Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'

[Foot]

I am not saying in anyway that this film was released for the sole reason of defending the war on terror or the war in iraq (too seperate things in my opinion). But neither is it impossible to see that creative elements of the film may well have been treated so as to aide in public opinion on the war in the middle east. I'm not saying that this has anything to do with the white-house or the current administration, but I suspect that Miller and/or people on the production team for the film have sympathies for american foreign policy in the middle east. The film and comic can both be interpretated as such, and their timing is perfect, as public opinion falls for the war in iraq. Or do you think that Hollywood has no political agenda at all?

Foot

[aecp]

I am not saying in anyway that this film was released for the sole reason of defending the war on terror or the war in iraq (too seperate things in my opinion). But neither is it impossible to see that creative elements of the film may well have been treated so as to aide in public opinion on the war in the middle east. I'm not saying that this has anything to do with the white-house or the current administration, but I suspect that Miller and/or people on the production team for the film have sympathies for american foreign policy in the middle east. The film and comic can both be interpretated as such, and their timing is perfect, as public opinion falls for the war in iraq. Or do you think that Hollywood has no political agenda at all?

Foot

Yes, but then again you could blame this movie for supporting just about anything. How about exchanging support for the war in Iraq/against terror for the conflict over Irans nuclear program. Or since the comic was made 1998, why not bring the embassy bombings or operation Desert Fox into the mix?

Miller's comments on terrorism reveal a considerable antipathy towards islam and fundamentalism. But I don't see what that has to do with 300. The conflict between Sparta and Persia in the comic isn't brought about or maintained by religious extremism.

And yes, Hollywood has many agendas. But more often than not Hollywood is accused of being dominated by liberal elitists. Hollywood hasn't really rallied behind president Bush in my opinion.

I think this whole debate just takes focus from what everyone should be pissed about, that 300 is an EXTREMELY shitty movie and that Hollywood has yet again taken a massive dump on antiquity as a subject that for some reason doesn't deserve better treatment. The Persians were portrayed in a horrible way, that is true, but so was everything else in 300. If it had been the Germanic tribes (as in Gladiator) or the Saxons (as in King Arthur), no-one would have cared. Both of the above were portrayed as brutal savages without redeeming qualities, but who cares? They're white, aren't they? But when it comes to the Persians suddenly people are up in arms.

[Ardu]

I think we had already come to a more or less general consensus that '300' is an extremely shitty movie after page 5, since then we were discussing if it had any other merits or demerits and wether it can be classified as propaganda...

[Grey_Fox]

Since I don't think it's crap, no consensus has been reached at this point in time.

[Miles Sueborum]

I agree - I also like the movie

[Boyar Son]

Yeah, that movie has some good action, and I dont think anyone but Iranian cared that the evil guys were persian.

Nope nobody really cared...

[Watchman]

Haven't we already gone over that several times now ?

[Boyar Son]

Haven't we already gone over that several times now ?

Well according to you (guys), not enough!

[Big_John]

a lot of discussion about such a boring movie. why?

[Watchman]

Because a surprising lot of people seem to be in the opinion that the equivalent of the depiction of Africans in those old Tarzan films is right OK and unproblematic in a 21st century mainstream movie.

[Big_John]

yeah, that's true of a lot of hollywood movies produced now-a-days. aren't people properly cynical yet?

[abou]

And you know, it's funny because people claim that a clear opposite to the main character(s) needs to be maintained otherwise people won't follow the movie or get bored. This seems to be important for apologetics of the movie; yet, the Column of Trajan, in its portrayl of the Dacians as a noble people, throws that theory to the ground and then proceeds to piss on it.

[geala]

The problem with 300 has to do with the reception of the movie. It is fantasy and fiction, quite unhistorical fiction, so one could argue: "Why feel the Iranians etc. insulted?", no reason for that.

One reason may be a certain hypersensitivity. I don't want to discuss this.

Another reason may be that despite the fact the movie has a lot of fantasy, it could easily be interpreted in a metaphorical sense. So the feeling remains that a evil Persian nature should be depicted in the movie. And that would be insulting.

I am not sure wether the movie has this intention but the interpretation is not far away. And that alone is a bad thing.

I am convinced that a more historically correct movie with normal Persians - even if it would have shown a real invasion and some cruel Persian deeds (sry, it was not a "counterattack" if one will not stick with very cursory arguments) - would not have caused this riot.


As a German I would like to compare two movies as an example: "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan". I like both movies but I feel a bit uncomfortable (although I'm not insulted ) with the evil German in "Saving Private Ryan" - one could take it as an archetype, message: every German is as bad. The reason is that the evil nature of the one German is not necessary so an interpretation is inevitable why he is shown in that certain way.
In "Schindler's List" the Germans commit a lot of cruel crimes but that is not a problem of interpretation. I know they did it and it is totally correct that it is shown in that way, it is not an insult but a fact told in a movie about that crimes. If it tells us something about the Germans or any human being one has to deal with it.

Another example is "The Patriot" (ok, I don't like any Gibson movie). I got rather upset about the design of the English.

Could unfortunately be continued. People like simple things and movies are for people, so...

[aecp]

Because a surprising lot of people seem to be in the opinion that the equivalent of the depiction of Africans in those old Tarzan films is right OK and unproblematic in a 21st century mainstream movie.

Jesus Christ. This is a fantasy movie. Complaining that it's racist makes as much sense as accusing Lord of the Rigns of the same (which incidentally, some people did). How oversensitive and politically correct can you get. I remember that some critics accused Troy of being racist against the Trojans(!!!). So vilifying the antagonists is A-Ok as long as they're white, but god help you if they're even tanned or have dark hair. Frankly I'm far more annoyed by, say, Mel Gibson's portrayal of the Brittish in Braveheart or The Patriot since those movies have a pretense of truthfulness that 300 completely lacks.

And you know, it's funny because people claim that a clear opposite to the main character(s) needs to be maintained otherwise people won't follow the movie or get bored. This seems to be important for apologetics of the movie; yet, the Column of Trajan, in its portrayl of the Dacians as a noble people, throws that theory to the ground and then proceeds to piss on it.

First of all, apologetics? And you have to consider the target demographic and artistic (HA!) intentions of the movie in question. The first is obviously the teenager/fratboy demographic and the second is ripped men in thongs spinning in slow-mo. Do you seriously expect such a movie to be concerned with portraying the villains fairly? And what does Trajan's Column have to do with anything? I have a hard time seeing the relevance of comparing a mindless popcorn-flick to a nearly 2000 years old monument. I hardly think the creators of the two had the same intentions.

Another example is "The Patriot" (ok, I don't like any Gibson movie). I got rather upset about the design of the English.

Could unfortunately be continued. People like simple things and movies are for people, so...

Didn't you get the memo? As long as the people being vilified are white it's no problem. But if the people in question reside(d) east of the Aegean or south of the Mediterranean you better put on those silk gloves and pay homage to the greatness of their culture, no matter what kind of movie you're trying to make.

[Tiberius Nero]

I for one don't see racism in the movie, its bias is cultural/political. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that it is racist, the Persians in the movie are the degraded beasts they are because of the ideology they stand for, not because they are born Persians, or Easterners.

And Persians are classified as white (they are the Aryans after all), never mind that half of them in the movie are black for some reason.

[Ardu]

Except for a handful here, who are still arguing that '300' is a good film, I think most of us agreed that this film is crap and we have already heard sufficient arguments to support this statement...

Now about the '300' is propaganda part, I just checked this film on www.imdb.com and this was the very first comment on 300 there:


*'300' is a totally riveting masterpiece of film making. Zack Snyder, inspired by the graphic novel, has brought a 2487 year-old news story to life with people you really care about who are faced with choices between compromise and war that are all too familiar today.

The breath-taking CGI images are flawlessly integrated with the live action. All the actors are excellent in their roles, and Butler IS Leonidas.

The sound design is excellent. The score was recorded by the London Phil with a full chorus and is beautiful to listen to, but is very reminiscent of 'Gladiator' which detracts from the otherwise total originality of the film.

This movie integrates the potentials of film-making and story-telling in a wonderful new way that is the best of both entertainment and artistic achievement.*

Especially: *has brought a 2487 year-old news story to life with people you really care about who are faced with choices between compromise and war that are all too familiar today.*

I rest my case on the *This film is propaganda* part...

[aecp]

Except for a handful here, who are still arguing that '300' is a good film, I think most of us agreed that this film is crap and we have already heard sufficient arguments to support this statement...

Now about the '300' is propaganda part, I just checked this film on www.imdb.com and this was the very first comment on 300 there:

Especially: *has brought a 2487 year-old news story to life with people you really care about who are faced with choices between compromise and war that are all too familiar today.*

I rest my case on the *This film is propaganda* part...

You rest your case!? Based on comment written by some random anonymous idiot on the internet that had nothing to do with the making of the movie!? So if I were to write a comment on, say, Apocalypse Now calling it vile pro-American propaganda that would settle it for you? IMDB is notorious for the aggressive stupidity of it's users, sometimes almost equaling the quality of the average youtube-comment.





Truly a bastion of thoughtful insight!

[Ardu]

You rest your case!? Based on comment written by some random anonymous idiot on the internet that had nothing to do with the making of the movie!? So if I were to write a comment on, say, Apocalypse Now calling it vile pro-American propaganda that would settle it for you? IMDB is notorious for the aggressive stupidity of it's users, sometimes almost equaling the quality of the average youtube-comment.





Truly a bastion of thoughtful insight!

Exactly, most people aren't as intelligent or well-informed as most of the people on this forum are, but they still hold the right to vote. So films like this do have an influence on voters and as such on politics, wether conscious or unconscious...

[Conradus]

Except for a handful here, who are still arguing that '300' is a good film, I think most of us agreed that this film is crap and we have already heard sufficient arguments to support this statement...

De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.That said, I didn't consider this film bad. It did exactly what it set out to do: entertain those who want to watch it as entertainment. I watched it with some friends and we had a nice time.

[Plebian#10]

I have not met an Iranian that I did not like - people are people - not governments. Most people can get along just fine until disinformation gets circulated which then starts polarization (all part of the propaganda machine run by who - the governments).
I watched the 300 and thought it was OK. I knew that it would demonize the Persians and I also know that the Persians during this time were more civilized socially and politically than the Greeks (no slam intended against the Greeks) but the Persians did not decide a infants fate at the time of birth like the Spartans did, let alone leaving them to die if they were unfit for life.
This was a Greek story told by Greeks - why is anyone surprised of the portrayal of their arch enemy the Persians.

[Miles Sueborum]

Except for a handful here, who are still arguing that '300' is a good film, I think most of us agreed that this film is crap and we have already heard sufficient arguments to support this statement...

So the opinion of those who argue it is a good movie is worth nothing and they (we) never brought any acceptable argument? Good to know...

As a German I would like to compare two movies as an example: "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan". I like both movies but I feel a bit uncomfortable (although I'm not insulted ) with the evil German in "Saving Private Ryan" - one could take it as an archetype, message: every German is as bad.

Hm - I think you are refering to the guy they captured at the radarstation and who was finally executed? He isn't really portrayed as evil, I think (though that might have been intended). I mean - try to look at the situation from his perspective: The Americans are acting behind enemy lines and Miller orders him to go to the next allied POW camp...
This means he will probably have to to pass German lines....
In the final battle he fights alongside SS-men - so he probably ran into these guys on his way. What should he have done? Saying: "Excuse me, Sturmführer, I unfortunatly can't acompany you because an American Captain told me to surrender..."?
Not an good idea if he likes to live ^^

[Watchman]

Jesus Christ. This is a fantasy movie. Complaining that it's racist makes as much sense as accusing Lord of the Rigns of the same (which incidentally, some people did). How oversensitive and politically correct can you get. I remember that some critics accused Troy of being racist against the Trojans(!!!). So vilifying the antagonists is A-Ok as long as they're white, but god help you if they're even tanned or have dark hair. Frankly I'm far more annoyed by, say, Mel Gibson's portrayal of the Brittish in Braveheart or The Patriot since those movies have a pretense of truthfulness that 300 completely lacks.
---
Didn't you get the memo? As long as the people being vilified are white it's no problem. But if the people in question reside(d) east of the Aegean or south of the Mediterranean you better put on those silk gloves and pay homage to the greatness of their culture, no matter what kind of movie you're trying to make.

In the case you forgot, I previously specifically singled out Gibson's crappy nationalist and Brit-hating movies as comparable cases...

I for one don't see racism in the movie, its bias is cultural/political. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that it is racist, the Persians in the movie are the degraded beasts they are because of the ideology they stand for, not because they are born Persians, or Easterners.

And Persians are classified as white (they are the Aryans after all), never mind that half of them in the movie are black for some reason.

Given that "evil comes from the East" is pretty much one of the core building blocks of the whole damn plot, I'd say it matters fairly little if the Easterners were purple. The racism, or rather ethnocentrism, in the movie is not so much based on specific nationality and ethnicity as on a "the West vs. the Rest" duality, where the former - represented by the Greeks in general and the Spartans in particular - get to represent what really amount to "good old American values" and the latter - summed up as "Persians", "all the hordes of Asia" in one line at least - the negation of those values and duly everything vile and oppressive and whatnot.

In other words, crazy Easterners are assailing the very roots of human civilization as we (or rather, Miller et Co...) know it and it is up to Real Men(tm) to make sacrifices and if necessary do bad things to save it.

No cheap populist commentary on current events here, nosirree.

While the Iranians specifically are presumably honked off because they identify themselves with ancient Persia (the actual legitimacy of this being irrelevant here), about anyone from between the Bosphorus and Indus Valley could hardly be faulted for being a tad miffed about the whole thing.

[Tiberius Nero]

This was a Greek story told by Greeks - why is anyone surprised of the portrayal of their arch enemy the Persians.

Because we actually have portrayals of the story by Greeks and they don't look one bit like 300. Read the "Persians" of Aeschylus to see how on the one hand Greek victory is celebrated all the while showing considerable sympathy for the plight of the enemy. The scene is the Persian court, when the news of the defeat arrive. Not one Greek is present on stage. Everything is shown from the Persian point of view. And this was written by a man who fought against the Persians in Salamis.

Let's not hear that argument again, that 300 somehow is kosher, because this is how Greeks saw their enemies, it doesn't hold a drop of water.

EDIT: Watchman, I don't disagree with what you say, as I have said it is indeed about "West vs East" and everything those stand for in popular perception of them; I just responded to some attack on a point no one has seriously maintained here.

[Watchman]

Hm - I think you are refering to the guy they captured at the radarstation and who was finally executed? He isn't really portrayed as evil, I think (though that might have been intended). I mean - try to look at the situation from his perspective: The Americans are acting behind enemy lines and Miller orders him to go to the next allied POW camp...
This means he will probably have to to pass German lines....
In the final battle he fights alongside SS-men - so he probably ran into these guys on his way. What should he have done? Saying: "Excuse me, Sturmführer, I unfortunatly can't acompany you because an American Captain told me to surrender..."?
Not an good idea if he likes to live ^^

The silly Yankees should have shot him in the primary arm, treated the wound, and then pointed him towards the Allied lines. That way even if he got picked up by German troops along the way he'd still have been hors de combat...

[Miles Sueborum]

Let's not hear that argument again, that 300 somehow is kosher, because this is how Greeks saw their enemies, it doesn't hold a drop of water.

There were Greeks and there were Greeks...
Greeks who liked Persians and Greek who hated them...
Greeks who could be fair about an enemy and Greeks who couldn't

Of course this is probably like Greeks saw the war - some greeks...
Other Greeks of course might have had a completely diffrent view of things...

[Watchman]

That's not a very solid house of cards you're building there.

[Miles Sueborum]

Wait! I don't want to say: "The film is good because it shows the events as some greeks saw it!"
That indeed would be a poor argument - I know.
All I was saying is: From one source you can not say how a people (or a group of peoples) percepted an event...

[Tiberius Nero]

There were Greeks and there were Greeks...
Greeks who liked Persians and Greek who hated them...
Greeks who could be fair about an enemy and Greeks who couldn't

Of course this is probably like Greeks saw the war - some greeks...
Other Greeks of course might have had a completely diffrent view of things...

I brought my proof, you bring yours. The man who wrote the "Persians" fought against them. The "Persians" weren't a novel to be read by Athenian leftists and intellectuals, it was a play shown on stage to be watched by all Athenian citizens. Show me one piece of art that depicts a Persian as a subhuman monster and I might start seeing that theory as remotely valid.

[Ardu]

Wait! I don't want to say: "The film is good because it shows the events as some greeks saw it!"
That indeed would be a poor argument - I know.
All I was saying is: From one source you can not say how a people (or a group of peoples) percepted an event...

Yes, in this case if you wanted to construct something near an objective view you would take in account Greek sources, Persian sources and neutral sources. We have a serious lack of neutral and Persian sources about this event so that leaves us with Greek sources. This film goes way way further than any of the Greek sources, so that brings me to the conclusion this film is total bs...

[mucky305]

I'm totally lost on this one. My opinion is that if the education system in this country (US) worried more about teaching math, science, and literature instead of sex ed and sensitivity classes maybe people here would start thinking outside the herd and we wouldn't have to worry about whether a movie based on a comic book influences foreign policy. I liked the movie personally but it wasn't based on the politics, but then I liked T2 soooo......

I'm kind of shocked this is so divisive. I hear many countries say that the US is an imperialist state, but I don't see anyone from the US government making a statement about what a horrible classification it is even though it's an outright lie. A hegemony yes, imperialist no. It seems to me that Iranian foreign policy seems to consist of alot of the same nonsense that Hitler's Germany perpetrated. Glorification of the past empire, doing whatever despite the condemnation of a confederation of nations, repressive social policy, etc. It's a stinkin' movie!