From Naim ZOTO
It is said that Homer, father of European literature, was completely blind. There are many versions about the cause of his blindness, from the natural ones (he was born such), the loss of the sight from his reading and the tiring writing on stone tablets, his being bedazzled by the extraordinary beauty of Helen, to his self-effacement by not anticipating the collapse and the downfall of Troy. Reading Homer’s work you do not see signs of blindness, myopia, or giddiness. His Iliad and Odyssey still continue to stir deep emotions about the fate of mankind. In his artistic design, even though he refers to battles involving populaces, tribes, regions, races and nations, you can not find any proof that would outrage or denigrate any group, not only in Homer’s time, when history was made and wounds weren’t healed, but even today, after two thousands years. Homeric’ characters, even though fighting each other in a “chattel-glory” duel, were high-toned. Most of all, the writer stands above the pairs giving them what they deserved, a proof of his worldwide personality.
The blind antic poet wasn’t such, when committed to testify and describe his story.
Homer is the most well-known writer and artist, because he is the first author that criticized his own. Troy (its tragic destruction-I don’t know why it reminds me of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at the end of World War II) and the Trojan Horse are his greatest self-critical metaphors. Greeks destroyed Troy but since then, not only Greeks, but the whole post-Troy world suffers in conscience this fatal mistake, certainly not for Helen, the beautiful Greek blonde who still arouses admiration absorbs the energy of movie producers. From the Homeric epics to Aeschylus, the point of view about the war and encounters in antiquity in general, does not change so much, except the artistic tools of expression and the increasing emphasis of the tragic aspect of conflicts between populaces. Even if Homer lost his sight because of what he saw, or what he would see, the old Aeschylus would escape from Athens because of his art: seemingly, the Greek kings would not forgive the author of the seven tragedies (rather his seven artistic wonders) for the innovative message of his art. If Homer provoked the scruple of the Greek conscience about Troy, Aeschylus went further. The author of the tragedy “The Persians”, dedicated to the cause that brought the Greek-Persian conflict, warned his own and the world that the “right” would be exiled to the opponent’s side, in both cases of excess and scoundrels. You can beat the other, the enemy, the opponent, but you have no right to offend and mistreat him. Because sometimes, power is not parallel with right or the truth.
But the producers of the newest movie that is seen round the world, including Albania, the movie with the numeral title “300”, product of the American Hollywood, stage-manager Zack Snyder, do not have the same opinion. On the contrary, the movie producers seem to have tried to modify and downgrade not only history, but even the great messages of antic art. For some, the movie degenerates into racism and fascism, as repercussion of the forecasts of the American philosopher Huntington, for a clash (euphemism for the word “war”) between cultures and civilizations, that for some has began with Bush’s war in Iraq.
The movie “300”, produced in 2007, speaks about the Greek-Persian War that took place in the Thermopylae, where the King, Leonidas, along with 300 Spartan troops (that look like US Marines), faced off the East Persian army, fighting to death, otherwise the other part (of the world) that hesitates or flirts with the enemy. In the movie “300”, typical of Hollywood not only for the techniques and special effects that are used, the Persian king, Xerxes (described as Bin Laden), and thousands of his warriors, appear with dark skin, as wild men, bloodthirsty, barbarians, monsters, meanwhile, the 300 men are handsome, brave, nobles and courageous. Also, black and white is the movie’s stamp of socialist realism. Where the Aeschylus of before Christ, with the Hollywood of the 21st century:
Only a decade after the last warfare between the Greek and Persians, the great dramatist wrote the tragedy “The Persians”, an epic work of the Persian tragedy. The event occurs in Souza of Persia and his heroes are the king Xerxes, his mother Atoka and the spirit of Dari. In this tragedy, Persia and Greece are of one race and the drama is described with beauty and compassion. The Greeks have cried in their amphitheater for the tragedy of Xerxes, so did their Persian rivals. But in today’s movie “300”, in the new order of western democracy, the onlookers may react completely differently, in a heterogeneous theatre; they can bring out weapons from the injected enmity even artistically.
The Spartans, who fight for “freedom and democracy”, at the end of the film are killed. In the name of the war, not of the catharsis! This sublime sacrifice becomes reason for reflection, for to win, according to the stamp, the unity of all the democratic “polis” (Greeks) in the sacred war against the barbarian enemy (the ancient Persians), which, fortunately for Hollywood, could not be anything but today’s Iran. In the movie, you can not ascertain a dialogue between the pairs, no likeness, and no signs of complicity: they are two different worlds, destined to destroy each-other. Furthermore, the movie’s logo is not casual, that is composed in such way to be read in the contrary: The 300 number in the poster can be read as “Zoo” (animals, a real zoo), referring to the enemy.
One of the characters in the movie “300”, openly declares: “I have gathered a lot of enmity!” After the film, the spectator needs to think: Why this war, this grubbing, grudge, this enmity? Are the Spartans a symbol of democracy, while, on the other hand, a whole nation, rather a whole continent is considered as “barbarian”? How much does the artistic truth accord with the historical truth, and how much avoidance is allowed? After all, does art have the right to offend and denigrate a nation’s history? What is the edge that divides art from fake? Hundreds of articles, polemics, thousand of pages have been written in the global media after the movie “300”.
The producers’ reaction about the critics of the movie reminds me of a dialogue that took place after a show in the antic theatre. The dialogue was taken by the antic author, Plutarch, and occurred between the author and the king Solon:
“But this is just acting, ‘archon’.
-Just acting, but soon we will see what effect will have for the citizens.”
In the movie “300”, all the events, the battle between the “brave” Spartans and the “barbarian” Persians, is narrated by a “marathoner”, whose at the end of the battle, is chosen from Leonidas to return to Athens and to testify to their heroism and the message of the Battle of Thermopylae. This character has lost one eye in war. This detail is not casual. The movie producers, seemingly, have predicted the “partisanship”, partiality, the emphasized subjectivity, so, they “closed” one eye to the narrator. In fact, the blindness of the movie “300” of the American Hollywood goes far beyond. It has surpassed every limit. The movie refers to the antic events and authors, but outrage their moral, artistic, and philosophic monuments. The director Zack Snyder refers especially to Aeschylus and his tragedy “The Persians”, but consciously forgets some of the essential lessons of the Master. In antiquity, the Gods (there were many, not just one as they want to teach us) would chasten everyone who would surpass the right, those who abused with force, or showed megalomania and arrogance towards victims. This way of feeling or acting is known from Greek antiquity with the word “hubris”. Hubris was considered a crime and was chasten by the Gods, as well from the authorities of classic Athens. But “hubris” is considered a sign of secure imminent collapse. (The proverb “pride goes before a fall” is thought to sum up the modern definition of hubris.) Let’s hope that “hubris” people and institutions will be limited. It will be much better if it remains only in Hollywood acting, as well as many productions that have remained behind human progress.
