300: A Tale of Smrt Pagans
A Pop Fiction Analysis.
Author’s Note: Good news, Germanicus Publishing had just hit 300 subscribers last week. In celebration, I decided to write about 300, the movie. This is also my attempt to revitalize my Fiction Analysis series which had been on the back burner for a while. I hope to mix things up with this.
Also, Substack says this post is “too long for email”. Readers are recommended to read this post directly on the website.
UPDATE (July 4, 2024): I added a bit of clarification for this article regarding Snyder and his views on religion.
Anyone who grew up in the 2000s (like yours truly) will no doubt know about 300, the movie about the Battle of Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans who fought against all odds and the overwhelming Persian Army. It’s the kind of movie you cannot forget once you’ve seen it.
There is a unique aesthetic to the film, at least at the time. Not surprising given that it’s an adaptation of a graphic novel1 series by the legendary comic book artist Frank Miller. Meanwhile, the director Zack Snyder was a comic book enthusiast in his youth; his filmography full of comic-book inspired movies is proof of this.
Even if you haven’t seen 300, you’re probably aware of its most famous scene:
And the memes it spawned:
But I’m not here to talk about old memes.
Speaking of old, I was definitely not old enough for this R-rated movie when it came out for the first time. But I was certainly old enough to be aware of the “controversy”2 surrounding its historicity. Honestly, I didn’t really care. 300 was a fun movie and I loved it wholeheartedly.
Now? I do care. Don’t get me wrong, I have no interest in nitpicking every single historical inaccuracy in the film. Firstly, I don’t want to be that guy who keeps saying “ACKSHUALLY”. More importantly, I’m more than willing to let the moviemakers take some artistic license. 300 is a fantasy movie, let’s be clear on that.
I am instead more concerned with the implication of what Snyder put on screen. And I’m not talking about the predictable accusations of “Iranophobia” or whatever. Instead, I want to focus on an aspect of the film that people don’t focus on.
A Propaganda Film
Much as it pains me to say, there’s no denying it: 300 is a propaganda film. It came out in 2007, at the height of America’s Global War on Terror. That was a time in which people who took their religion seriously were seen as a threat to the neoliberal world order.
It’s not a coincidence that the villain of the movie, Xerxes, were presented as a “god-king”, desiring for people to bend their knees to him and worship. The Persian King made for a good foil to our hero Leonidas, the man who were defiant to the very end in the name of freedom.
300’s theme of religion-bashing did not start with the Persians. We first saw it with the Ephors. In the movie, they were presented as a group of deformed and superstitious priests. The narrator, a Spartan who survived Thermopylae, has nothing but contempt for these guys.
In addition to being butt ugly, the Ephors were uncooperative. They told Leonidas that the Spartan Army should not march during the full moon, but that’s not the kicker. Soon, the viewers are introduced to the Oracle3.
Taking a very cynical view of the ancient greek religion, 300 depicts the Oracle as a drugged up woman who was nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Ephors. Oh, the movie also implied that the Ephors raped the oracles who live with them on a regular basis.
But that’s not all. After Leonidas left the Ephors in disgust, it was shown that the Persians were bribing them all along.
Something tells me Zack Snyder is not a fan of religion.4
All this is to show that 300 is not just a propaganda film. It is also a smrt story.
Being Smrt
I will now explain myself. I’m sure some readers think that I misspelled my article’s title. But no, I did something even worse. I engaged in neologism.
“Smrt” is a term coined by author
in a blog article of his. It refers to stories written by atheists who had contempt for the religiously-minded5. The term itself is a play on the word “smart” because people who engaged in this kind of storytelling like to fancy themselves as clever when they are in reality anything but. I’ll let Brian explain the process:Here’s how the trick works. The Smrt author presents himself as a sort of Gnostic oracle who’s got the dirt on some formerly sacred Western tradition. He doesn’t break the fourth wall and make these claims overtly. Instead he establishes his credentials by portraying the skeptics attacking the fable as cool, informed characters the reader wants to emulate. At the same time, those who cling to traditional Western beliefs are mocked as credulous–often violent–dupes. The Smrt author carefully frames the window of allowable debate in his world to exclude any compelling arguments for the defense.
Another author
expanded on Brian’s concept in his own blogpost. He brought up examples from the Netflix Castlevania series to many a Japanese Role-Playing Games (JRPGs). To quote:Dishonest characterization, ahistorical examples to tar certain groups, and hack one dimensional characters, are used to warp the story in the fashion the writer wants. This is done to send a message, and it's wrapped in shiny plastic coating to distract from it.
…
You might have noticed a theme with smrt stories. They tend to make the writer look arrogant in their attempt to teach a point, and if you dig deep enough they end up contradicting the work in the process. It's always been in fiction to some extent, but entropy is real. What was once chest congestion has morphed into a full blown flu.
Both Brian and JD have described a real phenomenon that many, including yours truly, have noticed. So please give their articles a read.
Let’s go back to 300…
The issue is that the writers and director of the movie6 don’t seem to believe that anyone could have believed what the ancients believed back then. Thus, true believers were portrayed to be corrupt and superstitious. Meanwhile, the virtuous characters might as well be atheists.
I wouldn’t really mind this portrayal of Ancient Greeks or the Spartans by Snyder if it wasn’t for one thing: it’s not even true.
A Spartan King Must Die
The ancient historian Herodotus had written a solid account of Thermopylae. If you want to read it, here’s the link.
But if you don’t care about reading, you can always watch this documentary:
When I watch the above documentary, I would get the feeling that actual Spartans were completely different to the ones that Snyder presented in 300. Why? It’s around the 5:30 mark of the video:
He [Leonidas] wasn’t optimistic about his chances against Xerxes. For one thing, he had set out during a Spartan religious festival. This was thought to bring bad luck.
Also, the Greeks had received bad news from the Oracle here in Delphi. A priestess had predicted that a Spartan King would have to die before victory was won.
The contrast between the above documentary and 300 in their portrayal of Spartan religiosity could not be any more different. The former shows a people, including their king, who took their religion seriously. Then there’s the Oracle who, though offscreen, was a credible authority rather than the sexual plaything for creepy men as portrayed by Snyder.
Speaking of the Oracle, she plays an important role because her prophecy is an integral part of the Thermopylae narrative. This was how Herodotus recorded it (bolded emphasis mine):
Fated it is for you, ye dwellers in wide-wayed Sparta, Either your city must fall, that now is mighty and famous, Wasted by Persian men, or the border of fair Lacedaemon Mourn for a king that is dead, from Heracles' line descended. Yea, for the foe thou hast nor bulls nor lions can conquer; Mighty he cometh as Zeus, and shall not be stayed in his coming; One of the two will he take, and rend his quarry asunder.
The Father of History evidently thought this prophecy was important. He believed that it played a part in King Leonidas’ decision making. When it became clear that the Greek position in Thermopylae was untenable, Leonidas and his 300 Spartans stayed behind while sending the other Greeks back home7. Reason being that Leonidas knew that if he remained, “he would leave a name of great renown, and the prosperity of Sparta would not be blotted out”.8 This was only possible because of what the Oracle told the Spartans when they consulted her prior to the war.
I found it interesting that this prophecy was completely missing in 300. But I’m not surprised in the least. The theme of “religion bad” was clear even early in the movie. It was finally driven home around the end when the narrator, having finished his retelling of Thermopylae, was now ready for battle in Plataea:
“This day, we rescue the world from mysticism and tyranny”
-Dilios, 300
Hold on a minute. Since when is mysticism a bad thing? More importantly, since when did the Spartans see mysticism as a bad thing?9
The irony to all this is that I found the Leonidas of Herodotus to be a much more admirable figure than that of Zack Snyder. The former seemed to know, perhaps unconsciously, that he was going to die. And yet he went to battle anyways. Because a Spartan King must die for a Persian one to be defeated; it was destiny.
This isn’t to say that the Leonidas of 300 doesn’t embody self-sacrifice. He certainly does. In fact, I love how the movie portrayed him as a somber man10 who was eager to die in battle for his home and his love. Yet by removing the “mystical” aspect of the Thermopylae narrative, 300 undermined the sacrificial aspect of Leonidas and his Spartans. I mean, why didn’t the Spartans just retreat like the rest of the Greeks? Is delaying Xerxes by a few more hours really that important?
Coda: Noble Pagans or Smrt Pagans?
The noble pagan, or the virtuous pagan, is a well known concept in Christian thought. Even those who did not explicitly accept Christ may exhibit virtues that Christians should emulate.
In this sense, King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans are an example of the noble pagan; they exemplified the virtue of fortitude or courage. But this is not something that existed in a vacuum. The Spartans were not just a militant people, they were also pious, almost to the point of superstition. For better or worse, their beliefs are not a trivial part of their character.
By removing the piety of the Spartans, the creators of 300 had done us all a disservice. They had turned the noble pagans of Sparta into smrt pagans.
It might not be blasphemy, but it certainly is madness.
Thanks for reading. Please consider supporting my work through one of the following:
Get the novel, Inquisitor’s Promise. Available on Amazon, Lulu, and Laterpress.
Tip via Buy Me A Coffee.
Bitcoin: bc1qydz05wsjqmuhqv6yu6zr0l45wewzhgkg96xqt0
Thank you in advance for your support, it keeps me writing and helps me considerably. Germanicus Publishing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
A fancy word for American comic books.
I’m putting quotes around the word “controversy” because it seems like a strong word for what actually happened.
of Delphi?
After I published this analysis, it has come to my attention that it’s actually Frank Miller who doesn’t like religion. On the other hand, Zack Snyder actually has a habit of putting Christian imagery into his movies. To quote someone I interacted with on Discord:
Usually Christians but not always.
And perhaps the graphic novel.
With some exceptions.
Herodotus, Ch. 220
Funnily enough, the Spartans were actually very religious even by ancient Greek standards. The reason why they only brought 300 men to Thermopylae was because there was an ongoing religious festival at the time. And they didn’t want to upset the gods by interrupting the festival. So they marched only with the few men they already got.
Don’t let the memes fool you.
So Snyder played fast and loose with history here like he did with the DC characters later on.