300: Fascist Eye-Candy

As widely expected from the trailers and such, 300 is a bad-ass amazingly visual movie. No one will be disappointed who wants some well shot, visually stunning action scenes, blood splattering and dismemberment set to cool background music.

However bad-ass the movie is, the ideals presented in the film cause me to think and move me to the keyboard to craft a blog entry on the subject. As mentioned in Slate and elsewhere, there is an unsettling rather fascist strain of thought going through the movie:

If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war.

I was particularly distressed by the conflation of physical beauty with moral goodness. All the “bad guys” were overweight or handicapped or black/brown. The good guys were all perfectly chiseled white men. Of course it is Greece vs. Persia, so obviously the skin tones have to reflect that, so I’m not gonna go nuts calling the movie racist as some other reviews have, that is just the material they are working with. The handicap issue though is what sticks out in my mind.

It really seemed to reflect Nazi ideals of eugenics and racial purity and such. The Spartans were the epitome of Nazi & Nietzschean “uber-men”. Perfect physical specimens, perfectly willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of the people regardless of wisdom or consequence. Put them in brown shirts and Adolf would cream his shorts.

An example of this:

Another of the Spartans’ less-than-glorious customs is the practice of eugenics, hurling any less-than-perfect infant off a cliff onto a huge pile of baby skeletons. Unfortunately for the 300 at Thermopylae, this system of racial cleansing isn’t foolproof: One deformed hunchback, Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), manages to make it to adulthood and begs Leonidas for a chance to serve Sparta in the 300. Sure enough, when he’s turned down, the hunchback confirms his moral weakness by accepting Xerxes’ offer to join ranks with the Persians.

It was a rather sad story in the movie. This disfigured man comes up to Leonidas and tells him he wants to honor his father and honor his city. He said he had been trained his whole life by his father for just such a moment. He demonstrated all the ideals of the Spartans, but he was rejected because he wasn’t the ideal physical specimen of the other Spartans. He then switches camps and is welcomed by the Persians who don’t judge him because of his deformity. Xerxes offers him kindness which is made to be a sinister offer.

The whole thing is one big nationalist, macho, fascist orgasm on film. 300 glorified war more than any movie I can recall seeing.

Of course all of the elements making me uneasy, the blind nationalism, eugenics, fascist appeals to honor, glory and the like weren’t just made up for the movie or the comic. They were amplified by the movie, but they were true to Sparta. So to be uneasy with the movie is to be uneasy with classical morality. Which I decidedly am. Nietzsche glorified the moral code of Sparta, the “master morality” as he puts it. Cherishing the strong and powerful. He contrasted it directly with Christian morality, “slave morality”, that maintained all people were equal. Of course Hitler took this ball and ran with it before ending up in a “ditch covered in petrol” as Eddie Izzard is fond of saying.

Of course many movies nowadays seem to have this ideal. The typical action packed guy movie with lots of explosions is usually a shade of this ideal of strength and power. None are as blatant as 300 however. No philosophy do I disagree with more than Nietzsche’s and his so-called master morality that he based on that of the Greeks & Romans. So the unhinged promotion of it in 300 is certainly a cause for unease.

Still looks bad-ass though.

4 Responses to “300: Fascist Eye-Candy”

  1. KPalicz Says:

    Before you begin criticising Nietzsche’s philosophy I recommend you study it. You obviously are not aware of the rationale behind slave & master morality; you simply take the conclusions and find they do not accord with your own.

    Indeed 300 could be considered Nietzschean. But this should be celebrated as an indication that our culture is growing. Disability should be frowned upon, not celebrated.

  2. KPalicz Says:

    I understand Nietzsche.

    Disability should not be frowned upon. We should have compassion and love for all people, not cast aside the sick and disabled. All people are equal - even the ones that look kinda weird. To embrace a view in line with Nietzsche or the ancient Greeks would represent a backslide of our culture toward barbarism.

    -Alex

  3. KPalicz Says:

    Dear Alex, You do realise that your values have metaphysical (not physical) foundations. You may have read Nietzsche, you didn’t understand Nietzsche from what you say.

    People are not equal. Only under the eyes of ‘God’ are they equal. Therefore no God = no equality (the actual meaning of “God is dead”) The utilitarians et al had a slave postulate (as Herbert Spencer pointed out to John Stuart Mill).

    But anyway, reason does not change people’s minds, their own psychology does (humans believe what they need to believe) – so with a sentimental, weak mind reason will be ignored.

    I hope you’re a Christian. If not you are even more hypocritical than they.

    Answer me this simple question: If you do not believe in God, why are all people equal?

    Sincerely,

    Henri

  4. KPalicz Says:

    All people have rational, independent thought and control over their own bodies. Humans are sentient. The classic, “I think therefore I am”.

    Assuming there is no objective divine reality (i.e. God), then the only reality is one we create with our reason or perceive with the aid of our reason. All people possess reason and thus are equal.

    I don’t understand your distinction between metaphysical and physical foundations for values. By definition values are metaphysical. Concepts such as “equality” or “superiority” are value judgments humans create. I assume your argument is that human inequality is based on objective, physical criteria and thus more tangible and true than a metaphysical invention of human equality.

    So yes, there are plenty of people who are stronger than me, or smarter than me (or weaker and dumber). In those fields we are not equal. Those are purely physical categories, but they say nothing about whether people are better, worse, or equal. Master morality values strength and power, but we are still making a metaphysical value judgment by rating those who are strong & powerful as better than those who don’t excel in that category.

    But I am just making many assumptions now. Why aren’t people equal?

    For the record I do believe in God and I am a Christian. I’m comfortable arguing from either a Christian or a secular perspective.

    -Alex

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.