300 sequel to be even more sexist and historically inaccurate

Pin it

Speaking as a Classics major, all I ask for from motion pictures is even the slightest deference to actual history or mythology. I know that any adaptation changes the story for its own purposes, and sometimes those changes make more sense for the big screen. That's why 300 didn't offend my Classical sensibilities. Instead, it offended totally different sensibilities by managing to be both homophobic and racist. Well done, Zack Snyder!

And it looks like its sequel, 300: Battle of Artemisia, will continue the trend of making me angry:

Eva Green has entered negotiations to play Artemisia in the movie, which is currently working with the title 300: Battle of Artemisia. Noam Murro (Smart People) is directing…

Green would play a ruthless, gold-covered goddess who persuades Xerxes to amass his army and helps lead them into battle.

Now, I love Eva Green, but Artemisia was a real person. She was the only female commander in the Persian army, which is kind of bad-ass. Changing her into a goddess is not only an odd choice for a sequel to a film that included no supernatural elements (lobster-handed man not withstanding), but it also smacks of sexism — as if a woman could only be involved in this tale if she were otherworldly. (And the whole "persuasion" bit was a tired trope by the time of the Bible.) Murro: you do not need to change that part of the story! But I guess you are keeping up a tradition set by the first film, and maybe it was in your contract. Well done?