plenty of violence, sex and the largest number of ripped abdomens ever seen on the silver screen, which doubtless counts for much of its appeal. But there is more to it than that.
"The 300" is a simple story of good versus evil. A handful of valiant Spartan warriors, inspired by love of country and love of liberty, fight to the death against a foreign oppressor. (Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie.)
"300" is soaked with the masculine virtues of courage, honor, patriotism and self-sacrifice, and the camaraderie that exists among fighting men who have been through a shared ordeal. These are little valued in Hollywood or contemporary society, and there is a hunger for them. This, I think, is the key to the movie's appeal.
We need to rediscover these virtues. At once the most preposterous and the most dangerous of contemporary beliefs is "nothing was ever settled by violence."
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
It is the soldier, not the priest, who protects freedom of religion; the soldier, not the journalist, who protects freedom of speech. History teaches that a society that does not value its warriors will be destroyed by a society that does.
Lesson: If you're main tactic is the phalanx and it works well against a vastly superior army, don't break that tactic and go all Rambo on their arse, for you will lose.
That's it in a nushell, as well as we have always loved the heroic underdog fighting massive overwhelming force.
Jesus thinks otherwise.
A soldier can both protect and take your freedoms. Don't let a simplistic but enjoyable movie provide simplistic answers.
I hope people remember our founding fathers were distrustful of standing armies.
Imagine the tales told around camp fires before the written word. The Trojan War was just such an event. Homer's Illiad and Odyessey were written in the 3rd Century BC which was almost 700 years after the event. It would be another 2100 years before an amateur archeologists would follow the clues of these tales and find the real Troy.
It's wonderful that filmakers tell these tales but a 120 minute show doesn't come close to describing the real event!
I think it's that exact truth that accounts for the overwhelming success of this movie, which elevates a factual event to mythic proportion in its elevated presentation of the ideals of bravery, patriotism, and self-sacrifice. It also illustrates something very special about the United States, and the anti-war movement, who make every effort to portray themselves as the courageous ones who dare to make a stand.
Certainly, throughout history, those who vocally opposed the actions of their respective governments displayed a type of bravery, knowing that they risked death, imprisonment, the loss of livliehood or total exile. The problem the anti-war movement has is that in this country, they generally risk very little to absolutely nothing, and indeed, they obtain some of the qualities of a protected class. I think this accounts for a lot of their self-loathing and bitterness, knowing that better men then they are facing the fire on their behalf. It also results in their antipathy to our real warriors as they project their self-hate outwards.
IMHO, maybe 1-2% of the anti-war movement exhibit the true moral courage of standing by their beliefs on religous or philosophical grounds...The vast remainder are cowards who naturally gravitate to their fellow cowards and look for reasons to call themselves brave in their quest for acceptance.
"That's it in a nushell, as well as we have always loved the heroic underdog fighting massive overwhelming force."
Don't include me in that opinion! By your simplistic reasoning, we should be supporting the insurgents in Iraq.
We obviously don't, but that is precisely why some do
Don't let a simplistic notion of Christ confuse your grip on reality. Christ was a soldier too. He did not try to "understand" or "live with" evil. He opposed it. This is the fundamental flaw in the in the "pacifist" Christ manufactured by Modern Religion. It complete ignores the basic reality of good vrs evil and the need for good to actively OPPOSE evil, not coexist with it.
I view America forces as a well-trained professionals with superior military tactics and weapons (like the Spartans), but still so outnumbered by the Persian hoards (like the Spartans) that they remain the underdogs.
Not to mention the pretty-boy cowards whispering "redeploymnet" (surrender) in the back and the false religous "leaders" whispering compromise.
Every time I looked at the trianle/line "^" symbol on the Spartan shields I wonderd if there was an intentional or historical link to the stripes of modern enlisted men or even the recent ensignia on our Coalition troops/equipment.
It is neither moral or religious to act as the empowers of evil. The "anti war" movement is the active PR agent of mass murderers, rapists and torturers. It uses a fraudulent claim of moral principals while acting as the active agents of evil. The moral or principals claims by the "Anti war" movement are fraudulent. ALL religions preach that their adherents are suppose to actively oppose evil, not act as it's PR agent
"At once the most preposterous and the most dangerous of contemporary beliefs is "nothing was ever settled by violence."
My answer to that one is, "Oh, really? How many slaves do you own?"
IMHO, it is the ultimate vanity to assume God's role in determining what is, "moral or religious," but since you've apparently become the arbiter of such things, I would only say that many martyrs in the Christian tradition did not resist, struggle or protest against their executioners, but hardly empowered them. There are likewise, a small number of people who oppose the war, not because they have an aversion to violence or a love for moslems, but simply because the U.S. did not follow its own rules for going to war (i.e., Ron Paul, the Constitution Party). Again, these are the tiniest minority within the anti-war movement (and rarely, if ever have anything to do with the rest of the movement), but they are remaining intellectually and philosophically consistent, and can hardly be considered the enablers of evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.