That is certainly my favourite part of 300, having Sparta become of avatar for freedom and democracy. Beautiful irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero
Foot
Printable View
That is certainly my favourite part of 300, having Sparta become of avatar for freedom and democracy. Beautiful irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero
Foot
Yeah, it seems like they're taking the 'freedom' theme even further than Miller did in the comic. What's even worse is that I've heard that the line "freedom isn't free" is in the movie. I cringe just reading about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I take it you haven't seen the William Shatner and Adam West pilot for the Alexander the Great TV series that was attempted about 35 years ago? I've got a copy of it on tape and it's hilarious. Of course it was filmed in the hills outside of L.A., and the Persians were indeed quite strange looking. Can't remember who the guy they were chasing was, not Darius, but another Persian general, and he was this hairy fat guy who looked vaguely hispanic who walked around for most of the show with a big chicken drumstick in his hand or in his mouth ("I want to see more greed and gluttony in this next take Steve - get him a big turkey leg and smear grease in his beard!").Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
At least for Alexander they did get the look (I'll just say "look", since the guy is pretty much a model from Israel who had no lines) of Darius a lot better in using Raz Degan than any other movie I've seen a Persian king depicted in.
Lol that reminds me of that music track in Team America haha i will give the guy a million quid if they use that track hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by aecp
Raz Degan had the look, I agree, but his attire was far too much based on the Alexander mosaic, and while accurate, it is not written in stone. What surprised me was foremostly the lack of colour. He was a very credible Darius in style, but the whole execution made him "Meh...", and while casting him as the King of Kings was a great choice, they completely blew it by casting Rosario Dawson as Raukhshanna. It had some positive highlights, such as Alexander actually turning more "Persian" in manner, and this movie was rather worthy of lamenting.
But hey, the regular Iranian Joe would rather boycott Denmark for posting caricatures of Mohammed than pay any attention to pretentious movies depicting Iranians during the age of "ignorance" (Jahiliyat)... Never before have the Islamic regime of Iran and Hollywood been such good bed-fellows. Jesus Christ, the irony is just overwhelming ~:joker:
No offence taken, but I do not agree with you at all. The movie took itself very seriously as a movie biography of Alexander. If my colleague comes off as pretentious in his article, well, at the very least you cannot withdraw his premise for the bulk of his criticism against the movie. The movie did stress for more historical accuracy, but at the same time as the edifice of credibility was being built, then these mere "details" that you speak about, must have been quite the sappers. I aptly call it a failure of epic proportions. It may have taught you a lot, but to those who have read the classics, and even the scholastics of Robin Lane Fox himself, it left many baffled, Greeks and Iranians alike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Econ21
I had this one little hunch, one very little sensation of anticipation that someone would bring up the race card. Did I insult black people anywhere in my post? Didn't you just recently say that the film taught you a great deal? Recently, I saw a decent movie in the campus theatre, the one based on queen Elizabeth. How about we just for a split second switch this credibly looking actress with Lucy Liu. Oops... That would also "smack of racism" if the English complained about it. Now think about it. Bactrian highlands. A typical Bactrian woman would with so much Scythian interaction over the centuries rather have had a more significant blondism among the individuals. In the sources, they hint at that Raukhshanna was a fair woman, and indeed in Renaissance art of Alexander, the couple are depicted as flaxen and fair. Alexander being depicted as a Fabio with golden hair is nothing more than an extension of this type of art. Even the Alexander mosaic depicts Alexander with hair far from flaxen-blonde. Iranians and Greeks had many things in common when it came to physical characteristics. As for the acting, Rosario Dawson is a talented actress, but to a movie stressing historical accuracy and being such a "learning experience" to you... No, that is clearly not sufficient for me.Quote:
Spending a lot of time focussing on Alexander's hair colour or Rosario Dawson's skin colour - and being "insulted" by it as your link's author and his wife were - frankly smacks of racism.
Now, that is just politically correct and a red herring. We are speaking of history, not generic theatre. Alexander is not a play. Alexander is not the invention of a poet. This is why anyone could accept a black Hamlet on the basis of acting. When portraying a true historical figure based on written evidence... You're playing with fire. It has nothing to do with "People are people". Of course people are people, of course we all bleed, but in history there was no such thing as "Kumbayah". The only black peoples of the Persian Empire would have been the Eastern and Western Ethiopians and the Nubians, and that is a long way from Bactria up in the north-eastern reaches of the empire in Asia. She was the daughter of a Bactrian noble.Quote:
People are people - if you prick me, do I not bleed?
Alexander is the invention of historians. I'm taking a post-modernistic point of view again. Why are we so desperate to find a flawless, perfect and objective Alexander? It is mostly a matter of making a certain point of view the legitimate one. History can often be a source of power, the power to define the past. You will always take a subjective point of view of how Alexander truly was.Quote:
Now, that is just politically correct and a red herring. We are speaking of history, not generic theatre. Alexander is not a play. Alexander is not the invention of a poet
This also applies to Oliver Stones idea of what Alexander was. What the real events would be like is something we will never have access to.
Although I agree that the movie Alexander took a very pretentious step in claiming to tell the real story of Alexander, and that it is indeed dangerous to not take the historical accounts seriously.
In that case I believe that the movie 300 is a better example of movies from historical events, cause it doesnt pretend to tell the story of the battle.
Rather it is pretending to tell a story about a story of the battle... :idea2:
Econ's point was, if I understand it correctly, that being insulted by Raukshana being played by a black actress could sound "racist" (I hate the way this term is overused nowadays btw); on the other hand being angry at the historical inaccuracy and at the blanket position assumed by Hollywood that "all those strange people out east look a bit too tanned, don't they" is perfectly legit. I have seen many Greek characters in movies that don't look one bit Greek (they rather fall in with Hollywood's "easterner" conception), but was never insulted, I was more like "wha? have those people at Hollywood ever actually seen a Greek guy?"
I've set up two sites several weeks ago about the spartan world:
www.spartansecrets.com
www.the-spartans.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
gimme a break...EVERYBODY knows Achiles was in the horse...:turtle: :charge: :tomato:
Eh? Achilles died before the horse got made. It was Odysseus who was in the horse...
Alexander was a jerk and quite possibly insane. :tomato:
On the subject of historical accuracy: I don't mind that this move (The 300) is a fictional movie. I doubt that anyone will actually believe that it is completely accurate, but the line between history and fiction isn't clear. I bet there will be a good many people who think that greeks didn't have armor, after watching this movie, for example.
I think Achilleus loved Briseus, but then I also think that before Patroklos died he really was planning on going home. One thing I will say for TROY, good casting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Spartans had armor?!?!?!? You can't be serious! I thought they all fought as Gestatae! :laugh4:
...and that was depicted in the movie. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Yeah, casting was one area I don't fault Troy with in general, though Helen was the worst mistake, IMHO.
Very creatively designed to get the most hits and google ads and paypal submissions all benefiting from this movie. That is the nicest possible thing I could say about this. As someone's first post on an EB forum, it ranks among the worst I've seen, and entirely designed to get ad revenue it seems to my eyes. Then again I'm an ass, but what exactly is it supposed to do other than get ad revenue? Don't get mad at me for saying it though, I probably have ensured a few more people clicked on it after all. :skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Grr
Well think of it this way. Yes, it is highly stylized but it's universally getting great reviews. Wouldn't you rather see that than a poor attempt at a historical drama?
I mean, Alexander may be the worst movie I have ever tried to sit through. It was laughable. Angelina Jolie is comical as Alexander's mom. It fact it is impossible to think of her seriously after watching that movie. Troy was terrible, It was a big steaming, unintelligible pile of crap.
To cover events in that scope you need a quality cable mini-series like Rome or The Tudors ( Both well done) and it doesn't hurt to have the BBC involved in some way.
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it.
The thing is, I don't think any English professors of history and their wives - or whoever the author of your link was - would say they were "insulted" by Lucy Liu playing Elizabeth. They might have a bit of a jiggle, but I doubt they would say they were insulted. To my English ears that would smack of racism - yes, we are very politically correct nowadays. Maybe it's not racism, I don't know the author of your link. But at best, it reflects a petty and insecure form of nationalism. Just a big "who cares?" about the colour of Raukhshanna's skin or of Alexander's hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
An actress's depiction of her character's personality and motivation - the role she plays in the story - is more important than her skin colour. I suspect Lucy Liu would probably be a lousy Elizabeth: I think she's a limited actress. She can do angry and she can do sexy; she's very good at sexy angry. Perhaps Lucy Liu could have a decent crack at being Boudicca. Zhang Ziyi might be an interesting Elisabeth, especially in a Chinese-made film. As for Rosario, I thought she carried off the role decently - as you say, she's a good actress. She had fire, presence and beauty, which seemed to be what was required. I was less convinced with Farrell though that was nothing to do with the historical accuracy of his blond hair which seemed to obsess the author of your link. Sometimes actors can transcend the physical - Ben Kingsley as Ghandhi would be one example to me, maybe not to a South Asian. Sometimes they can't- John Wayne as Ghenghis Khan. :rolleyes:
Is Rosario black? I watched her and could not pin her ethnicity down. Researching this reply, it turns out she is part Puerto Rican, Afro-Cuban, Irish and Native American, which is probably why I could not pin her ethnicity down. All I know is that she worked for me.Quote:
The only black peoples of the Persian Empire would have been the Eastern and Western Ethiopians and the Nubians, and that is a long way from Bactria up in the north-eastern reaches of the empire in Asia. She was the daughter of a Bactrian noble.
It's an Oliver Stone movie, not a historical documentary. What I learnt from it was some of what Alexander achieved, what were some of the factors that drove him to do and what were some of those constraining him. If your link has disputed some of those big issues, I might have enjoyed it. But obsessing about minor details only reminded me of the scene in the Full Monty where some English steel workers are watching the Hollywood movie "Flashdance" and criticising the lead girl's welding techniques. It's kind of beside the point.Quote:
As for the acting, Rosario Dawson is a talented actress, but to a movie stressing historical accuracy and being such a "learning experience" to you... No, that is clearly not sufficient for me.
If anything I would say she looks Hispanic, she might pass for a dark modern Iranian but then Iranians vary from looking very European to very Semetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kugutsu
Blah...it was supposed to be a joke....snif snif ...:embarassed:
Well, i got it. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Domitius Ulpianus
You guys had to love the coins-on-the-eyes-of-the-dead thing a good half-millennium before coins were invented. :grin:
Which is not in my agenda. I am here to give a scholarly opinion to a film that you personally claimed to have taught you a great deal. I am certainly not here to appease to anyone's political sensibilities. I do not care about the run-of-the-mill English professors, because I speak of something important in film, coming in many different forms; Credibility. In this aspect, I do not speak about acting, but of history. As Robin Lane Fox, a very esteemed authority was the chief historical advisor of the Alexander motion picture, one would very naturally have expectations. Except, not only were expectations failed to be met, but many issues would leave Iranians even moderately informed in history baffled. The movie takes itself seriously in a way unlike Spartacus and Ben Hur, which largely rely on filmic delivery resp. fictional story in an ancient setting. You know very well what I speak of. The intro with various Persian and Assyrian reliefs and focus on the busts of Alexander and the Alexander mosaic... The Macedonian army is very accurately depicted in the movie, as it is befitting of Mr. Fox's outspoken expertise. Political correctness set aside, the portrayal of Persians was awful. Very careful listening on the Persian army at Gaugamela, one can hear a terribly guttural language in the background and then someone realizes "Aha...! Arabic!".Quote:
Originally Posted by Econ21
Au contraire, the charge of "racism" does not fall on my nor my colleague's hands. Persians are de facto depicted as towel-heads, some very peculiarly dressed up like suicide bombers in drab clothing (At the battle of Gaugamela watch until you see some weird "Persian" axemen try to swing it "cowardly" against Alexander's back... By Mithras one must love the Hollywood symbolism) and this is facilitated by the very Arabesque-looking women, and that thing Rosario Dawson wore... What was that? A burka with meshes? Now that is an insult. Scythian Iranian women on horseback disturbed Graeco-Roman sensibilities for centuries. The Massagetae were ruled by a queen by the name of Tomyris, a woman feared by the Persians as the strong-handed woman who ended the life of Cyrus The Great. The Sassanids were a people who by the end of their rule had two Queen of Queens on the throne of the King of Kings (Interestingly enough with "prophet" Mohammed cursing Empress Pûrândukht in an infamous hadith... Now how about that?). It is an insult to confuse Islamic garb or even the veil with ancient Iranian history. English professors may merely shrug at the thought of a Chinese or Japanese sitting on the throne as an avatar of queen Elizabeth, I don't really care, because such a response would truly have differed from all the criticism "Kingdom of Heaven" received for showing the muslims in a brighter light, mainly from British scholars.
Look, the reason why Iranologists are especially touchy about these kind of issues is largely because Iran's poorly documented history, what is left of it is a treasure. In the ruins and in the pages of books written by Iran's arch-enemies, literally written in blood and poison, we see something deserving to be cherished. Most Iranologists are Iranians who have found for themselves an identity that has been denied to most Iranians since the Islamic Revolution. Today, that heritage is melting away like ice in a hot summer day, and the situation is not helped when both the Islamic regime and Hollywood, two very strange allies, undermine what truly is Iranian with ignorance. Smack of racism or not, Alexander as a flick had a budget of 155 million dollars. What were they doing with this money? They couldn't spend a few more meagre thousands just to set things straight?
For me, she clearly did not. Like I said before, she did not fit as Raukhshanna at all. The casting crew clearly did not understand the character, and this is irrespective of talent. The actor/actress must fit. Native American, Puerto-Rican and Afro-Cuban? Alright so she is a combination of ethnicities that all would have been out of place in Bactria, let alone anywhere else in the Iranian world. It's not racism, it is a verdict made every day in Hollywood. I wouldn't want to have a Chinese guy portraying Cyrus The Great no matter of his talent, nor would I want an Iranian, no matter of his talent portraying as the newest Shaft. It does not work that way. The Alexander motion picture was clearly aiming at credibility, but these "small" things pulled down the entire movie, by Greeks as well as Iranians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Econ21
After wasting a good 30 minutes of my time reading through most of this, I've come to a conclusion I'm sure we can all agree on.
Movies are made to entertain. I love history, pure and simple. I will be going to see 300, and probably enjoy it. I won't be sitting in my chair, whining about how they didn't get the Spartan's beards long enough, or if the Persians look like the Orcs. It's a MOVIE. It's supposed to wow (which it will), to shock (seems like it will) and to entertain (definitely). We should be grateful Hollywood is taking ANY expense at all by making ancient history a part of their retinue nowadays... especially since I thought Gladiator would bring about more movies about our common, interesting past.
Troy was an enjoyable movie. I believe what really compells me are the themes that make us human, whether now or 5000 years ago. Love, greed, guilt, anger... timeless emotions that both the heroes of the past, fact or fiction, and the people of today feel. That is what moves us, what makes movies so likeable. Personally, I enjoyed Alexander, Gladiator, Troy and I will enjoy 300, and any other historically inaccurate to one degree or another movie that comes out. The point being, not one of these movies claimed to be a documentary, and none could ever be - history is written by the victors, and it is NEVER unbiased, and NEVER pure, and NEVER 100% accurate. EB strives for its view on accuracy, based on evidence it finds and analyzes to its best ability, and I enjoy their product wholly without criticizing their particular view on what is considered entertainment.
Why cannot we extend the same courtesy to the people who delight us with tales of heroes of our past? We need some heroes in today's world....
Agree a 100000%Quote:
Originally Posted by Brightblade
It's just a movie, it is not a ESSAY OR A MEMOIR it's only pourpose is to make you laugh, cry or say "wow" and make you eat popcorn and drink soda, that's it. Not even documentary movies are 100% accurate or objectives..Sooo as long as it doesn't pretend to be the truth I have no problem seeing anything. Because I know I will never find truth in a movie screen....just my 2 cents.
Your post sums up why I will pay a ticket to see "300". I am tired of chick flicks, and after almost a million times of watching Conan The Barbarian, the last thing I'll be thinking about in "300" is historical accuracy as long as there is blood, violence and sex. It is meant to full of adrenaline and testosterone and given that the movie does not plaster itself as a lecture, like Alexander, I will go and see it without expectations. If I can eat an artery-clogging pastrami sandwich to it, it gets my stamp of approval. If it has poor acting, well, I don't really care, I'm not after credibility. I mean, it has Gerard Butler in it and whenever he screams he even looks like a retard. Arnold can't act worth a damn either, yet all guys claiming their masculinity loves movies like Conan and Terminator. That's entertainment. After seeing garbage like Black Dahlia, something my girlfriend forced me to watch, just for once, a movie where one can sit with the rest of the guys, have a few beers and just laying back... Or maybe screw the beer, stupid alcohol regulations :clown:
Sorry, Brightblade and Domitius, but that is a pretty lame statement. Claiming that entertainment as it stands is justification for errors, or that nothing can ever be 100% accurate is reason enough to swallow our sensibilities all for that fact that it is entertainment... well, it just doesn't cut it.
I just wish the plot was better - the plot of Troy was just a modern creation, when the ancient story is much more interesting. Kind of a "remix" that is sort of catchy, but mainly because the original song was so good in the first place. As for hoping the stories stick to the original versions, in Troy or 300 or Alexander or whatever, it's like a movie about WWII (not claiming to be historically accurate or realistic, but still "about" the war in general) that has the U.S. and UK and allies victorious ("hey, they got it *basically* right!"), but only after Patton snuck in disguise into Berlin and killed Rommell in hand to hand combat, and then the French rebelled and pushed the Germans back after a power hungry Churchill had most of his advisors and top generals murdered, and then De Gaulle and Stalin led a paratrooper raid on Hitler's Swiss villa and killed Hitler himself by simultaneously throwing short spears at him with atlatls. Greatest movie evar!
You might want to copyright that, TA. Someone from a large studio might steal the idea.:laugh4:
Interesting: so Raukhshanna was in the tradition of these kind of women? You only increase my respect for the film. Like the Graeco-Romans, I did find something "disturbing" about her strength in the film to my "sensibilities". I did not understand where it came from - I actually suspected it might just be dramatic nonsense like a cataphract rhino, but from what you say it was more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract