I saw 300 (2007) last night on the Imax, and I thought it was visually stunning. The stylized violence was incredible to watch, although it was basically Sin City (2005) with sandals.
Having read about Iran’s negative reaction to how “Persians” are portrayed in the film before-hand, while I munched my popcorn, I was watching for any ideologies closely. In the end, I think I have to agree with John Stewart, that Iran just needs to chill-out about this one. Sure, the Persians are portrayed as barbarian hords, but it’s just a movie. This isn’t exactly supposed to be historically accurate.
However, one thing I did notice over-and-over was the adherence to George Bush’s/Dick Cheney’s political ideology. Bush was cast as King Leonidas, the middle-east as the Persians (featuring President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Xerxes), and Ephor’s Temple as the United Nations. From there, the plot descends into an allegory for Iraq.
Here’s the plot of 300 (2007) in Bush-Iraq form:
- Leonidas/Bush (commanding a vast, warrior-culture) is threatened by Persians/Iraq/Iran terrorism
- He goes to the Ephors/United Nations and asks for permission to go to war (a war he doesn’t feel he started, despite his unwillingness to negotiate).
- The Ephors/U.N. are corrupt and tell him not to go to war.
- Leonidas/Bush decides to unilaterally go to war with a small force (“you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want”) to protect “freedom”/democracy against the barbarians/evil-doers
- The Spartans/U.S. battle with the Persians/Iraq/Iran and easy defeat wave-after-wave with their superior training/technology.
- The Persians/Iraq/Iran start fighting dishonourably with homemade bombs/I.E.D.s and use the knowledge of local hump-backs/insurgents to encircle the Spartans in the narrow pass/green-zone.
- The Spartans/U.S. are abandoned by their allies/U.K. when the fighting gets tough, but it is okay because they weren’t great warriors anyhow.
- The Spartans/U.S. asks for more troops from home but the politicians/Democrats are corrupt and refuse to send the whole army.
- The Spartans/U.S. forces take heavy losses.
- (Now, this is wishful thinking) The rest of Greece/G8 finally understands that the Spartans/U.S. were fighting for freedom, so they commit their full armies to the cause.
I’m not saying this movie was any less entertaining, but doesn’t it freak you out a little that a movie with that sort of plot had a $70M opening weekend? I wonder if recruitment in the U.S. military will go up when kids realize that there’s nothing more important than being a warrior, and you have to follow your King/President into battle to protect freedom 
I think I preferred Gladiator (2000)… 
UPDATE: Check out Chris’ entry on why 300 is not American propaganda. Let the record show that I simply said that ‘300′ can be interpreted in that way, not that it was in fact propaganda. Films are the work of hundreds of people, and purposefully integrating a message like that would be next to impossible to do without someone going to the press Consider my argument just a camp interpretation of the film. However, do ponder that even though it was not “propaganda” per se, the themes I’ve laid out are present in the film, and audiences are still eating them up.
You should realize that the “plot” of 300 was set out in a comic that was released 10 years ago and is based on accounts of a historical battle that happened a couple of thousand years ago. Any resemblance to current times is purely coincidental.
For sure, a Frank Miller comic (hence my ‘Sin City’ reference), but wasn’t it creepy how it synced up?