Of course it is. But that's easy saying 'cause it doesn't concern you (or me for that matter). You have got to agree that film wasn't exactly a beacon of light of political (or historical for that matter) correct views; for avoiding more hot headed terminology at this point. In any case you can see where I'm coming from; that such films might've simply 'rubbed' some people 'the wrong way' as well?I do not think that films such as 300 are by any means a result of political incorrectness, but simply out of an apathy toward historiography. It is pure capitalism.
Social-reengineering is a pretty serious accusation/claim and wether true or not the word itself (incidentally I take it you were fully aware of that?) alludes to illegit practices. Indeed social-engineering will get you a ticket to court in most countries. Coupled to the use of "swathe" & "propaganda" it is easy to see why people may find that confrontational? At any rate it isn't very well phrased.Look at the swathe of recent anti-American films that bombed in the box office. The people who fund these films lose a tremendous amount of money yet continue to do it; clearly they care more about spreading anti-American propaganda than making profits. I believe these isolated attempts at socially-reengineering the populace to be an exception to the rule however.
So really what's there so different in a movie as 300 to some 'Anti-American' movie currently 'bombing the box office' to people sensitive to bias, propaganda or statements expressed in either? I for one think there is little difference in and of itself; however it's different people that get riled up over it.
Bookmarks