View Full Version : RE: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video | On the "film" 300
Due to the fact that I would've otherwise violated forum rules, I will post my response to this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127510-Most-Historically-Accurate-Films-Documentaries-Video/page7) in here.
Well maybe its because he is the ** king of sparta. What should he say in your opinion? "Well nay our health insurance system is better than yours, we rather stay independant" He was the leader of a fascist society and thus a bit biased. What a character says in a movie is not necessarily the opinion of the movie makers. The movie is a graphic novel adaptation, very close to it, but morally you can only blame the movie for one thing: It doesn't get the bad side of this fatalist behavior into focus. The makers of the comic and movie state nowhere that the spartians are right.
Right. So what do you call this (http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/still/300_06.jpg)? I call it blatant xenophobia. There's no artistic license for that at all.
The makers of the comic and movie state nowhere that the spartians are right.
Ah, no. What they do claim is that "western culture" is superior to "eastern culture". This sounds nothing more than rubbish piece of nonsense that is a propagandic extension of the rampant xenophobia that seems to have appeared after the eleventh of september, 2001 against anyone who looks Middle Eastern. I'm not talking about Islam here, specifically, but rather about anyone who looks Middle Eastern. That includes Sikhs, Arab Copts, Persians (Zoroastrians and Christians) as well as Persian, Turkish and Arab Muslims, of course. And if you think that this is hyperbole, it's actually the words of Mr. Miller himself, who accused Eastern culture of endorsing the genital mutilation of daughters, the murder of innocent people, living in a medieval age and actually calling them backwards barbarians (http://www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/612.php).
So if anyone says that Frank Miller has had no message whatsoever when he produced this xenocentric piece of rubbish that reeks of chauvinism, I would ask that person to look at that movie closely, for its depiction of an ancient culture as exceptionally cruel, its leader as an androgynous sadomasochist and its people as being sub-humans that fit in well with the Orcs of J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion, is nothing close of propaganda.
To get back at your point; no, he doesn't state the Spartans are right. But one might argue there's some suggestion that he does endorse the Spartans.
Freedom-speech: check
Dramatic music: check
Dehumanisation of the enemy: check
So there you are.
=========================
At all the moderators: If you want to close this thread, I'm fine with it. I just wanted to respond.
Strike For The South
05-02-2010, 21:32
Western culture is superior that's why we have all the cool stuff and get to exploit brown people.
I'm pretty sure Jesus wrote that in the constitution.
The South will rise again, etc. Yeah sweet home Alabama, Montgomery's got the answer bla. You Dixie-people should really try to get to a civilised place...no, not Birmingham, I mean places like San Francisco, you know. Also Jesus was brown.
Strike For The South
05-02-2010, 21:48
The South will rise again, etc. Yeah sweet home Alabama, Montgomery's got the answer bla. You Dixie-people should really try to get to a civilised place...no, not Birmingham, I mean places like San Francisco, you know. Also Jesus was brown.
I like San Francisco, it's a great place to go if you've got yellow fever IYKWIMAITYD.
But what do you want me to say man? I agree with you. Clearly the Persians are painted as the bad guys, now whether that is simply hollywoods way of making a brain dead action flick or a political statement comes down to how one veiws it.
I would argue anyone who gets indoctranated by such a movie had no hope in the first place and is probably running around in a "drill baby drill" t-shirt as we speak.
I understand why you are sensitive and I understand it is probably hard to deal with stereotypes that get propagated but at the same time you need to know which battles to fight.
However as I apperciate the art of the rant more than anyone I gave you a reply.
Good day sir.
Rhyfelwyr
05-02-2010, 22:36
Well we live in a world where white people tend to live in more advanced societies. So subconsciously, we tend to presume white people were always a bit ahead of the rest. This runs right through the way we see all of history. We know ancient Greeks to have been one of the great ancient civilisations, so we presume they were white, and in particular as your typical northern European, as opposed to being olive skinned. When we think of the Middle Ages, we think of the white chivalrous knights fighting the barbarous Saracen, even though the Islamic world was more politically/scientifically advanced at the time.
Plus, when the filmakers are appealing to a largely white audience, it's easier for them to identify with white people as the 'good guys', and make all the people that look a bit different the 'badies'.
IYKWIMAITYD.
I'm proud of myself for looking at that and working it out right away.
As a wiser man than me said:
Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?
PanzerJaeger
05-03-2010, 00:41
First of all, I highly doubt most people read anything into the movie other than what it was - a standard David versus Goliath action flick heavy on machismo and green-screen effects. I certainly do not think many would pick up on any subtle commentary on 9/11 or the Muslim world versus the Western World even if it that was the intention of the writer. Neither the audience nor the movie is that deep. :shrug:
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the movie and/or the novel it was based on was a take on modern Western and Islamic societies, and that it does seek to paint the West as superior. So what? That's an exceedingly valid opinion, and the best art is often controversial.
Strike For The South
05-03-2010, 02:14
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the movie and/or the novel it was based on was a take on modern Western and Islamic societies, and that it does seek to paint the West as superior. So what? That's an exceedingly valid opinion, and the best art is often controversial.
The wests culture is superior but it is because we are not warmongering xenophobes like the Spartans are depicted in the movie.
PanzerJaeger
05-03-2010, 02:34
The wests culture is superior but it is because we are not warmongering xenophobes like the Spartans are depicted in the movie.
One could argue that Western culture achieved its current ideological worldview through constant warfare and world conquest. It could be said that a society must first be comprised of warmongering xenophobes to then be able to fully analyze and reflect back on the negative consequences of such attitudes. Maybe the Spartans hadn't reached this period of reflection yet in the movie... :grin:
One could argue that Western culture achieved its current ideological worldview through constant warfare and world conquest. It could be said that a society must first be comprised of warmongering xenophobes to then be able to fully analyze and reflect back on the negative consequences of such attitudes. Maybe the Spartans hadn't reached this period of reflection yet in the movie... :grin:
Neither has the Republican party nor FoxNews, according to that logic.
PanzerJaeger
05-03-2010, 02:46
Neither has the Republican party nor FoxNews, according to that logic.
Zing! :hide:
Here's another take, just for fun. Were the Spartans really depicted as warmongering xenophobes in the movie, or does that characterization come from Strike's knowledge of the real Spartans? It has been a while since I've seen the movie, but it seems like I remember that they were forced into war through the message delivered by that rude and particularly unlucky courier.
So, in the movie at least, they were depicted as a prosperous and peace loving people who just happened to maintain an inordinately powerful national defense, kind of the United States! I'm seeing all kinds of undertones!! :grin:
Zing! :hide:
Here's another take, just for fun. Were the Spartans really depicted as warmongering xenophobes in the movie, or does that characterization come from Strike's knowledge of the real Spartans? It has been a while since I've seen the movie, but it seems like I remember that they were forced into war through the message delivered by that rude and particularly unlucky courier.
So, in the movie at least, they were depicted as a peace loving people who just happened to maintain an inordinately powerful national defense, kind of the United States. :grin:
If the Spartans were the United States, then they would have invaded Persia and stole their oil for... erm.. lighting their lamps at night.
However, the Spartans were defending from an army which was being landed on their shores, along with the Athenians, and numberous other Greek City states. The first-world war would be a better comparison. The Germans were marching over Belguim/France, and UK, France and all the other allies were trying to hold them off. Both sides having very heavy losses and not much movement in terms of land gain/lose.
Louis VI the Fat
05-03-2010, 02:56
Western culture is superior that's why we have all the cool stuff and get to exploit brown people.
I'm pretty sure Jesus wrote that in the constitution.
I like San Francisco, it's a great place to go if you've got yellow fever IYKWIMAITYD.
But what do you want me to say man? I agree with you. Clearly the Persians are painted as the bad guys, now whether that is simply hollywoods way of making a brain dead action flick or a political statement comes down to how one veiws it.
I would argue anyone who gets indoctranated by such a movie had no hope in the first place and is probably running around in a "drill baby drill" t-shirt as we speak.
I understand why you are sensitive and I understand it is probably hard to deal with stereotypes that get propagated but at the same time you need to know which battles to fight.
However as I apperciate the art of the rant more than anyone I gave you a reply.
Good day sir.:smitten:
PanzerJaeger
05-03-2010, 03:01
I've completely changed my mind about this movie. It's quite obviously an unflattering critique of American imperial aspirations that paints us all as warmongering xenophobes and is thus utter filth!
Sasaki Kojiro
05-03-2010, 03:04
I think the film is very anti-american. It portrays Americans as vicious warriors who mistreat their children and hate crippled people, and have backstabbing corrupt politicians (since there is a 1:1 mapping between things that happened in the movie and the message).
I also wish Americans would put on shirts. And stop prancing around in leather jockstraps.
Louis VI the Fat
05-03-2010, 03:33
Right. So what do you call this (http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/still/300_06.jpg)? https://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4620/haxa.jpg
Hax, hate to say it but you need a life. Then you need to forgive and forget the beating the skinheads gave you because your brown (Im guessing your brown, and im guessing you got beat up by skinheads because thats the only reason I can think of why your calling 300 a hateful movie).
I would ask that person to look at that movie closely, for its depiction of an ancient culture as exceptionally cruel, its leader as an androgynous sadomasochist and its people as being sub-humans that fit in well with the Orcs of J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion, is nothing close of propaganda.
If you werent the OP, id tell you to leave. Now. Because you dont know anything about ancient history to be even discussing it. It WAS exceptionally cruel. The civil war in The Congo comes close to what warfare was back in those days. The persian leader was probaly a little bit feminine too, they were alot of makeup back in the east and listened to lutes and flutes (the spartans listened to skin flutes though...look it up). It was a comic book movie, dehumanizing the invading horde is almost called for. Get over it.
Right. So what do you call this? I call it blatant xenophobia. There's no artistic license for that at all.
Since when do you get to say what should or should not be in a movie? Are you giving these licenses out? Can I get a license to kill from you? In all seriousness though get off your high horse and stop looking for meaning behind stuff that doesnt have any. You have too much time on your hands.
Hax, hate to say it but you need a life. Then you need to forgive and forget the beating the skinheads gave you because your brown (Im guessing your brown, and im guessing you got beat up by skinheads because thats the only reason I can think of why your calling 300 a hateful movie).
1) I'm not brown. I'm not Caucasian, but I'm whiter than Arabs or Turks. Actually, I'm half-Dutch, quarter-Turkish, quarter-Arab. I have never been beaten up over racial anything. Apart from that, I'm a Mahayana Buddhist and as such, forgiveness is one of the central aspects of my life. I would like you to stop claiming things that have not happened.
So no. The reason why I think 300 is a pathetic chauvinistic piece of donkey feces is because I study Persian history, especially the Achaemenid period.
If you werent the OP, id tell you to leave. Now. Because you dont know anything about ancient history to be even discussing it. It WAS exceptionally cruel.
Take a look in my library: "A History of the Persian Empire" by A.T. Olmstead is one of my favourite books. Then there's "The Legacy Of Persia", cowritten by brilliant historians and linguisticians such as H.W. Bailey. While I'm not saying that the Persian Achaemenid empire was not cruel (they invented one of the worst ways of torturing someone to death), but they were not subhumans, in any aspect. While the Athenians banned astronomy, and even killed one of Herodotos friends for practicing it, there had been an immense cultural and scientifical progression in Achaemenid Persia.
No, Persia was not better. But they were certainly not worse.
The persian leader was probaly a little bit feminine too, they were alot of makeup back in the east and listened to lutes and flutes (the spartans listened to skin flutes though...look it up). It was a comic book movie, dehumanizing the invading horde is almost called for. Get over it.
Dehumanisation of the enemy is one of the best ways to destroy feelings of humanity or regret over killing them.
Since when do you get to say what should or should not be in a movie?
I think you need to know what the word "artistic license" means. I was refering to the fact that there is no historical basis for to claim that the Persians were sub-humans.
In all seriousness though get off your high horse and stop looking for meaning behind stuff that doesnt have any.
And I quote Frank Miller:
Well, okay, then let’s finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.
So there you are.
You have too much time on your hands.
When it comes to ethnocentric pathetic excuses for "history", yes, I'll make time.
CountArach
05-03-2010, 10:29
First of all, I highly doubt most people read anything into the movie other than what it was - a standard David versus Goliath action flick heavy on machismo and green-screen effects. I certainly do not think many would pick up on any subtle commentary on 9/11 or the Muslim world versus the Western World even if it that was the intention of the writer. Neither the audience nor the movie is that deep. :shrug:
Discursively it is utterly impossible for the movie to avoid some comment on it and it is also impossible for us to not draw on our own knowledge of our present and to place that view upon both it and the 'real' history of the 300.
First of all, I highly doubt most people read anything into the movie other than what it was - a standard David versus Goliath action flick heavy on machismo and green-screen effects. I certainly do not think many would pick up on any subtle commentary on 9/11 or the Muslim world versus the Western World even if it that was the intention of the writer. Neither the audience nor the movie is that deep. :shrug:
That's true. I cannot argue against that.
https://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4620/haxa.jpg
:bow: Excellent. Don't misunderstand me, I can appreciate some of the humorous scenes of 300.
It's just a comic book geez.
Well Fragony, wouldn't the same go for your beloved Al-Aqsa "death to Israel" Mickey Mouse programs?
If 300 calls for hate. The immortals existed by the way they were elite troops, and they wore masks.
If 300 calls for hate. The immortals existed by the way they were elite troops, and they wore masks.
Well thank you for your enlightening responses on the existence of the Ten-Thousand Immortals, named so because there were always ten thousand of them. That means that if one of them died, there would always be a replacement ready. They weren't anything like dual-wielding pseudo-ninjas who look like the bastard offspring between the Joseph Merrick and Amy Winehouse. Also, they didn't wear masks (I don't know where you've got this, I haven't found it mentioned just about anywhere). The word "Immortals" wasn't even used by the Achaemenid, and is a Greek invention. The Sassanids called them Shahedan, however. The Achamaenids refered to them as Anûshiya, which translates to Greek "êtairoi".
If 300 calls for hate.
True. It doesn't.
Got a pic of what they looked like I'll make you a scan when I have the time. I would say masks make sense anyway because they were always replaced, keeps it scary NOBODY DIES voila scary warriors. There are always dozens of translations by the way.
edit, don't think it were 10.000 but not sure
Kagemusha
05-03-2010, 14:56
https://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2760/3immortalswn4.png
I must be wrong about the masks then mea culpa
...we know what they look like, Fragony.
http://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/3a2f9ddb77.jpg
aimlesswanderer
05-03-2010, 15:11
My Mum, who knows less than nothing about history, saw the ads for 300 and thought it was a fantasy movie like Lord of the Rings! I had to explain to her that it was based on history (very loosely at that), though it was nearly impossible to tell from the promos unless you were familiar with the history.
On one hand I don't want to read too much into it, but for the average watcher, what they would see seems to be the Spartans/Europeans as the "good guys" and the "Eastern" Persians as bizarre semi human barbarians. This seems to happen very disturbingly often in horrywood movies, too often to be a coincidence.
I have concluded, however, that to actually expect much of movies "based on historical events" is a forlorn hope indeed. Why let reality and actual history get in the way of a "great movie experience" (and lots of $)? Most people who watch don't want to use their brains at all, so aim low - really low. :furious3:
No, im not going to stop claiming stuff that didnt happen. Removed by moderator -- personal attack.
Noone cares if you "Study" something. Noone. That literally means nothing to me. If it helps you any, yes I have read books about Persia...in fact I "Study" them also.
Frank Miller is reffering to the religion of Islam. Removed by moderator -- religion bashing. Ancient Mesopatamia and modern Arab culture have huge differences, mainly what you said...there were major scientific advances going on back then. Nevermind the fact that Miller wasnt reffering to Persians (Iranians), of which there is a difference between them and arabs.
Pathetic excuses for a comic book? Its not based on history.
I'm curious as to why the OP thinks the West turned all xenophobic against the East on 9/9/2001. :inquisitive:
Edit-> for historical completeness, here's the old Backroom thread on 300:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?81211-Iranians-outraged-over-hit-movie-%E2%80%98300%E2%80%99
I'm curious as to why the OP thinks the West turned all xenophobic against the East on 9/9/2001. :inquisitive:
We aren't?
How can he possibly refer to muslims there weren't any muslims at the time that was the good part of a 1000 years later
Pathetic excuses for a comic book? Its not based on history.
Its makers think otherwise
300's director Zack Snyder stated in an MTV interview that "the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."
He then goes on to say:
"a guy [Dilios] who knows how not to wreck a good story with truth."
Which I think is good. The rest of the movie is just horrible.
How can he possibly refer to muslims there weren't any muslims at the time that was the good part of a 1000 years later
No, but there is a non-Islamic aspect of the Middle East as well. There is a difference between Persian culture, Arab culture, and Islamic culture. They've all influenced one another, though.
Louis VI the Fat
05-03-2010, 18:23
Don't misunderstand me, I can appreciate some of the humorous scenes of 300.It's ages ago since I saw the ovie. I don't remember it being humorous?
I do agree that 300 is a movie that would make Leni Riefenstahl proud. Homoerotic protofascist propaganda. Yes, I am serious.
As with Riefenstahl movies, I appreciate the powerful imagery. The political and ideological underpinnings, not so much.
Strike For The South
05-03-2010, 18:25
It's ages ago since I saw the ovie. I don't remember it being humorous?
I do agree that 300 is a movie that would make Leni Riefenstahl proud. Homoerotic paleofascist propaganda. Yes, I am serious.
As with Riefenstahl movies, I appreciate the powerful imagery. The political and ideological underpinnings, not so much.
Helene Bertha Amalie "Leni" Riefenstahl (German pronunciation: [ˈriːfənʃtaːl] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_German)) (22 August 1902 – 8 September 2003) was a German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) film director (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_director), actress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actress) and dancer widely noted for her aesthetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics) and innovations as a filmmaker. Her most famous film was Triumph des Willens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will) (Triumph of the Will), a propaganda film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_film) made at the 1934 Nuremberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg) congress of the Nazi Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party). Riefenstahl's prominence in the Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich) along with her personal friendships with Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) and Joseph Goebbels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) thwarted her film career following Germany's defeat in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), after which she was arrested but released without any charges.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl#cite_note-muller-0)
Cliff notes
It's ages ago since I saw the ovie. I don't remember it being humorous?
I couldn't really keep a straight face at the "This is Sparta" scene.
yes and here we like comics, just about everything offends everyone, but this is really a bit much. Same guy wrote Watchmen and V for Vendetta by the way
Seamus Fermanagh
05-03-2010, 19:28
Simplistic plot and a-historical. Key issue in plot development -- traitor denied chance to be Spartan because his deformity prevents him protecting his squadmates with his shield, anger causes betrayal -- is made patently absurd by the completely ahistorical solo artist hack-fest combat sequences. Phalanx tactics? Where? All in all, Gladiator was less annoying.
Homoerotic? I suppose so. Buff lads in skimply clothing being macho. Probably enough to qualify.
Reifenstahlesque? I've never seen one of her movies in its entirety. 300 does seem to have the same level of subtlety she used in those out-takes I saw. To wit, none.
PanzerJaeger
05-03-2010, 19:51
If 300 was a take on Riefenstahl's style, it was a poor imitation. She was able to create far more compelling films with a lot fewer technical resources.
Louis VI the Fat
05-03-2010, 19:52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwmYFz01MxA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRcADzh5Z6c&feature=related
Fascism is aestheticism too. It doesn't need plot. It needs gloryfication of violence, stylizised violence.
A nation that lives to fight. Where a man's willingness and ability to fight are his worth. Where women are absent. Where women are virtuous, loyal to their fighting men, breeding machines for more men. It needs a dehumanised opponent, 'Asian hordes'. It gives an unequivocal answer to that ancient question of which example to choose: Sparta, instead of Athens. Not science, or wisdom. But violence, elitism, aggression. Not democracy, but unquestioned leadership.
I am worse than Hax: 300 is not a direct portrayal of the war on the terror. It does not even glorify the war on terror. It does, however, glorify the fascist tendencies of the war on terror, that some would have liked to see evoked.
If 300 was a take on Riefenstahl's style, it was a poor imitation. She was able to create far more compelling films with a lot fewer technical resources. Riefenstahl is hard to surpass, yes. 300 certainly didn't manage.
As with 300, the link between the art and the ideology is indirect, sometimes tenuous, but present.
If 300 was a take on Riefenstahl's style, it was a poor imitation. She was able to create far more compelling films with a lot fewer technical resources.
Actually, the most direct tribute/homage/riff/rip-off of Reifenstahl I've ever seen was Starship Troopers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFuaYA-daw
Sasaki Kojiro
05-03-2010, 20:23
I think it's much easier to argue that 300 is a pro taliban film. It's all about a small group of insurgents fighting on the defensive in the mountains, against a much larger army that's attacking them. And remember the king is effeminate/possibly gay, which fits more with america, while the spartans are more traditionally masculine.
And remember the king is effeminate/possibly gay, which fits more with america, while the spartans are more traditionally masculine.
Whereas the oiled men posing in leather jockstraps are ... hmmmmm? No, I think 300 narrates an epic clash between the gym queens and the club girls. This longstanding intra-gay dispute is shown in all of its bloody glory. Note that the leaders of the "Persians" are all lipsticked and glittered up. Note how the Spartans are impossibly cut in a manner no soldier would ever be.
It's all about workout bunnies against the glam sisters.
It's just a comic book geez.
I'd say +1, but I would get a warning. So I'll just say I agree.
I did like the 300. I knew it was not the real facts, and I didn’t care.
In fact the Persians were probably more “civilised” than the Greeks, and Sparta is definitively not my dreamed city, but nor Athena where Democracy was for all except women, slaves and all foreigners, which reduced the number of voters quite a lot…
Now, did one of you saw the series Battle for Middle Earth, no, not that one, the one describing the 1066 battles from the “English” point of view? When the Normans are compared and named as Orcs.
The Vikings are Vikings but the French/Normans are Orcs… Not bad as “racism”, and nothing to do with the war on terror…
I am unfortunately not able to link with some video, as I don’t know how to do it and it blocked for copyrights anyway…
Seamus Fermanagh
05-03-2010, 20:59
Actually, the most direct tribute/homage/riff/rip-off of Reifenstahl I've ever seen was Starship Troopers.
I simply loathed what they did to Doctor Bob's book. I hope Virginia got to live comfortably as a result. Heinlein always agreed that the acme of prose was the phrase "your check is enclosed."
Crazed Rabbit
05-03-2010, 21:00
It's a comic book adapted into a special effects extravaganza with an excuse of a plot. Not everyone is Jesus in purgatory.
And I quote Frank Miller:
Well, okay, then let’s finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.
So there you are.
I don't think he's simply generalizing all eastern culture as that, or saying the ancient Persians were like that. If he is, I obviously don't agree.
But if he's talking about certain specific cultures and certain countries on certain large peninsulas, then I agree that they are barbaric. Barbarians sitting on a huge pile of gold, which is why anyone pretends to respect them.
CR
Nice jobe bringing up a contentious point in a respectful non-antagonistic fashion.
Louis VI the Fat
05-04-2010, 01:18
I think it's much easier to argue that 300 is a pro taliban film. It's all about a small group of insurgents fighting on the defensive in the mountains, against a much larger army that's attacking them. And remember the king is effeminate/possibly gay, which fits more with america, while the spartans are more traditionally masculine.I think 300 transcends the War on Terror. 300 touches on more general themes, some of which were invoked during the War on Terror.
A bit like 24. The series was not about the War on Terror, but it became a political vehicle of it along the way ('A good patriot tortures doesn't think twice before torturing his own son', terrorism is fought with a ticking bomb mentality, rules of conduct and civil rights are improductive etc).
In 300, there is also curious connection between form and content in the movie, which is absent in other movies and television programs of the era about the War on Terror, such as United 93. In 300, the aesthetics, the beauty, of violence is at once what drives the plot, what is the meaning, and what is the form. Taliban have different traditions. I can, however, easily see 300 having been made seventy years ago, featuring Teutons fighting the Slavs in the Baltic forests.
Now, did one of you saw the series Battle for Middle Earth, no, not that one, the one describing the 1066 battles from the “English” point of view? When the Normans are compared and named as Orcs.
The Vikings are Vikings but the French/Normans are Orcs… Not bad as “racism”, and nothing to do with the war on terror…
I am unfortunately not able to link with some video, as I don’t know how to do it and it blocked for copyrights anyway… Had never heard of it. Sounds intrigueing.
Intruiging too, is that I just can't seem to remember how to spell 'intrigue' correctly. Must work on that.
But if he's talking about certain specific cultures and certain countries on certain large peninsulas, then I agree that they are barbaric. Barbarians sitting on a huge pile of gold, which is why anyone pretends to respect them.I think you're referring here to preppy WASP's on the Cape Cod peninsula, but that's not a country, is it?
Gregoshi
05-04-2010, 02:36
I think you're referring here to preppy WASP's on the Cape Cod peninsula, but that's not a country, is it?
It's not the size of the peninsula, but how you use it.
I don't know how anyone can watch 300 and not see it as a fantasy. :shrug:
Actually, the most direct tribute/homage/riff/rip-off of Reifenstahl I've ever seen was Starship Troopers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFuaYA-daw
Lemur is posting his one-world propaganda again.
Vladimir
05-04-2010, 18:43
Lemur is posting his one-world propaganda again.
He's right. But in this case, unlike 300, the movie was intentionally writen and directed that way.
When ST came out I was of the age where I loved it completely; that and I was a Halo addict.
Never read the book; there are no boobies in the book.
Prince Cobra
05-04-2010, 19:13
There was something disturbing for me in this film. Xerxes was disappointing being portrayed as a barbarian, rather than a leader of a country with a great and refined culture. On the other hand, the director really managed to make the contrast between the Spartans and the Persians. It is typical example for black and white and reminds me the ancient tragedies where good appearance and good character are all the same. It's not really a film for my taste but it had some good moments. Btw, whatever the purpose was, I never really tried to link the contemporary Persian-US problems with the film. I don't tend to build my perceptions on Hollywood.
On the immortals. I never knew the Persians had such corps. I've met the term in the Byzantine history mainly used as a synonym of the Varangian guards. Since the Eastern Romans loved to refer with old terms for their contemporary history, it seems they just borrowed the term from the ancient authors. And on a different matter, the refined Byzantine ceremonial was borrowed to a great extend from the Persian court. :sigh:
PanzerJaeger
05-04-2010, 19:19
There was something disturbing for me in this film. Xerxes was also disappointing being portrayed as a barbarian, rather than a leader of a country with a great and refined culture.
I didn't think so. Decadent and complacent, sure, but not crude or technologically inferior as you would expect from a barbarian. As in Rome and later Byzantine (and some would say, even Western culture today), decadence and complacency can be a strong indicator of a highly advanced culture that has not had to struggle for survival in quite some time.
gaelic cowboy
05-04-2010, 19:29
Hmm must stick my 300 dvd to see what all the fuss is about
Err, technically, Xerxes was a barbarian, as Alexander or Phillip (as a Macedonian was even good enough to be a decent salve) as they were not Greeks.
Now the movie is good if you don’t go further, except is kind of explain why and how the Spartan (and Allies) succeeded to fight successfully for few days. Narrow passage and Bronze against Silk… The Persian Army was not equipped to fight this kind of battle and the Greeks did the choice of the field.
It will be the same in Agincourt, or later in Monte Casino. The only way to overcome this kind of obstacle is to out flank, which is what the Persians did at the end…
I found interesting the movements, the fight, during the fight as it explains the Greek manoeuvre with their spears and shield.
It reminds me a series in History channel where a two former SAS in full armour started to fight. First they started as in Hollywood, then, they use the sword as a hook, using not only the blade but also the entire weapon, using the shield as weapon as well… It was interesting to see.
Of course, around 10 mm of this they were out of breath….
I found interesting the movements, the fight, during the fight as it explains the Greek manoeuvre with their spears and shield.
I can think of many, many reasons to enjoy 300 as a movie; a genuine appreciation and explication of hoplite warfare is not one of them.
Rhyfelwyr
05-04-2010, 23:01
I can think of many, many reasons to enjoy 300 as a movie; a genuine appreciation and explication of hoplite warfare is not one of them.
But a wall of dead bodies looks so much better than a sheild wall...
gaelic cowboy
05-04-2010, 23:04
And there are womens boobies in it too tee hee hee
Seamus Fermanagh
05-05-2010, 03:08
And there are womens boobies in it too tee hee hee
Buy the expurgated version.
Tellos Athenaios
05-05-2010, 05:59
But a wall of dead bodies looks so much better than a sheild wall...
You may want to use a mod if you still think a few pixellated triangles looks better than the actual units in action.
“a genuine appreciation and explication of hoplite warfare is not one of them.” Well, perhaps because we have not a clue of how it worked.
They couldn’t use the Phalanx tactic as they were in a defensive position. And well, I admit I have a difficulty to see how a immobile wall of spears would have done the job.
Of course, we have no idea what really the Phalanx was working, or the hoplite hand to hand combats for this matter.
It has to me more complex and technical than the usual version offered by movies… When the main weapon is a spear long of few metres, it ok at long range, but at one moment you have to go for shorter weapons, or you have to withdraw and keep your enemy at your range, thing that the Phalanx formation couldn’t allow you to do.
In Troy, the battle between Hector and Achilles shows a good idea how it could be done, but it was not dirty enough…
We have more and more documentaries about how weapons were used. It still have to come in movies.
al Roumi
05-05-2010, 14:48
Bit of a necro point to pick up on perhaps but Frank Miller made his name writing about vigilantes with literal super-human powers (Dare-devil, Batman), his rendition of Batman is particularily militaristic. I am not surprised at his warped understanding of the world, but I see it as fantasy. Frank M's comments Hax posted in the OP are a step out of the fantasy of comics and into the real world where I'm afraid Frank's world view is not relevant or applicable -but indeed loaded and misleading.
yes and here we like comics, just about everything offends everyone, but this is really a bit much. Same guy wrote Watchmen and V for Vendetta by the way
:sigh: No, Watchmen and V for Vendetta were both written by Alan Moore - who'se writing tends to be much more left wing/libertarian.
Yes, i like comics and computer games, that does uber-geek me.
rory_20_uk
05-06-2010, 15:43
One of the first scenes in 300 shows a man checking a baby for any signs of deformity as if they're any he;ll be killed along with all the others on the ground.
The Spartans follow Priests who can be bribed and who drug and rape young girls - provided by the Spartans.
The Spartan King's wife offers her body to curry political favour, but is then stabbed in the back.
The Spartans have slaves
The Spartans kill diplomats.
...
If you view Sparta as "better" merely as 300 nutters cheerfully march into a ravine to meet death whilst killing as many as possible then OK. A modern day equivalent in the 16 who attacked India, killing 168.
How this conclusion is reached I don't know.
Greece and the Balkans have been under the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, and the rivalry between the two goes back thousands (Alexander the Great / Alexander the Devil - depending on where you are).
The whole film is as cartoony as one can get before being a cartoon. it's told from the Greek perspective so it's going to damn the other side.
It was made to get in viewers, not try to educate Americans something that happened a long time ago in a place a long way away (which is probably as accurate as most would manage to get...)
~:smoking:
Centurion1
05-07-2010, 01:28
The greeks actually did feel that way about the Persians. so if anything the xenophobia is right and proper.
The greeks actually did feel that way about the Persians. so if anything the xenophobia is right and proper.
Actually, the Persians saw the Hellenes as disloyal and effeminate. One of the Athenian heroes at Marathon was later exiled and bribed by Xerxes in return that he (the general) could marry one of Xerxes' daughters. So yeah, I'm not really all that positive about the Hellenes.
Also, Greek is a vague term. I try not to use it.
Macedonians did feel that way at least, dunno about Spartans.
Centurion1
05-07-2010, 12:33
Hellenes bouth south and central greeks let's leave out macs and thracians as northmen barbarians. They had a superiority complex that included a dash of xenophobia and saw the persians as upjumped slav e masters
the persians as upjumped slav e masters
Which is really ironic.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-07-2010, 13:54
Hellenes bouth south and central greeks let's leave out macs and thracians as northmen barbarians. They had a superiority complex that included a dash of xenophobia and saw the persians as upjumped slav e masters
Didn't the whole thing start because of Hellenic population revolts in Asia? As I recall from reading between the lines in Herodotus, the Asiatic Greeks made a try for independence, got thumped, and the Persians decided that Greece itself needed to be thumped because they'd aided and abetted. As the efforts of Alexander a few years further off indicate, Persia was completely CORRECT in their desire to squash such a threat to their power.
Didn't the whole thing start because of Hellenic population revolts in Asia? As I recall from reading between the lines in Herodotus, the Asiatic Greeks made a try for independence, got thumped, and the Persians decided that Greece itself needed to be thumped because they'd aided and abetted. As the efforts of Alexander a few years further off indicate, Persia was completely CORRECT in their desire to squash such a threat to their power.
Yes, exactly. The Athenians sent aid to their allies in "Great Ionia", the most important city that revolted being Miletos. Then there were Chios, Lesbos and Tenedos as well. When the Milesians burned and looted Sardis (destroying the temple of Cybele), the Persians responded by wiping out the entire south quarter of of Miletos in 494 BC. They deported the remaining inhabitants to the borders of Transoxania, near modern Tajikistan. They still called themselves Ionioi, and the Chinese knew the area as "Dayuan" (Great Ionia). It's pretty interesting.
Persia was completely CORRECT in their desire to squash such a threat to their power.
Meh, they weren't really that afraid of Greece, they were just annoyed and the actions of the Greeks demanded retaliatory actions. Of course, there were many problems (the defeat of the fleet at Artemisium, harem intruigues back home, etc) and the supply lines got stretched too far. Besides, the Persians were better at bribing anyone in their path than they were at killing them. Which may have caused their downfall.
Apart from that, their rule on Macedonia was stronger than their rule on proper Greece. The satrapy of Macedonia was called "Skudra" (refering to Thrace and Macedon).
Ja'chyra
05-08-2010, 14:26
I thought 300 was the Greek version of Brokeback Mountain
Skullheadhq
05-08-2010, 16:20
Didn't the Persians use dinosaurs or giant rhinos in 300 and didn't the Persian soldiers look like Voldemort from Harry Potter?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.