The rebirth of a nation: glorifying eugenics in a cult classic for our times.(300)(Critical essay)

300 IS ARGUABLY THE MOST RACIALLY charged movie since D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation. In true post-9/11 form, Zack Snyder's film turns brown into the new Black; Persians are depicted as bloodthirsty savages thwarted in the Battle of Thermopylae by a small contingent of freedom fighters--with noticeably paler skin--looking to preserve democracy at all costs. This eerily resembles the 1915 epic celebrating the Ku Klux Klan's rise during Reconstruction to defend Southern whites' dignity and honor against what were then seen as recently liberated Black insurgents. Like Griffith's film, this mixture of race, racism, sex and violence has been astonishingly profitable: 300 has grossed nearly $500 million worldwide since hitting box offices in March, and hundreds of millions more are on the way with its recent DVD release.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In many ways, 300 has already become as much of a cult classic as Birth was in its heyday and is likely to be remembered more for its groundbreaking cinematography and technical achievements than its racial overtones. What's interesting, however, is how both films' critically acclaimed screenplays were brought to life by manipulating skin color--the digitally airbrushed complexion of 300's characters emphasizes, exacerbates, and racializes the Persian/Spartan conflict in a manner not unlike Birth's use of blackface.

In a time of growing unrest between the West and the Middle East, this color-coded depiction of freedom, nation, and democracy becomes central to 300's take-home message. But closer inspection reveals a subtler, yet similarly troubling idea that has gone largely unnoticed--300's unapologetic glorification of eugenics.

Within the film's first few minutes, audiences are introduced to a practice presented as key to Sparta's heroic culture: breeding better humans. Every newborn was inspected for health, strength and vigor; those showing defect or disability were abandoned to die. The film suggests that this rather crude form of eugenics is put in place for military reasons--every Spartan child should be able to either become a soldier or give birth to one.

Initially shocked, audiences are quickly reassured that this is all for the greater good: nation, freedom and the Spartan family. How else can Sparta defend itself--and inspire modern democracies--unless it reserves scarce resources for the strongest? 300's crafty narration, erotic imagery and blue-screened dramaturgy give sympathy to these practices. After all, Spartans are brave, noble and beautiful; the ends here seem to justify the means.

This pro-eugenics trope is magnified by the film's dramatic climax, which implausibly suggests that but for the Spartans' betrayal by Ephialtes--a physically disabled Spartan hidden from the authorities as a child--the 300 eugenically selected soldiers would have outlasted Xerxes's minions. The impression left in viewers' minds is that were it not for the failure of Spartan eugenics to catch Ephialtes at birth, King Leonidas might very well have led his outmanned and overmatched army to victory.