300(2007) is a re-enactment of the battle of Thermopylae and took place at a time of mounting Persian and Greek hostilities. In order to conquer Southern Greece, Xerxes would have had to lead his forces beyond the pass of Thermopylae, which narrowness meant it was the ideal location for a Greek fortification. With estimates of a mere 300 men, the Greek force at the battle dwarfed that of the Persians by several times, and lessened further when Leonidas dismissed the majority of the Greeks after knowing a secret mountain path had been revealed to the Persians. For this reason, the battle and particularly its last stand is a testament to the Spartan’s resilience and fortitude. Despite knowing their downfall was eminent, Leonidas and his men stood their ground and faced what must have felt like the entire world coming down upon them. It demonstrates the power of the human spirit, and the Spartans who fought have rightfully been remembered through history as men willing to sacrifice themselves for a greater purpose. The historical setting of the battle of Thermopylae hence, has a clear narrative of the underdog against an overwhelming opponent making it a perfect historical setting for a film. Weaving a tale of principles and morality triumphing over material wealth and brute force, the movie draws from its source material through details and imagery, albeit at a cost of realism. This review examines its use of poetic license as a means of crafting a compelling story, to show how straying from the source material could matter in the adaptation of historical subjects.   

Arguably the most telling of the film’s message is the use of outfits and clothing. Clad similarly in nothing but red capes and speedos, the titular 300 are pictured to be a united fighting force who are equal in status to one another. Their lack of armour sends a dual message of showing confidence in their skills, and a lack of vanity. On the other hand, clothing is used as a means of showing hierarchy and wealth (or lack thereof) within the Persian ranks. The foot soldiers sport light armour and obscure their faces with a veil, while the Persian officers dress more ostentatiously. Xerxes himself is adorned with jewellery, with rings even attached to his cheek, nose and eyebrows; by far the most intricately designed character within the movie. The historical inaccuracies can be excused, as this depiction of the Spartans and Persians enunciates their crucial traits without diverging too far from the truth. Although the misapprehension of the Spartan militia as a perfectly organised fighting force is anachronistic, there are some truths behind their depiction within the film. The Spartans indeed viewed themselves as similar, going so far as describing their warrior class as  “Homoioi”,meaning alike. The Persian Empire, whose vast expanse stretched from Egypt to the Indus Valley, was also wealthy beyond measure. In this regard, the film neither accurately represents nor falsifies the battle it is depicting. It traces a line in between, and uses hyperbole as a means of creating an amplified version of reality, intensifying the conflict so as to draw greater meaning from it.

Throughout the film, the Spartans are repeatedly emphasised to be free men. This is contrasted with the Persians, whose use of slaves to carry large podiums supporting their rulers symbolising the crushing oppression within their society. Xerxes even makes the line “Imagine what horrible fate awaits my enemies, when I would gladly kill any of my own men for victory.” in which Leonidas replies “And I would die for any one of mine.”. In reality, the distinction between oppressor and oppressed is much less clear, and the real Spartans had engaged in practices similar to that of the fictional Persians within the film. For one, Spartan society depended heavily on the resources provided by a population of helots, state-owned slaves, whom they treated with little respect and great cruelty. Not to mention, the 300 Spartans were also joined by 900 helots who too gave up their lives to slow the Persian invasion. Simply put, this is not a case of filmmakers removing details irrelevant to the plot but one in which they are actively obscuring questionable aspects of Spartan society, so as to paint them in a better light. Some might argue that the entertainment value of the movie precedes its realism, but such egregious attempts at disinformation are an affront to centuries of historical findings aimed at informing and educating society. From a purely filmmaking standpoint, the storywriters also missed an opportunity to provide some nuance to the 300 and give them some depth beyond one dimensional “good-guys”.

One of the more questionable elements of this film is its portrayal of Persian society, and eastern civilisation by extension. Within the film, as Xerxes’ forces began to falter, they resort to using enormous, almost otherworldly creatures as a means of breaking the Spartan formation. A particular scene also depicts Ephialtes being coerced to give up the secret pass to Xerxes by a group of scantily clad women. These scenes paint the picture of Persian society being morally corrupt, overrun by the sadistic and wicked, reinforcing a negative stereotype the ancient Greeks had towards it. With their customs and practices so distinct, the Persians were seen as the Eastern “other” and no better than barbarians. This view naturally worsened due to repeated conflicts between the two powers, which resulted in countless Greek literature painting the Persians in a negative light. Because what we can ascertain from Persian society is derived from Greek sources, modern historians tend to take these sentiments with a grain of salt; the film merely double down and confirms them. Misrepresenting Persian society aside, the film perpetuates patronising attitudes of Orientalism to a global audience. Though unintentionally, it adds to archaic western beliefs of eastern civilisations being less rational and inferior. 

It is abundantly clear to any viewers of the film, that historical accuracy was not of major importance to any of those involved with its making. 300 was made by and large as a means of low-brow entertainment; a roughy 2 hours of brutal action scenes with little intellectual discourse. To use this as a deflection against criticism regarding the movie’s historical accuracy however, is being ignorant of the effects of deviating from the truth. With its primary purpose to sell tickets, some exaggeration within the film is to be expected, and even praised; deceiving audiences or perpetuating negative stereotypes is a whole different story altogether. Films have demonstrated to have an immense impact on culture and sentiment, and filmmakers are responsible in ensuring the works they produce are not a detriment to society.