The pointless political debates over '300'

Critics and pundits need to stop theorizing, debating and making excuses for the 'political ideologies' or 'historical inaccuracies' in Zack Snyder's '300', because, simply put, there are none. People seem to be forgetting that above all the movie is based on a COMIC BOOK (I'm not trying to start a debate over whether there's a difference between graphic novels and comic books, I'm just simplifying for argument's sake). Sure, it may be based on an historical event, but great liberties were taken with that event when Frank Miller wrote the comic book/graphic novel for '300'. Even more liberties were taken when Zack Snyder adapted it to the movie. So to sit and argue over the historical inaccuracies, or political messages within the film is a moot point. Personally, I loved the movie, but this film is far too over-the-top, out of this world, and just plain silly for any educated mind to sit and seriously theorize or debate over it's political allegories - especially comparisons to the Iraq war. In this day, if a war movie is made about any war from any point in time, there will be folks who can't wait to tear it apart with comparisons and metaphors to the Iraq war. People just need to stop reading so much into it and accept it for what it is, a well made piece of ENTERTAINMENT made out of a very well made and entertaining COMIC BOOK. So if you're looking for political allegory, look somewhere else.

GENE SEYMOUR of Newsday got it right when he wrote this in his review for the film:

"One hears of allegedly serious minds grappling over what the "politics" of "300" are. Bloggers, pundits and others with too much time on their hands have spent the weeks leading to the opening of this revved-up and outlandish retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae arguing over which present-day parallel best fits the ancient combatants.

For the moment, we'll bite: Are the 300 Spartans, led by King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), correlatives for freedom-loving Americans holding the line against Middle East terror as personified here by the massive Persian army? Or are the nation-gobbling Persians, led by King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), analogous to what some believe to be imperialistic Americans?

If "300" carried any intellectual heft (if, in other words, it was scrupulous with historic details), one could see the point of thrashing these provocative notions to their metaphoric nubs. But this movie in no way pretends to be a replication of historical events. It is, instead, a willed hallucination of ancient history goosed with mutant warriors, rhinos outfitted like Sherman tanks and a King Xerxes who's dolled up with enough glittering threads and glossy makeup to make every David Bowie wanna-be from the mid-1970s chew his knuckles in fuming envy.

Put bluntly, the movie's just too darned silly to withstand any ideological theorizing. And "silly" is invoked here, more or less, with affection."

You can read the entire article here: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etlede5121896mar09,0,2850452.story?coll=ny-moviereview-headlines

I'll stop ranting now. If you haven't seen the movie yet, I highly suggest you do. It is very entertaining.