Orientalism and 300 (2006)
The 2006 action-movie 300 is considered to be one of the most iconic films in the historical genre. It depicts the Greeks’ famous last stand against the invading Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae and focuses primarily on the Spartans, with King Leonidas being the main hero of the film. The historical accuracy is sub-par to say the least, but the film is nonetheless entertaining for those who enjoy sword and sandal action. However, 300 is also a classic representation of what is known as Orientalism. The late Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said was perhaps one of the most renowned critics of Orientalism, with his criticisms and analyses highlighted by his book of the same name. Said’s definition of Orientalism could be summed up like this – Orientalism is an overtly stereotypical representation of Asia through various mediums and a form of thought that is based on the idea of “us and them” with an emphasis on superior West and inferior East. Orientalism, in fact, was used as a tool by the West, particularly the colonial powers of Britain and France, who believed that by studying the Orient, this would grant them the right to “correct” or put the “lost” Orientals back onto the track of civilization. In addition, Orientalism allowed the West to translate the complexities of the Orient in such a way that could be understood by people in the West. In essence, Orientalism was a means by which the West ruled over the East and denied or suppressed the voice of the East. How exactly then, does 300 propagate common Orientalist notions? Using arguments from Edward Said’s Orientalism, this paper will illustrate the ways in which 300 uses core elements of Orientalist thought in its depiction of the East, represented here by the Persians.
300 is a reminder that Orientalism is not a recent phenomenon and that the modern concept of it is rooted in antiquity. The film is actually quite accurate in the sense that it correctly depicts what the ancient Greeks thought about non-Greek barbarians, in this case the Persians. The Greeks viewed all non-Greek speaking peoples as barbarians. Indeed, the word “barbarian” itself most likely has an onomatopoeic origin as Greeks who could not understand non-Greeks simply mimicked their languages by saying “bar bar”. The moment when people started denoting the familiar “us” vs the strange and unfamiliar “them” is when certain attributes (mostly negative) began to be associated with “them”. The origin of the “us” vs “them” separation seems to stem from physical boundaries. Edward Said states, “The geographical boundaries accompany the social, ethnic, and cultural ones in expected ways. Yet often the sense in which someone feels himself to be not foreign is based on a very unrigorous idea of what is “out there”, beyond one’s own territory. All kinds of suppositions, associations, and fictions appear to crowd the unfamiliar space outside one’s own” (Said 54). For the ancient Greeks, and indeed the Greeks of 300, Persia proper would have most likely been seen as a “far away land” and, as Said explains, various myths and fictions would be associated with Persia as a result. In the movie, we see how Persia is depicted as this immensely rich land, a land filled with mysteries, a land whose people are enslaved by a ruthless tyrant, and a land filled with debauchery and lewd excess. The “strangeness” associated with Persia is seen in its army as well. The film shows that the Immortals are literal demons with swords. The army also has wizards who throw grenades. At one point, an execution of one of the Persian king Xerxes’ generals was shown, and the executioner was a large man with swords for arms.
I want to discuss the idea of debauchery and lewd excess further as it connects to a common Orientalist theme. Starting with a quote from Said, “Finally, the very power and scope of Orientalism produced not only a fair amount of exact positive knowledge about the Orient but also a kind of second-order knowledge - lurking in such places as the “Oriental” tale, the mythology of the mysterious East, notions of Asian inscrutability - with a life of its own, what V.G. Kieran has aptly called “Europe’s collective day-dream of the Orient”” (Said 52). This concept of the Orient being a place rife with dissipation and excessive luxury is part of this daydream, the European’s imagination of what the mysterious and distant East might be like. There is a scene in the film where Xerxes leads Ephialtes (a Greek who would betray the Spartans at Thermopylae) into what appears to be the king’s harem-like chamber. We are greeted by a man wearing the head of a black goat. The women, mostly naked, are decked in shimmering jewels, gems, and silks, as is the room itself. Some women are engaging in sex while others simply look at Ephialtes seductively. Strangely, a few of the women also appear to have disfigured faces. To top it all off, at the center of the room is a quadriplegic hermaphrodite seemingly ready to please the guest. This scene is so otherworldly in imagery and tone that it makes the Persians look like aliens. But this, most likely, was what the ancient Greeks thought of Persia, especially during the Greco-Persian Wars. A distant, alien land where excess, in every sense of the word, was embraced.
Perhaps the greatest connection that one could make between 300 and Orientalist thought lies with the narrator of the film. The film is narrated by a Spartan soldier named Dilios who was sent back home from the battle by Leonidas because he stood out from his peers with his oratory skills. Leonidas wanted someone to tell the story of the Spartans at Thermopylae, and this story is essentially the film itself. The identity of the narrator is a critical detail here because it now makes sense as to why the Persians are depicted the way they are – barbaric, monstrous, slavish, alien, and terrible at fighting. Everything in the film, the depiction of the events and people, is what someone would imagine after hearing Dilios’ speech. You would of course describe the Persian Immortals as actual demons with swords because that’s what you want the listener to think of the enemy. However, the use of Dilios as the narrator of the film is representative of another essential Orientalist phenomenon. When discussing The Persians, a famous ancient Greek play by Aeschylus, Said explains its significance as such, “Aeschylus represents Asia, makes her speak in the person of the aged Persian queen. Xerxes' mother. It is Europe that articulates the Orient; this articulation is the prerogative, not of a puppet master, but of a genuine creator, whose life-giving power represents, animates, constitutes the otherwise silent and dangerous space beyond familiar boundaries” (Said 57). One of the most important aspects of Orientalism is that it is always the West that speaks for the East, and this is because of the West’s perceived position of strength. French novelist and Orientalist Gustave Flaubert never recorded what Kuchuk Hanem, an Egyptian woman who was a central figure in Flaubert’s accounts of his experiences in the East, thought or said about her encounters with him. Flaubert, a wealthy white European man, is the one who speaks for and represents Kuchuk Hanem without ever asking for her consent regarding the matter. Flaubert, like Aeschylus and the Greeks, is in the position of strength, and he therefore has the right to be the mouthpiece for a weak and submissive East, as represented by Kuchuk Hanem. Similarly, when it comes to 300, we hear only Dilios’ account of what happened at Thermopylae. We never, rarely at most, understand the Persians’ perspective on the matter. The account of what happened at Thermopylae and the description of the Persians is at the mercy of Dilios, a Spartan who perceives himself to be at a position of strength in terms of skill as a soldier and as a “civilized” freedom-loving Greek, this compared to the weak and barbarous Persians.
In conclusion, 300 is a classic representation of Orientalist thought. It is a reminder that Orientalism is not a recent phenomenon and that people have been denoting “us” versus “them” since antiquity, with this separation being the basis of how the familiar “us” viewed the unfamiliar “them”. This is seen in the film with how the Persians are depicted as strange, alien, and menacing among other attributes. The perceived debaucheries and excessive nature of the East is shown with Ephialtes’ journey into Xerxes’ harem. But perhaps the most important detail of the film is that it is told through the eyes of a member of the West, something that is a defining aspect of Orientalism. 300’s Orientalist depiction of Thermopylae and the Persians does not necessarily make the film unwatchable or “bad” per se. However, it is part of a more serious trend, still present today, in which the East (here the Middle East) is misrepresented and misunderstood by the West through various media. Such misrepresentation, usually through stereotyping, can cause the audience to come up with incorrect conclusions about the East. It’s the ignorance regarding the East that has been a root cause for many more serious phenomena such as xenophobia and Islamophobia. This is something that, unfortunately, 300 does not mitigate.
