Separating fact from fiction in '300'
Monday, 26. March 2007, 13:20:52
From The Washington Times: 'Crowds flock to see the film "300" about the ancient Spartans' last stand at the pass at Thermopylae against an invading Persian army. Yet many critics panning the film have alleged it is essentially historically inaccurate. Are they right? Here are some answers. But first two qualifiers. I wrote an introduction to a book about the making of "300" after being shown a rough cut of the movie in October. Also remember that "300" does not claim to follow exactly ancient accounts of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. It is an impressionistic take on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, intended to entertain and shock first, and instruct second. Indeed, at the real battle, there weren't rhinoceroses or elephants in the Persian army. Their king, Xerxes, was bearded and sat on a throne high above the battle; he wasn't, as in the movie, bald and sexually ambiguous, and he didn't prance around the killing field. And neither the traitor Ephialtes nor the Spartan overseers, the Ephors, were grotesquely deformed.' More / More than 300 views / 'It's all geek to me' / This is madness
