I remember being absolutely shocked when I first watched this in the cinema. I was like seven years old and I'd never watched a film in which the good guys _lost_ and _died._
My favorite quote from the movie is when the merchant guy tells Spartacus that he can't help his army but he arrange that himself and his family can get away. His reply was simple but profound "Go away"
One tiny detail I find a bit funny is that when Spartacus (the Slave who became a Gladiator, the Gladiator who became a General before dying to change Rome) refuses Virinia, there's an off hand remark that says "Give her to the Spaniard". In the movie called Gladiator, General Maximus (The General who became a Slave. The Slave who became a Gladiator, before dying while changing Rome) is eventually given the name and mokiker of "The Spaniard" while in training at the Gladiatorial school. Coincidence? Probably. Maybe. But ever since I realized that connection was there I have entertained the thought that Maximus and Spartacus just happened to be at the same school at one time and was offered the same woman. No matter all of the other contradicting events and I am quite certai the two stories are about different periods in the annals of Rome.
You're correct about the time periods. Spartacus is set around 73 BC, while Gladiator is set in 180 AD. All the same I like your thinking "the slave who became a Gladiator...etc...and vice versa" Brilliant
I think a very subtle way Kubrick showed the audience that Spartacus was not completely good was on his way of being merciful. Rather than being that way from the beginning, he had to learn it, (my opinion) he did not learn that "mercy is good" but rather "mercy makes me the better man" under the realization of his newfound respect for Draba. His surprise during the "I'm Spartacus" scene comes from the realization that he's not the better man, and the ones following him are the better ones, because he did it for the glory and they did it for loyalty. Maybe, it's a stretch. Also, how did Kirk Douglas shaved?
The ironic thing is that the murder of the Persian ambassadors which was against all norms at that time is accurate per our only real 1st hand source - Herodotus.
Enjoyed the review. I remember watching this movie as a kid with a historically illiterate and very religious father, and being the nerd I was and am explained the allegory for MacCarthyism and that references to Jesus and the abolition of slavery were shoehorned in by the censors. The realism for a late code-era film and my knowledge making him feel stupid caused him to flip out and ban the movie from our home. (The straw breaking the proverbial camel's back being the "snails and oysters" scene, cut by the censors in the sixties and restored in the video release with the audio for Olivier dubbed by Anthony Hawkins.) And people wonder why I'm screwed up today. lol
I enjoyed the mentioning of the blacklist references in Trumbo's script. As for a comparison with a recent sword & sandal film, I wouldn't use "300" (which was just a graphic novel adaptation). Instead I'd point to Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" as more comparable to "Spartacus" to bring up contrasts. But again, a fine review.
Side note until I find your analysis of race in villainy: I thought it was very interesting in 300 the association of evil with black Persians, but when Jake Gyllenhaal portrays a good Persian in the PoP movie, the Persian is white. Eeeehhhh
I think that's because he was black in the comic. It was strange considering Persians were quite Caucasian in skin colour and Africans locals were around North Africa, not Persia. PoP movie casting is ridiculous anyhow. The princess is also white, almost everyone is white, in a movie sets in fictional Persia.
Kubrick's perspective on this reminds me of what Hideaki Anno said about his End of Evangelion: "What would be ideal is that kids who watch it start to vomit,[...] That should have made them sick. Because I think it's better to show repugnant things just as they are. If we succeed in transmiting the emotion that atrocious things are atrocious, it's mission succeeded. When someone tells me 'It's too horrible, too violent"' that pleases me, because it's a healthy and normal reaction." One of my favorite quotes because I'm sick of the Hollywoodian tendency to feel like films need to make everything that happens on-screen "enjoyable" and comfortable for the audience, regardless of the subject matter. Although you understanding this perspective makes me more confused as to why you seem to dislike Game of Thrones so strongly for being "gross".
+Renegade Cut that's mainly an adaptation problem. The scene I think you refer to didn't went that way in the source material. In fact both sides were equally eager to it, and Cersei only showed concern for being in the middle of the cathedral, next to their son's body and that someone else could see it. The show's version was that way due to poor directing and the need to shock for the sake of shocking. This unnecesary moments even made me stop watching it. The plot and characters are already amazing, you don't need to make it more extreme. You don't need to stab a pregnant woman to make a mass betrayal more intense, the betrayal is enough. In any case, totally recommend the books, it might give a different perspective.
*****: Not wanting to see it I understand, considering it "bad" because of it is what confuses me. I can't see how one can object to a show that features multiple monologues from rape survivors talking about the psychological and emotional damage it did to them, a lengthy sequence of women debating among themselves about whether to kill themselves rather than risk being subjugated to military-rape-tactics and a sub-plot that only exists to showcase how destructive systemic rape-culture is, for featuring rape in it. One can't say "rape is bad" without mentioning rape. And while that doesn't mean you have to listen if you don't feel comfortable doing so that also doesn't make it a bad thing. There are things in Se7en that I can't stand to watch, but I still don't consider the film bad because of it.
*****: If that is not one of the reasons you consider it bad I misunderstood you. What you said in one of the Q&As, in some of the Word Funks and in your first comment above gave me that impression.
Giovanni Romanelli: If the Sansa's speech to Lord Baelish in one of the newer episodes was created by the show's writers that completely redeemed them in my eyes. Her description of rape-trauma is one of the most accurate I've heard in fiction.
Disgraceful that Kubrick wasn't given full control over this movie . I understand why he wanted distance himself from this movie which is not imbued with Kubrick characteristics in the slightest. Kubrick is a genius with an entirely different vision. As I was watching the movie I consistently felt how unrealistic it is that these slaves who have been tortured and tormented for years are behaving so noble...I for one would much preferred to see his version than the unrealistic one we got.
hate to be that guy but for 300 we have Frank Miller to blame for leonidis Zack actually did a good job adapting the source material. The this is sparta is quite literally ripped right off the page of the original "book". does not the fact it's stupid but make sure you point your finger at the right person, otherwise keep up the good work.
It's kind of like I'd heard from the Dom's videos when it came to adapting novels into films. What matters is respect; respecting the fact that you've been handed the responsibility of adapting someone else's story, and respecting their vision of it. Frank Darabont did, Stanley Kubrick did not.
Very nice review, or analysis, and I largely agree with all the point you made. I find it hard to make any comparisons between Spartacus and 300, which to me is an ugly, ridiculous, comic book view of history (just the visual differences are enough). I'm astonished that so many people take it so seriously. Just one point about the slaves turning back into Italy when they could have escaped: according to Plutarch it was not Spartacus but the slaves themselves who, having won so many victories, had become over-confident and believed they could defeat Rome. This is reinforced by a later event when Crixus and 10,000 Germans broke away from the slave army and were annihilated. Spartacus did not, probably could not, have total control over so great a force. Just one nit-pick: it's Antoninus, not Antonius.
Spartacus is also a majorly inspiring symbol amongst Communists, especially more anti-authoritarian versions of Communism, such as many Anarchist schools of thought.
It seems you are only person you has done best video essay for SK , would love to hear your views on remaining 4 movies of SK which you haven’t done yet , not because it would complete a playlist , but to understand the great artist during his early days and how things have changed for him and the world around him . Thanks in advance
Perhaps Kubricks coolness to Sparticus is a question of creative ownership. Unlike his other films Kubrick came to the film as a director for hire after the star of the film, Kirk Douglas, who also produced it as a star vehicle for himself, fell out with and fired the original director Anthony Mann. Alledgedly, the only footage directed by Mann that made it into the film were the salt mine sequences right at the beginning. After the firing Douglas turned to Kubrick who he had worked with on Kubricks film "The Paths to Glory".
The film is very inaccurate to what little we know about the historical Spartacus, but that’s irrelevant. Yeah, the historical Spartacus was probably more vengeful bandit than idealistic revolutionary, but what he did was revolutionary. Consider we don’t even know his real name; “Spartacus” referred to his birthplace. In many respects he is like Jesus or Gilgamesh: a myth based on a real person who’s character is buried so thoroughly by the sands of time that he is as good as forgotten. This isn’t a film about the historical Sparticus, it’s about what Spartacus came to represent to people like Rosa Luxemburg and John Brown, who also took up arms against coercive authority. Sic Semper Tyrannis!
I recall seeing a Kubrick documentary stating that Kubrick hated that Douglas was producer and had final cut. From that moment forward, Kubrick would not do a movie unless he had final cut
I knew this movie had history, but never realized the significance that moments like the "I'm Spartacus!" scene hold in light of the McCarthy Hearings.
Your criticism and comparison to the film "300" does make sense, and the point you are trying to make is lost on nobody. However, the scene in which Leonidas slays the Persian messengers couldn't have been avoided, as it is widely considered a historical fact. The Greek historian, Herodotus, who focused much on the Greco-Persian wars, did tell of the Spartan king killing the Persian messengers when they asked him to submit to Persian rule. Being grounded in historical fact, saying that King Leonidas should have been merciful doesn't seem to land as it should, considering that his mercilessness is something we consider to be part of history. This doesn't make you wrong for pointing out the absurdity of portraying Leonidas as a heroic figure in the film, and the hyper-masculine traits glorified in "300" are worth criticism, but it is important to understand that these events likely happened (though they were exaggerated in the film and the rest of it is far from the truth). A minor complaint, I know, and the rest of the review is great as usual, but I just feel the comparison could have prefaced the fact that mercy was not part of the history before going into it. Again, great review, keep it up.
Agreed, although it should be pointed out as well it wasn't Leonidas but one of his predecessors that threw the envoys down the well, and that Sparta always had 2 kings, and Leonidas was only one of the two. Then again that film was rather selective on what it kept accurate to (as it was based on a graphic novel inspired by the events.)
The Alpine passes were garrisoned by powerful legions so Spartacus most likely could not escape that way and the Greeks did kill the Persian ambassadors, which was a heroic act because they were not like modern ambassador type of diplomats.
I'm here to tell you one of the greatest movies ever made the battles were so epic real extras no green screen computer tricks . They used Elizabeth Tailor's husband camera she own after is death. They filmed Cleopatra with it too I think 70mm.
300 is an incredibly stylized comic book story adaptation told in the laconic style of a Spartan hero in a greek epic. It's honestly kind of absurd to judge it by the same standards as a biopic like spartacus.
I'd say the comparison was justified, the fact that 300 is stylized and is a comic book adaptation doesn't shield it from criticism or comparison to other films sword and sandal epics.
300 is trash not because it's based on a comic book, but because it's eurocentric fascist drivel, a reflection of politics today rather than classical greece. It's propaganda for a "europe beseiged by undesirable migrants", of imagined culture wars between the outnumbered West and the "barbaric hordes".
Hi mr. Thomas. I have a question about the Coen bros (totally unrelated to this video, wich is great btw): do you think their overal oeuvre is at its core pessimistic or do you think that beneath the surface there's actually some sort of hopeful factor to be found?
+Renegade Cut man yo're right this was a complicated question, but I must say I think you nailed it. Saw hail caesar recently still dont fully think i get it. It takes me a lot of viewings to say I know a film. hey In your latest Q/A you mention beign a lit teacher. you liked teaching? like in person?
+Renegade Cut man that's what I call straight answer. gotta say when I heard you were a lit teacher tons of things made sense about you. like how you were able to draw parallels between movies and specific parts of the bible even with movies were the similarities weren't that ovious. You have any books you would recomend?
I have to disagree with you on 300. Firstly on the basis that greek and judeo-christian hero figure is totally different. Léonidas is a tragic hero from a machistic warrior society. They are bred to kill, so it would be illogical for him to let go the persian ambassador after he provoked the spartans by bringing the heads of kings to his door. And you must understand that the story of the movie is told by a highly unreliable narrator (David Wentham) who is the only survivor of the 300 and telling the story to boost the morale of the army on the eve of the battle of Plataea.
What Léonidas did would be a breach of Xenia (sacred hospitality) and the Greeks would have considered it abhorrent. Also whether it is "reliable" or not is irrelevant to Leon's point; which was about portrayal of heroes in media, not about the internal justifications for it. Also 300 historical accuracy is practically non-existent so it is not like the creators didn't have the scene for any reason other than that they specifically wanted it in there.
Thing is, they actually did do it, if Herodotus is to be believed. The messenger asked for the Spartans, and the other Greeks, to give a gift of soil and water, to show their submission to Darius. In line with their reputed pithy sense of humour, the Spartans threw theirs down a well, and said he could take both back from there.
I love 3plus hour epic movies you can't make a great movie on 1hr30m. Like today's movies. Like the songs be 2mins 30 secs no more then 3mins. When I was a teenager in 90s our sons last 4-5 mins.
The only thing good about our movies is the tech involved the blood and killing look real. Once real actors like Robert denero,Al Pacino it's over now the actor be the computer bad guy
The 300 scene is a bit more complicated than you described it. The murder of the messenger has roots to the actual historical facts. And it had more meaning than just a meme in the actual event and in the comic. Snyder might as missed that fact completely but the event itself and its inclusion in the comic/story is much more than just that.
this film i believe is a really weak film, simply spartacus is not a 3 dimentional character or intresting, Ben hur is simply a better example of these 1960s golden era epic, spartacus looks like a showcase of 70mm anamorphic camaras like cinemascope and panavision to show it of the film industy like !!!!woow look at the 70mm soo much qualityyy...
I remember being absolutely shocked when I first watched this in the cinema. I was like seven years old and I'd never watched a film in which the good guys _lost_ and _died._
My favorite quote from the movie is when the merchant guy tells Spartacus that he can't help his army but he arrange that himself and his family can get away. His reply was simple but profound "Go away"
lol I felt the droplets of venom flicking off your tongue at the words "Zach Snyder's 300"
One tiny detail I find a bit funny is that when Spartacus (the Slave who became a Gladiator, the Gladiator who became a General before dying to change Rome) refuses Virinia, there's an off hand remark that says "Give her to the Spaniard".
In the movie called Gladiator, General Maximus (The General who became a Slave. The Slave who became a Gladiator, before dying while changing Rome) is eventually given the name and mokiker of "The Spaniard" while in training at the Gladiatorial school.
Coincidence? Probably. Maybe. But ever since I realized that connection was there I have entertained the thought that Maximus and Spartacus just happened to be at the same school at one time and was offered the same woman. No matter all of the other contradicting events and I am quite certai the two stories are about different periods in the annals of Rome.
You're correct about the time periods. Spartacus is set around 73 BC, while Gladiator is set in 180 AD. All the same I like your thinking "the slave who became a Gladiator...etc...and vice versa" Brilliant
R.I.P. Kirk Douglas, We Are Spartacus!
I think a very subtle way Kubrick showed the audience that Spartacus was not completely good was on his way of being merciful. Rather than being that way from the beginning, he had to learn it, (my opinion) he did not learn that "mercy is good" but rather "mercy makes me the better man" under the realization of his newfound respect for Draba. His surprise during the "I'm Spartacus" scene comes from the realization that he's not the better man, and the ones following him are the better ones, because he did it for the glory and they did it for loyalty. Maybe, it's a stretch.
Also, how did Kirk Douglas shaved?
The ironic thing is that the murder of the Persian ambassadors which was against all norms at that time is accurate per our only real 1st hand source - Herodotus.
Enjoyed the review. I remember watching this movie as a kid with a historically illiterate and very religious father, and being the nerd I was and am explained the allegory for MacCarthyism and that references to Jesus and the abolition of slavery were shoehorned in by the censors. The realism for a late code-era film and my knowledge making him feel stupid caused him to flip out and ban the movie from our home. (The straw breaking the proverbial camel's back being the "snails and oysters" scene, cut by the censors in the sixties and restored in the video release with the audio for Olivier dubbed by Anthony Hawkins.) And people wonder why I'm screwed up today. lol
I enjoyed the mentioning of the blacklist references in Trumbo's script. As for a comparison with a recent sword & sandal film, I wouldn't use "300" (which was just a graphic novel adaptation). Instead I'd point to Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" as more comparable to "Spartacus" to bring up contrasts. But again, a fine review.
Side note until I find your analysis of race in villainy: I thought it was very interesting in 300 the association of evil with black Persians, but when Jake Gyllenhaal portrays a good Persian in the PoP movie, the Persian is white. Eeeehhhh
I think that's because he was black in the comic. It was strange considering Persians were quite Caucasian in skin colour and Africans locals were around North Africa, not Persia. PoP movie casting is ridiculous anyhow. The princess is also white, almost everyone is white, in a movie sets in fictional Persia.
Kubrick's perspective on this reminds me of what Hideaki Anno said about his End of Evangelion:
"What would be ideal is that kids who watch it start to vomit,[...] That should have made them sick. Because I think it's better to show repugnant things just as they are. If we succeed in transmiting the emotion that atrocious things are atrocious, it's mission succeeded. When someone tells me 'It's too horrible, too violent"' that pleases me, because it's a healthy and normal reaction."
One of my favorite quotes because I'm sick of the Hollywoodian tendency to feel like films need to make everything that happens on-screen "enjoyable" and comfortable for the audience, regardless of the subject matter.
Although you understanding this perspective makes me more confused as to why you seem to dislike Game of Thrones so strongly for being "gross".
+Renegade Cut that's mainly an adaptation problem.
The scene I think you refer to didn't went that way in the source material. In fact both sides were equally eager to it, and Cersei only showed concern for being in the middle of the cathedral, next to their son's body and that someone else could see it. The show's version was that way due to poor directing and the need to shock for the sake of shocking.
This unnecesary moments even made me stop watching it. The plot and characters are already amazing, you don't need to make it more extreme. You don't need to stab a pregnant woman to make a mass betrayal more intense, the betrayal is enough.
In any case, totally recommend the books, it might give a different perspective.
*****: Not wanting to see it I understand, considering it "bad" because of it is what confuses me. I can't see how one can object to a show that features multiple monologues from rape survivors talking about the psychological and emotional damage it did to them, a lengthy sequence of women debating among themselves about whether to kill themselves rather than risk being subjugated to military-rape-tactics and a sub-plot that only exists to showcase how destructive systemic rape-culture is, for featuring rape in it. One can't say "rape is bad" without mentioning rape. And while that doesn't mean you have to listen if you don't feel comfortable doing so that also doesn't make it a bad thing. There are things in Se7en that I can't stand to watch, but I still don't consider the film bad because of it.
*****: If that is not one of the reasons you consider it bad I misunderstood you. What you said in one of the Q&As, in some of the Word Funks and in your first comment above gave me that impression.
*****: I would have disagreed and brought up my earlier example of Se7en, but fair enough. Thanks for indulging my interest in your opinions.
Giovanni Romanelli: If the Sansa's speech to Lord Baelish in one of the newer episodes was created by the show's writers that completely redeemed them in my eyes. Her description of rape-trauma is one of the most accurate I've heard in fiction.
Disgraceful that Kubrick wasn't given full control over this movie . I understand why he wanted distance himself from this movie which is not imbued with Kubrick characteristics in the slightest. Kubrick is a genius with an entirely different vision. As I was watching the movie I consistently felt how unrealistic it is that these slaves who have been tortured and tormented for years are behaving so noble...I for one would much preferred to see his version than the unrealistic one we got.
hate to be that guy but for 300 we have Frank Miller to blame for leonidis Zack actually did a good job adapting the source material. The this is sparta is quite literally ripped right off the page of the original "book". does not the fact it's stupid but make sure you point your finger at the right person, otherwise keep up the good work.
It's kind of like I'd heard from the Dom's videos when it came to adapting novels into films. What matters is respect; respecting the fact that you've been handed the responsibility of adapting someone else's story, and respecting their vision of it. Frank Darabont did, Stanley Kubrick did not.
Very nice review, or analysis, and I largely agree with all the point you made. I find it hard to make any comparisons between Spartacus and 300, which to me is an ugly, ridiculous, comic book view of history (just the visual differences are enough). I'm astonished that so many people take it so seriously.
Just one point about the slaves turning back into Italy when they could have escaped: according to Plutarch it was not Spartacus but the slaves themselves who, having won so many victories, had become over-confident and believed they could defeat Rome. This is reinforced by a later event when Crixus and 10,000 Germans broke away from the slave army and were annihilated. Spartacus did not, probably could not, have total control over so great a force.
Just one nit-pick: it's Antoninus, not Antonius.
Spartacus is also a majorly inspiring symbol amongst Communists, especially more anti-authoritarian versions of Communism, such as many Anarchist schools of thought.
Trumbo was a Marxist Leninist actually
RIP Kirk Douglas Died today 103
One of the few times I think Kubrick was kinda dead wrong.
Peter Ustinov in a Kubrick film. I gotta see this.
Ustinov won the Academy Award, and totally deserved it.
It seems you are only person you has done best video essay for SK , would love to hear your views on remaining 4 movies of SK which you haven’t done yet , not because it would complete a playlist , but to understand the great artist during his early days and how things have changed for him and the world around him . Thanks in advance
ua-cam.com/video/8lrvqbcIat8/v-deo.html
Perhaps Kubricks coolness to Sparticus is a question of creative ownership. Unlike his other films Kubrick came to the film as a director for hire after the star of the film, Kirk Douglas, who also produced it as a star vehicle for himself, fell out with and fired the original director Anthony Mann. Alledgedly, the only footage directed by Mann that made it into the film were the salt mine sequences right at the beginning. After the firing Douglas turned to Kubrick who he had worked with on Kubricks film "The Paths to Glory".
Have you seen the americanization of emily and the james garner speech about glorifying war?
Trumbo's story was pretty sad.
The film is very inaccurate to what little we know about the historical Spartacus, but that’s irrelevant. Yeah, the historical Spartacus was probably more vengeful bandit than idealistic revolutionary, but what he did was revolutionary. Consider we don’t even know his real name; “Spartacus” referred to his birthplace. In many respects he is like Jesus or Gilgamesh: a myth based on a real person who’s character is buried so thoroughly by the sands of time that he is as good as forgotten. This isn’t a film about the historical Sparticus, it’s about what Spartacus came to represent to people like Rosa Luxemburg and John Brown, who also took up arms against coercive authority.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
I'm Spartacus!
+ironhandz1
No, I'm Spartacus!
We are all Spartacus
+Giovanni Romanelli
Lieeees, I say, all evil lieeeees! There can only be one Spartacus: Me!
:p
(Carol Channing voice) I'M Spartacus!
I'm not Spartacus...
Great video Leon. My least favorite Kubrick movie, but I still love it.
I recall seeing a Kubrick documentary stating that Kubrick hated that Douglas was producer and had final cut. From that moment forward, Kubrick would not do a movie unless he had final cut
I knew this movie had history, but never realized the significance that moments like the "I'm Spartacus!" scene hold in light of the McCarthy Hearings.
Very insightful video. Thanks! Watched Spartacus for the first time yesterday. Impressive movie.
Your criticism and comparison to the film "300" does make sense, and the point you are trying to make is lost on nobody. However, the scene in which Leonidas slays the Persian messengers couldn't have been avoided, as it is widely considered a historical fact. The Greek historian, Herodotus, who focused much on the Greco-Persian wars, did tell of the Spartan king killing the Persian messengers when they asked him to submit to Persian rule. Being grounded in historical fact, saying that King Leonidas should have been merciful doesn't seem to land as it should, considering that his mercilessness is something we consider to be part of history. This doesn't make you wrong for pointing out the absurdity of portraying Leonidas as a heroic figure in the film, and the hyper-masculine traits glorified in "300" are worth criticism, but it is important to understand that these events likely happened (though they were exaggerated in the film and the rest of it is far from the truth). A minor complaint, I know, and the rest of the review is great as usual, but I just feel the comparison could have prefaced the fact that mercy was not part of the history before going into it.
Again, great review, keep it up.
Agreed, although it should be pointed out as well it wasn't Leonidas but one of his predecessors that threw the envoys down the well, and that Sparta always had 2 kings, and Leonidas was only one of the two. Then again that film was rather selective on what it kept accurate to (as it was based on a graphic novel inspired by the events.)
The Alpine passes were garrisoned by powerful legions so Spartacus most likely could not escape that way and the Greeks did kill the Persian ambassadors, which was a heroic act because they were not like modern ambassador type of diplomats.
Who's Pepsi is this? The label says "Spartacus" ...IM SPARTACUS!!
This is really good!
a three hour, sixteen minute film eh? Then I suppose Spartacus 3:16 also says "I just whipped your ass"
Leonidas. Word does spread you know. Not as if, he did not know what the messenger wanted.
Spartacus is an epic film🎥
I wish there had been a scene in the Trumbo film where Trumbo talks to Kubrick, even if it was a minute.
Had no idea this was a Kubrick film
I'm here to tell you one of the greatest movies ever made the battles were so epic real extras no green screen computer tricks . They used Elizabeth Tailor's husband camera she own after is death. They filmed Cleopatra with it too I think 70mm.
Trumbo VS Kubrick goes much deeper it seems to be huh (；ﾟωﾟ) !? Appreciate insightful analysis as always.
I thought this was going to show all the outtakes, with the arms and legs being hacked off? Well, you can't have everything?
Yeeeeeesssss; great film. Or so I remember, probably poorly, from when I was younger.
300 is an incredibly stylized comic book story adaptation told in the laconic style of a Spartan hero in a greek epic. It's honestly kind of absurd to judge it by the same standards as a biopic like spartacus.
I'd say the comparison was justified, the fact that 300 is stylized and is a comic book adaptation doesn't shield it from criticism or comparison to other films sword and sandal epics.
300 is trash not because it's based on a comic book, but because it's eurocentric fascist drivel, a reflection of politics today rather than classical greece. It's propaganda for a "europe beseiged by undesirable migrants", of imagined culture wars between the outnumbered West and the "barbaric hordes".
Hi mr. Thomas. I have a question about the Coen bros (totally unrelated to this video, wich is great btw): do you think their overal oeuvre is at its core pessimistic or do you think that beneath the surface there's actually some sort of hopeful factor to be found?
+Renegade Cut man yo're right this was a complicated question, but I must say I think you nailed it. Saw hail caesar recently still dont fully think i get it. It takes me a lot of viewings to say I know a film. hey In your latest Q/A you mention beign a lit teacher. you liked teaching? like in person?
+Renegade Cut man that's what I call straight answer. gotta say when I heard you were a lit teacher tons of things made sense about you. like how you were able to draw parallels between movies and specific parts of the bible even with movies were the similarities weren't that ovious. You have any books you would recomend?
By the time of Spartacus rebelion Rome still was a Republic not Empire..
It was a republic _and_ an empire.
What film is the next Kubrick Renegade Cut?
I have to disagree with you on 300. Firstly on the basis that greek and judeo-christian hero figure is totally different. Léonidas is a tragic hero from a machistic warrior society. They are bred to kill, so it would be illogical for him to let go the persian ambassador after he provoked the spartans by bringing the heads of kings to his door. And you must understand that the story of the movie is told by a highly unreliable narrator (David Wentham) who is the only survivor of the 300 and telling the story to boost the morale of the army on the eve of the battle of Plataea.
What Léonidas did would be a breach of Xenia (sacred hospitality) and the Greeks would have considered it abhorrent.
Also whether it is "reliable" or not is irrelevant to Leon's point; which was about portrayal of heroes in media, not about the internal justifications for it. Also 300 historical accuracy is practically non-existent so it is not like the creators didn't have the scene for any reason other than that they specifically wanted it in there.
Thing is, they actually did do it, if Herodotus is to be believed. The messenger asked for the Spartans, and the other Greeks, to give a gift of soil and water, to show their submission to Darius.
In line with their reputed pithy sense of humour, the Spartans threw theirs down a well, and said he could take both back from there.
BBC Heroes and Villains (2007-2008) does a good Spartacus. Good stuff when the BBC was a trusted institution under white rule.
In reality, the Spartans did throw the Persian messengers down a well. The Athenians threw the messengers sent to them off a cliff.
what's the outro music called?
I was hoping you would discuss the hidden gay subtext. :(
Yes but at the time it could only be alluded to in the film. It's mentioned in the documentary The Celluloid Closet made in 1995.
I love 3plus hour epic movies you can't make a great movie on 1hr30m. Like today's movies. Like the songs be 2mins 30 secs no more then 3mins. When I was a teenager in 90s our sons last 4-5 mins.
Do you have Spartacus?
What's the piece at the end called?
The only thing good about our movies is the tech involved the blood and killing look real. Once real actors like Robert denero,Al Pacino it's over now the actor be the computer bad guy
What about the Spartacus the series on stars.
Just would have liked to see a comparison between the series and the movie.
It's disgusting crap. Basically a porn version of the movie, mixed with Zack Snyderish immorality
thank you.. see
Why does your voice sound so slow/funny? Was this recorded late at night? Sounds like you're quite tired.
The 300 scene is a bit more complicated than you described it. The murder of the messenger has roots to the actual historical facts. And it had more meaning than just a meme in the actual event and in the comic. Snyder might as missed that fact completely but the event itself and its inclusion in the comic/story is much more than just that.
this film i believe is a really weak film, simply spartacus is not a 3 dimentional character or intresting, Ben hur is simply a better example of these 1960s golden era epic, spartacus looks like a showcase of 70mm anamorphic camaras like cinemascope and panavision to show it of the film industy like !!!!woow look at the 70mm soo much qualityyy...
I have never seen 300 but as far as i understand it it's almost ment to seen as a caricature and it's told by an unreliable narrator.
Yeah, it definitely shines a poor light on where the Spartans placed their values.
Never really liked this film.