I saw the movie "300" and, although I have some problems with it historically and cinematically, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

My Iranian friends who have objected to the portrayal of Xerxes I and the Persian Empire in this flick should chill out. I've concluded that the movie does not portray the Persians as any more monstrous or decadent as they probably were in 480 B.C.

This movie makes the Persians the "bad guys," but that is to be expected. Most Hollywood movies need bad guys to tell a story. Do most intelligent people fall for the black/white dichotomy? Except for some of my extreme right-wing friends, the answer is no.

I certainly found it a bit anachronistic to turn this battle into freedom- and reason-loving Greeks versus the imperial tyranny of the Persian Empire -- and in this I will certainly agree with my modern Persian brothers and sisters who object to this aspect of the movie -- but "300" is not to be boycotted, but rather it should serve as a starting point for 21st century movie-goers to discuss the importance of ancient history, particular that of the struggles of peoples in the 5th century B.C.

Freedom versus slavery? Democracy versus empire? Reason versus mysticism? That's a bit too much. I agree that it would be stretching the truth to portray the Battle of Thermopylae in these terms.

But boycott and ban the movie? Not at all.

Unlike Iran, where the government is quick to ban any movie that might be at cross-purposes to its political and military aims, those of us in West can sit back and watch just about any cinematic piece of art we wish to and then argue about its merit and limitations as well as its strengths. That's the beauty of living in a free country and one I've love to see extended across the world -- if the world is ready for such a subversive idea.

But consider this -- the Battle of Thermopylae actually happened. This was not a made-up event or a blatant piece of rewriting history according to Western propaganda. There was a war between Persia and Greece. The armies of Xerxes I, encouraged by his generals who still felt bad about defeats under Darius, did indeed invade Greece to expand the Persian Empire. The expansion of an empire always involves war and death. Persia was an empire and it certainly enslaved hundreds of thousands of people against their will to fight for the god-king Xerxes. Court life around Xerxes was probably decadent, as most court life tends to be.

The primary point here should be that the sacrifices, especially by the 300 Spartans led by King Leonides (after most of the rest of the Greek forces had retreated), served to inspire the rest of Greece to continue to fight against the Persians. After the naval battle at Salamis and some subsequent fighting after Xerxes went back to Persia, the Greeks finally repelled and stopped the Persian military campaign.

Do we make a moral judgment about this military victory for the Greeks over the invading Persians? In this case I think it's a moot point. Human beings have been fighting each other for land and resources for thousands of years. As a student of history I am less interested in interpreting historical events in terms of "good" and "bad" and more interested in determining the causes and effects of such events.

Good versus bad? Freedom versus despotism? Democracy versus tyranny? That's probably going too far. I agree. The Greeks could be nasty people too, especially in battle, and they were no strangers to enslaving people against their will or imposing socio-political restrictions on the people's freedom.

Could the movie have been more historically accurate? Certainly, but Hollywood doesn't usually stick to the facts and anyone with half a brain should know this.