Guest Post: The Man From Singapore Reviews "300: Rise of an Empire"

Long ago, I posted some awesome short-short fiction written by a member of my alternate-history forum from Singapore who I met in person when I studied abroad in Britain in 2006. Well, he wrote an awesome review of 300: Rise of an Empireon Facebook today and he's given me permission to post it here.

So take it away Sanjay...

300: Rise of a Missed Opportunity (A Movie Review and a History Lesson)

I'm going to say this first- all in all, I liked 300: Rise of an Empire. Action scenes were actiony (though not as actiony as in 300), the non action bits were well done (unlike the boring meanwhile-in-Sparta subplot in 300) and Eva Green is awesome. Where did I think this film went wrong? In totally dumping the actual historical storyline, unlike 300.

"Now, wait just a cotton picking minute," a lot of you are going to say- "300 played fast and loose with history. It had weird orc-barbarian Persians, hoplites running around in leather underwear instead of massive bronze armour and a WAR RHINO." Metal as fuck, yes, but not exactly historical.

That's not what I mean when I talk about the historical storyline.

Lets look at the actual historical events leading up to Thermopylae:

Xerxes, King of Kings of Persia invades Greece, the Greek city states collectively go into conniptions. A number of them submit to the King of Kings. The two most notable among the holdouts are Athens and Sparta. Leonidas I of Sparta is elected to lead the Greek war effort. For various reasons, including the fact that it was the time of the Olympic Games (when Greek cities were technically not supposed to fight) and the Spartan festival of the Carneia the bulk of the Spartan forces could not be committed to direct action. They also consulted the Oracle at Delphi which prophesied that Sparta would either be destroyed or would sacrifice a king.

Modern scholars also indicate that there might also have been internal dissension in Sparta but that's besides the point. Leonidas leads a personal bodyguard of 300 Spartiates (a Spartiate was a Spartan male citizen who had passed the Spartan training programme) plus their attendants and auxiliary troops north, linking up with contingents from other Greek cities. He decides to make a stand at the Hot Gates. The allied Greek force holds off the Persians for four days before being outflanked. Leonidas orders most of the army to fall back and with the 300 Spartiates (plus their attendants and auxiliaries and a bunch of Thespians) makes a heroic last stand to buy time for the retreating army. Everyone dies gloriously.

Now 300 actually follows that story pretty much to a tee. It leaves out the fact that there weren't just 300 Spartiates holding the Hot Gates on the last day but frankly so do most sources. The 300 Spartans make for a much better story if they're holding back the might of the King of Kings all by themselves. And as for the portrayal of the Persians as snarling Orc-men with strange magic and elephants and a rhino (!) that the brave Spartans kick the collective asses of? Look at the framing narrative. We're being told this story on the eve of Plataea by Dilios (the one eyed guy who Leonidas ordered to tell their sotry). Leonidas specifically chooses Dilios because he has the gift of the gab. Dilios is essentially telling a massive tall story, stretching the details of what happened as a morale booster. He's also left out the consulting of the Oracle at Delphi but we can see from how he describes the Ephors that he doesn't much like religious figures- he probably couldn't be bothered to talk about a non-Spartan oracle. The flow of events pretty much conforms to the historical narrative- it's the details that are fudged and they're done so because Dilios wants to tell an awesome story. He's an unreliable narrator and we're subject to his prejudices.

What about 300: Rise of an Empire?

Note, first of all- no framing narrative from Dilios. Gorgo provides the framing narrative and she's a helluva lot more blunt. But as a side effect, we see the Persians as they actually are - normal human beings not strange grotesque monsters. Also, note we lose a lot of the stylised effects of 300 which makes sense since Gorgo isn't embellishing as much as Dilios would.

But let's look at the actual historical narrative leading up to Salamis.

While Leonidas is leading the Greek land forces to Thermopylae, Themistocles is in charge of the naval side of things. The allied Greek fleet is said to have consisted of 3-400 ships, over half of which were Athenian. Why did Athens have so many ships? In the decade after the Battle of Marathon (where the first Persian invasion of Greece under Darius, King of Kings had been defeated) a new seam of silver had been struck by Athenian miners. It was initially proposed that the silver be distributed equally among the citizens but Themistocles debated the matter and managed to secure the citizens vote to instead use it to finance the construction of over 100 warships. They initially voted to build a smaller number but when news arrived that Xerxes, King of Kings was planning a new invasion of Greece the Athenians consulted the Oracle at Delphi.

The Oracle said that: "Now your statues are standing and pouring sweat. They shiver with dread. The black blood drips from the highest rooftops. They have seen the necessity of evil. Get out, get out of my sanctum and drown your spirits in woe...a wall of wood alone shall be uncaptured, a boon to you and your children...Await not in quiet the coming of the horses, the marching feet, the armed host upon the land. Slip away. Turn your back. You will meet in battle anyway. O holy Salamis, you will be the death of many a woman's son between the seedtime and the harvest of the grain."

Themistocles successfully argued that "wooden walls" referred to ships, so even more ships were built. Thus, he led by far the largest naval contingent at Greece to Artemisium. Artemisium happened in parallel to Thermopylae and was an inconclusive stalemate (not the crushing defeat it's portrayed as in the film). Once news arrived that Leonidas was dead, the Hot Gates had been breached and the Allied army was falling back there was no point in carrying on the fight at Artemisium. Themistocles and his navy fell back towards Athens.

There was nothing between the army of the King of Kings and Athens so it was at this point that the Athenians put their cunning plan into action. They evacuated the city on Themistocles ships and were landed on the island of Salamis. Athens was burned but whereas the film portrays this as an unfortunate defeat it was in reality a hard strategic decision. The Persian navy, much larger than the Greeks, stormed into the straits of Salamis and were defeated in detail by the Greek ships. Queen Artemisia (who was a real historical character, in command of one naval contingent, not the entire Persian navy) did not die at Salamis but had the good tactical sense to fight clear of the battle and withdraw most of her force intact where other Persian naval commanders failed.

With his navy bloodied, Xerxes didn't have the logistical train to supply such a large force. He and much of his army went back to Asia Minor and the force he left behind was defeated the next year at Plataea.

OK. History lesson over. What's the narrative lesson? 300: Rise of an Empire twisted history, unlike 300, and ended up with a much weaker story.

Think about it- they had the opportunity to draw clear parallels and contrasts between Athens and Sparta. The Spartans seek a "beautiful death", they deride the other cities for fielding armies of "potters, sculptors, farmers" and Themistocles deliberately references this early on in the film. However, nothing ever comes of it. Artemisium sees the Athenian fleet overwhelmed by brute force, fleeing to Salamis while Athens is sacked, not as part of a cunning strategic plan but simply because. There's no evacuation, no sense of a brilliant strategic plan and Themistocles final plan is to charge the entire Persian fleet with five ships before the "Spartan navy" (historically, about 16 ships to Athens 180) comes charging in to save the day (again at the head of a bunch of other Greeks who are briefly glimpsed).

It throws away everything that could have been done with the Athenians. Think about the parallels- the Spartans in 300 go to see the Ephors and find themselves bound by corrupt pronouncements. The Athenians consult the Oracle of Delphi and cleverly Themistocles managed to turn the message of doom into the basis for a positive strategy. We don't get to see that in the film.

Artemisium had a bit of the cat and mouse games we should have seen more of (Themistocles luring the Persians into the fog etc) but that was the only part of the film where that wiliness, that cleverness we should expect from a romanticised portrayal of the Athenians really showed through. In the end the story we got really did show that the Athenians were amateurs- plucky, but amateurs, who needed the REAL BADASS SPARTANS to come and save the day for them.

When I watched the original 300 in a theatre here in Singapore, during the scene where the Arcadians reply- to Spartan derision- that they are "potters...sculptors...farmers". Someone in the theatre quipped "Reservists" and everyone around him laughed because that's something every Singaporean man can identify with.

This was the movie where we could have seen the reservists kick ass using cunning and wit and stubbornness. The historical narrative was perfect for it.

But instead we got a decent action flick with a mediocre plot. Go see it- I liked it but it could have been so much better. 300: Rise of a Missed  Opportunity.

How I Would Have Handled Artemisia in "300: Rise of an Empire" (SPOILERS)

If you've read my review of 300: Rise of an Empire, you'll see that one of my biggest areas of disappointment was the characterization of Eva Green's Artemisia, based on the historical female Persian admiral Artemisia I of Caria. She had the potential to be an awesome character, but the way they handled her not only weakened Xerxes (the primary villain of the first film) and made her too overblown, but also clashed a whole lot with the historical figure she's based on.

Obviously the "300" films are historical fantasy and thus expecting accuracy would be kind of ridiculous. However, in the first film the historical characters, though depicted fantastically, are still the same people. Though he goes into battle in a cape and leather Speedo rather than actual armor, Leonidas is still a king of Sparta raised in the Spartan traditions. And though Xerxes looks ridiculous, he's still the Persian king. And in "Rise of an Empire," Themistocles is still himself.

"300: Rise of an Empire" depicts Artemisia as bearing a deep grudge against Greece due to having her family murdered and herself spending years being raped by Greek sailors as a sex slave aboard a ship. Once the men have gotten bored with her, she's left bloodied and dying on the street, only to be adopted by the disrespectful Persian ambassador (last seen being kicked into a well by King Leonidas in the first film), who trained her to be a warrior.

The historical Artemisia was part of the royal family of a Persian vassal state in Asia Minor. The Persian Wars began with Greece invading Persian territory in support of rebellious Greeks and before they were forced back, the soldiers of Athens and Sparta did thoroughly trash one city. Have Artemisia's family killed in the city's defense and have her carried off as "war booty" (in both senses of the term) by the victorious Greeks, with the Persian ambassador from the first movie negotiating her return after the Greeks' victory at Marathon and serving as regent for her until she comes of age. Horrified by her mistreatment, the ambassador has her trained as a warrior for the remainder of her childhood (like in the film) to ensure she'll always be able to protect herself. She'll recover, marry, and have a son, only for her husband to die, possibly as a result of further shenanigans by the Greeks. When Xerxes invades Greece to avenge his father, Artemisia attaches herself to that and becomes a powerful adviser and commander. Her reduced role in Xerxes' decision to go to war not only makes for a more powerful and realistic Xerxes (who comes off in the film as kind of her puppet) but ties her in more firmly with her historical counterpart in the same vein as Leonidas and Themistocles. This revised back-story makes things a lot more "gray"--the Persians have defensible reasons for war with Greece rather than being a bunch of conquest-minded monsters.

Like real history (and in the actual film), Artemisia commands at Artemisium and Salamis. I'd depict her as being more competent than the film does--in the initial battles the Greeks inflict fairly one-sided spankings on the Persians, in at least one case due to the Persians being both arrogant and inept. The film could have the Themistocles/Artemisia quasi-romantic subplot, albeit not as poorly executed as in the film.

(Although their "hatesex" scene got a lot of praise in some of the reviews I've read, I thought it got ridiculous really fast. If Themistocles is a typically-sexist Athenian who gets roughly handled by Artemisia and is intrigued when she offers to parley, that would further emphasize one of the film's strong points--the humanization of the previously-monstrous Persians--and make Artemisia a "strong female character" in a less over-the-top way.)

However, Artemisia wouldn't be as stupidly arrogant and disrespectful of Xerxes as in the film and would survive to play the role she did historically--she advised Xerxes to pull out of Greece proper and leave the fighting to his general Mardonius, which would tie in with the Battle of Plataea seen at the end of "300." By all means keep her depiction as a leather clad angel ninja of death with stylized skeletal armor, but also depict her cleverness in escaping the disaster at Salamis rather than having her getting her entire command obliterated.

I can imagine I'm going to get criticism for depicting Artemisia as overly tied in with male characters (her late husband, the son for whom she was regent, Xerxes) rather than being as independent as in the film, but there are some good dramatic reasons for this on top of preserving at least some historical accuracy.

*Depicting her leaving her young son to go to war would have the same kind of pathos seeing men doing this that most war films have. Furthermore, given how a substantial percentage of American soldiers serving abroad in the War on Terror are female and have left children behind, this would echo that. It could also show Artemisia in a similar light to Leonidas' mother (seen early in "300" weeping as the child Leonidas is taken from her to be raised in the barracks).

*As I've said before, it gives Xerxes more agency while still leaving her a respectable amount.

*Depicting her having a normal life after being raped and only going to war due to political duty or vengeance for a more immediate wrong unrelated to the rape would drastically counter the "ruined forever" depiction of rape victims common in media. That has its own historical problems given how fixated many ancient (and not so ancient) cultures were on women being virgins before marriage, but it could be explained away that to due to her high social rank (her consort would co-rule a major city), her intelligence, or the sheer uniqueness of her being a female warrior, many men might overlook that.

*Artemisia would survive and retain a position of honor in the Persian Empire, which would further humanize the Persians--they're not cliches whose management style can be summed up in the TVTrope You Have Failed Me. Plus if they make a third movie, she can be present for that. :)

Movie Review: "300: Rise of an Empire" (2014)

Just got back from seeing the movie "300: Rise of an Empire." Here are my thoughts...

The Plot: Much like the original "300" was a fantasy version of the Battle of Thermopylae, this is a fantasy version of the Battle of Artimesium and the Battle of Salamis. The film also depicts the origin of the god-king Xerxes.

The Good

The original film suffered from something of a split personality--the fight scenes themselves were entertaining, but the stuff going on at home in Sparta was rather dull. "Rise of an Empire" was more even--although its best was never as good as the best of "300," its worst was never as bad as the worst of "300." It's never a boring film.

The film also provides more back-story for the original. In one of the more fun parts of the film, we see the Battle of Marathon and King Darius, Xerxes' father, as well as just what drives Xerxes to make war on Greece. Pursuant to that, I liked how the film humanized the Persians. The disrespectful Persian ambassador who Leonidas kicked down the well in the first movie also took pity on the young Artemisia, who was abandoned on the street near death after spending years as the pre-teen sex slave of some rather disgusting Greek sailors after her family was murdered. He trained her as a warrior and she rose high in Darius' esteem. But her grudge against Greece burned for years (given the horrors she'd experienced, that's not really a surprise) and this drives her actions throughout the plot.

(More on this later, as that was one of the film's weaknesses.)

Rather than being depicted as masked (so killing them isn't as upsetting) mooks, we also see Persian characters who have faces, names, and some bits of personality. Although those could have been developed a bit more, the fact they even put in the effort in the first place is a good thing.

And like the original, the battle scenes are fun to watch. Although some people have mocked the depiction of a horse and rider deployed in a sea battle, when that actually happens it's well-done and actually makes sense tactically.

The Bad

Obviously this is a historical fantasy so expecting Eva Green's Artemisia to hew too closely to reality would be a bit much, but the movie takes her way too far. They depict her as being the architect of Xerxes becoming a godlike being (minor spoiler--he doesn't start out looking like a bejeweled escapee from a bondage club), killing everybody who might advise the empowered Xerxes against a war of revenge against Greece, and basically being the mastermind of the entire situation.

Artemisia has gotten a lot of praise even from reviewers who otherwise didn't like the film, but this was overkill. I've written another blog on how Artemisia could have been handled better--you can have a powerful female character without making her that overblown. In real history she had a great deal of influence over Xerxes, but the filmmakers took that way too far. Making Artemisia that powerful made Xerxes seem weak--although an interview with one of the people involved in the film said Xerxes at his core is weak and insecure, there's having a tragic flaw and then there's just being hapless.

Also, Artemisia is supposed to be this terrifying warrior and commander but for the first part of the film she's distinctly underwhelming as an admiral. Historically Artemisia was one of the most impressive commanders at Salamis, to the point Xerxes remarked that his male commanders (who lost) were women, but his women were men. She actually comes off as rather incompetent at first.

Another area where the characterization wasn't strong was Queen Gorgo, Leonidas' widow. In the first movie, while Leonidas held the line at Thermopylae she tried to rouse Sparta's government to send reinforcements, even submitting sexually to the slimy, ambitious, and rather cruel Theron. When Theron shamed her and she killed him, revealing he was in the pay of the Persians, the Spartan assembly immediately demanded war. Yet in this film, she's depicted as being so broken up over the death of Leonidas that she refuses to support Themistocles' all-Greek war effort. Regardless of whether she would be able to even stop Spartan involvement after that, I really, really doubt the fierce woman depicted in the first film would even want to. And then she calls out Themistocles for supposedly wanting to put a sword in her son's hand--never mind that in the first film the sons of Sparta's ruling class were taken from their parents and basically raised in barracks and this is why they're such awesome warriors.

Finally, in terms of cinematography the film is dark. Not in terms of content or atmosphere, but it's just dark and hard to see things. The soundtrack is also overpoweringly loud in a few places.

The Verdict

Great concept, but it didn't live up to its full potential. It's a good movie to see--at the dollar theater. 5.5 out of 10.