300: Rise of an Empire (2014) **/5: Gross historical misrepresentation, poor acting, excessive dramatization and over stylized presentation undermines this film.

Let me be honest: I did not like 300 (2007) but I tolerated its excesses. Then why did I condescend to watch the sequel 300: Rise of an Empire? I realized that the film (s) has more to say about western propaganda and that can explain how the two films were/are conceptualized. When I see the excessive bloodshed in these two films- particularly when the enemies of the various Greek states are being slaughtered- or the excessive, one sided  and ludicrous portrayal of the Persians I also see bias. These approaches merely reinforce the biases of the filmmakers and the message or values that they are trying to promote.  That this film is a cultural reinforcement of Western values (The Persian King Darius says  ludicrously ‘only the gods can defeat the Greeks’ or something like that)in this current release is no understatement. When you examine films by asking such questions as ‘Why was it made?’ or ‘What is it trying to promote?’ then you can come to grips with the issue about how successful it is. I am not saying the particular elements should not be addressed such as ‘Is the acting, directing or writing good?’ but these particular elements are merely reinforcing the value system behind the film itself. I am not here to debate whether or not 300: Rise of an Empire is better than its predecessor because of the particular elements involved but will assess it within the context of what it was trying to say. I can do this because the two films are similar in style and they both have the same historical precedent: the second war between Persia and the various Greek city states. I will concede that the first 300 was much more dramatic because of its ludicrous premise of the 300 Spartans stand against a million strong Persian force  led by a god king named Xerxes at the battle of Thermopylae and that Gerard Butler gave the film some star quality as King Leonidas from Sparta.  I have read The Histories by Herodotus, which I found interesting, and have done other reading on the characters that comprised the second Persian war with the Greeks and after watching these two films I can clearly say that the history of this war, as portrayed in this film, has been exaggerated to the point of absurdity.

300: Rise of an Empire focuses on Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton), the leading politician and army general in Athens, as he duels with the Persian forces, led by Artemesia (Eva Green), in the historic naval Battles of Artemisium and Salamis during the second Persian war. Themistocles tries to rally the various Greek states, particularly the Spartans, to unite to thwart the second Persian attack of a million men (gross exaggeration).

Positives

The main positive I took from this film was the historical reality at its core. I found myself revisiting what was said about the actual characters that influenced the various characterizations in the film. There is a lot of irony when you do that and would make for an interesting third part. For instance, Themistocles, who is portrayed as this great Greek hero in the film, eventually did join the Persians later in his political career after being driven out by the various Greek individuals, particularly the Spartans, that became jealous of his growing influence. In the film however he rallies the Greeks with honey tongued political words as he clamours for unity among the various city states. This shows the limitations of adopting a biased approach. The scene where Artemisia and Themistocles get it on in a sado-masochistic sex act seems even more absurd particularly as she is trying to convince him to join the Persians. He refuses but if you know the actual history his patriotic pride rings hollow. It is credit to the screen writers for they must have been aware of this blight on his career hence why it is featured in that particular scene with Artemisia. This film can be studied in order to examine how historical information is distorted in order to reinforce a biased perspective.  From a historical perspective I also appreciated the logical continuation from the predecessor  because it expands the range of discussion. Previously it seemed like the battle hardened Spartans took on this great burden of Greece at the battle of Thermopylae however this film makes it clear that there other individuals and armies among the various Greek city states that were just as influential. This is why , even before the heroic defense by the Spartans at Thermopylae, reference is made to the  battle of marathon between Athens, led by Themistocles, and the Persians in the first Persian war with the Greeks.  In the film it is falsely claimed that Themistocles killed Darius. This false claim is important for dramatic purposes in the film because after the failed invasion, a dying Darius claims that only the gods can defeat the Greeks. Then guess what happens? Yes!  Xerxes becomes a god through some hokey ritual.

The film does make clear its intentions. It does seem to agree with the viewpoint of some scholars that victory for the Greek city states over Persia was a pivotal one because Western civilization was preserved and was allowed to flourish into what it is today. If the Persians had won then the culture of the West would have been different. It is also significant because Persia under Darius and Xerxes was the superpower of its time.  When you understand the intentions for the creation of such a story you can accept the vociferous and, at times, ludicrous exaggerations on the part of the characters. Every line and action is dramatic or sensationalized in order beat  into you the heroism of the Greek armies. This is more in line with a work for presentation in the theatre than for presentation on the big screen. There is no subtlety whatsoever but it has to drill home its message.

Artistry is not too bad in this film. It falls in line with the sensationalist presentation that began with its predecessor.

Negatives

  The primary negatives were the grossly exaggerated biases. This film and its predecessor have done a great disservice to the actual history of the war with Persia. Firstly, 300 (2007) grossly exaggerated the service of the Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae. It is an outrage and an abomination. Did they really expect us to believe that Leonidas and his crew could have withstood  the Persians on their own? It also does disservice to the other Greek states that participated in the Battle of Thermopylae. There were 7000 Greek troops involved. After they were betrayed by Ephialtes Leonidas disbanded a majority of the Greek force and stayed with his force of 300 Spartans, 700 thespians and 400 Thebans. It is a good thing he was not as dumb as these movies claim. In this current film, Rise of an Empire, Themistocles is desperate for the Greeks to unite when in fact they were already united from the Battle of Thermopylae. I also detested the talk about ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ vs. tyranny. In these days the words democracy and freedom are trumpeted with a clarion call. However, while Themistocles is trumpeting these virtues he forgets to acknowledge that these Greek states were built on the back of slave labour. Freedom and democracy only existed for the propertied classes. So in this film when they portray the galley slaves of the Persian naval ships chained to the bottom and enduring terrible treatment the Greeks were no better. The Romans were just as bad. The director clearly avoided portraying that in the film as Themistocles rants on and on about freedom. Hogwash!

The Persians are also portrayed in a terrible manner and this is in keeping with how the West demonizes its opponents. The Persians are portrayed as savages that rely on mysticism and the most outrageous brutality to stay afloat. Xerxes is portrayed as a buffoon and incompetent as Artemisia reigns supreme. He becomes a god king by dipping in some water. Oh dear! The conquering principles of the Persians was no different from any other superpower particularly in the period of antiquity. The Greeks under Alexander the great were just as savage yet Alexander is portrayed as some savior in the history books.  Caesar was just as horrible particularly in his military campaign against Gaul. Despite his bloodlust, which is no different from Xerxes, we get the fancy quote from Caesar that is trumpeted as representative of Western imperialism and might: ‘veni vidi Vici’. When the Persians are the superpower they seem like savages or hounds from hell.  In that period any kingdom that wanted to be holy was thrashed.  Ephialtes betrays the Greeks and is so portrayed as a grotesque hunchback.  I wonder how they will portray Themistocles after he  goes over to the Persians. There are many other flaws in the historical account which I cannot go into here but this film clearly shows how History can be twisted to reflect biased opinions and agendas. I am thankful that I question everything and don’t let my senses get trampled on by propaganda. Themistocles gives Artemisia, who is falsely claimed to be a Greek, a chance to escape. She did escape but must get a dramatic end in this film.

The stylized violence reflects this excessive propagandistic approach to the retelling of a particular historical episode.  It is similar to the first  film and is clearly overcooked. Every action is dramatized and every word of dialogue is given poetic license. There does not seem to be a core for the moralizing of the Greeks apart from the fancy concepts. The story is hollow and a great misfire. There is no real story told from the individual perspective apart from Artemisia. The approach is merely portrayed in the form of bathos as opposed to pathos. I sympathized with no one. If they toned down and sought to tell a more accurate account of life in this war against Persia I would have understood. It is based on a graphic novel however so let me not get ahead of myself but there is still no core to relate to apart from high flown concepts.

The acting was terrible and is expected based on the previous film. The one thing the previous film had over this current release was the star turn of Gerard Butler as King Leonidas.