Iran Claims 300 as a western plot

Community
#1

Did anyone else see this on nightline, the Iranian govt has declared the movie 300 as a plot of thier enemies.

I nearly wet myself with laughter, what planet are these nimrods living on, they think they can deny history just because it paints them in a bad light.

Well i for one am standing with my Spartan heroes and saying to the Towel headed imperialistic wannabes who think it is an act of courage to blow up a bus full of children, Bite Me, the truth shows you for what you were and still are…LOSERS!!!

If you want to prove to your enemies that you are mighty, then stop skulking in the shadows of Terrorism, pick up a weapon and stand a line, just like the Spartans did.

True courage speaks volumes

#2

Wow, you should watch less CNN.

#3

i dont watch CNN cant get sky, this was on nightline.

#4

I know the story was on Nightline. I mistakenly assumed you absorbed your political ideas from CNN.

Actually, it was “a government official”.

I believe he stated that the movie incorrectly portrayed the Persian culture. I haven’t seen 300 yet. I will because it’s one of my favourite battles. However, I can believe that Hollywood completely fucked up the Persian culture. I imagine that rather than portraying the Persians as a huge culturally and technologicaly advanced empire they will portray them as grunting barbarians. 50/50 chance that one of the baddies will be a kiddy fiddler or a rapist. That’s Hollywood…

As I said, haven’t seen it yet, but I will. It’s a good yarn.

History is littered with terrible crimes of war.

In modern warfare, troops standing in line just get carpet bombed. In fact, if you are taking on any of the super powers, if they know where you are, they can kill you without you even seeing the bomb coming.

Troops are just used to mop up afterwards and to try to stop people organsiing an army again.

So does true bigotry. An Iranian should be able to critically review a movie that portrays his culture inaccurately without being called a cowardly terrorist.

Anyway, who is going to see 300 when it comes out?

#5

Speaking as a towel headed wannabe (For the weekend at least), Meh.

#6

As a total Classics geek, I cannot wait to see 300.

I suspect it won’t be much on historical accuracy since I’m assuming the comic may have taken some artistic licence but y’know. I still think it’s going to be awesome.

#7

I imagine any inaccuracy in portraying the Persians is more the result of cultural ignorance and ingrained bigotry on the part of the western creators than an actual plan.

Then again, it might be that the Persians are portrayed the way we think the Spartans might have seen them, or in stylised way to affect the perspective of the audience. Rather like the depiction of William Longshanks in Braveheart - make the enemy out as complete bastards to get the audience on side with the heroes.

But probably the first thing.

#8

I think hollywood subscribes to the idea “never let the truth get in the way of a good story”. They want the audience to be cheering for the heroes and booing the baddies.

EDIT: now I’m showing my own bigotry against Hollywood. I should say “some directors never let the truth get in the way of a good story”. There are many directors who do a fantastic job making historical movies that don’t aim to portray absolute good and evil.

#9

OK Carl, I’m going to respond because this kind of ignorant racism offends me.

Firsts, a little history lesson on Iran.

In 1953, the CIA overthrew a democratic government and installed a monarch.

In 1979 the US-backed regime was ousted in a popular revolution and the current theocratic regime was installed.

In 1980, Iraq invaded. Lots of western countries, including Britain and the US, supported Saddam Hussein in his war. Many of the same people are in power in the current US administration.

They also provided agents for chemical weapons. It is estimated that 100,000 Iranians died from chemical WMDs. That makes Iran second only to Japan for WMD deaths.

In 1990, the US made shit up to bolster a congressional vote for Gulf War 1. Then they made shit up for the long-planned 2003 Gulf War 2. At this time, 53% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for the Sept 11 attacks. How did they get away with this bullshit ? Because the US has a compliant propaganda machine, aka the mainstream media.

At the moment, the US is implementing a plan that will lead to military strikes on Iranian infrastructure.

And out comes a movie, produced in Hollywood which lacks historical accuracy and in which the Persians are depicted as “decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil” (Nightline report). i.e. it appears to dehumanise the Persians.

Is it really a stretch for the Iranian goverment to join the dots and conclude that the part of the purpose of the movie is to cast the Persians in a disparaging light, and that this is linked with the military objectives of the Bush regime ?

Um, what do you think their nuclear weapons programme is all about ? As for the “Terrorism”, the US is responsible for at least an order of magnitude more terrorism than Iran. Seriously, you should do some research before making these kinds of statements.

#10

I think that this conversation is interesting. I’ve been having a similar one with Gareth. The movie is based on the graphic novel. The movie will take liberties with the novel and the novel will take liberties with what is written and what has been written will be largely overexaggerated like all history.

Crying over the depiction of the Iranians is silly. Hollywood may not even intend for it to dehumanise them, they are just the opposition and this is how opposition is portrayed in hollywood.

However, their objections are very important to raising awareness over the power the media wields in respects to other countries’ reputation in the consciousness of the world. It seems petty but it has brought to the fore something for us to critisize in the making of it.

And Carl, I appreciate the Sestina but did you really have to make it on such a hot topic?

#11

Borat upset lots of people for portraying them in a negative light, people got upset… people always get upset when they look like dicks.
Iranians (or a portion of them amounting to 1 or more people) get upset with a poor historical portrayal which annoys them cause they are already vilified. They blame the West for this. Like everything.
I was reading an interesting text on how “amored knights” came to be… after the Muslims (broad group i know) invaded Europe and where turned back by armored horsemen (and damn me I can’t remember where they were from… europe big place). As I understood it this was the beginning of the whole crusades thing.
ANYWAYS if I made a movie depicting “muslims” (historical sense) as an invading force which thereby triggered the hundreds of years of unpleasantness I’d probly get shot.
I’m no longer sure what my point was… other than its easy to become unpopular if you say something people don’t like. I know Alista does it all the time on here :smiling_imp:
Jared

#12

The directors are not interested in “Accurately protraying history” thier focus in the movie is capturing the visual images that Frank Miller used in the graphic novel. they could care less about making the persians look good, bad, or otherwise. they are doing the same thing that was done in “Sin City” making a visual feast.

And just for the record I am not bigoted towards Iranians I have huge respect for Islam.

I am watching this movie because like Derek The story of the Spartans at Thermopyle has always fired my imagination.

Ok i will admit my post was inflammatory, I blame tiredness, and no real time spent in thinking should i do this, i needed to get it off my chest, it is off now so i am better.

Hollywood can do it right sometimes

I was very pleased with the way Ridley Scott portrayed Saladin in “Kingdom of Heaven” and I dont hear anyone criticising that movie

I question the true motives of this statements by the Iranian Govt Official, are they upset about the portrayal of Not iranians but Persians which yeah ok may “Now” include Iran.(but come on lets not split hairs)

Or are they upset that considering thier new found military strength and bluster this movie shows the might of a thousand armies of the Persian nation being held to a standstill by a handful of men outnumbered 3,300 to 1.

yeah i can see how that would Bruise the ego a little, even a few thousand years later.

for those i offended i am sorry

#13

[quote]I was very pleased with the way Ridley Scott portrayed Saladin in “Kingdom of Heaven” and I dont hear anyone criticising that movie [/quote]The movie was a portrayal of 20th century values in a medieval setting that glossed over certain details like, for instance, that the person the protagonist was based on was an extremely ruthless man who reneged on promises he made when the Arabs did him a favour that let him save his wife and family.

Saladin on the other hand was historically speaking a really good guy, anyway you cut it.

Sorry, you did ask. :wink:

#14

Hollywood as a way to attack culture. Is it really such a hard sell? Ok, granted for most western countries this seems like a ridiculous concept. For those of us who follow events in America and know about the movie this is ridiculous also. However, not so long ago there was this thing called the Cold War. During the Cold War most movies Hollywood churned out were either anti Communist or anti Russia. They did what Iran is accusing them of doing now. Whilst Hollywood may not be in the business of attacking cultures anymore I find it easy to see who it can be misinterpreted to be doing so.

#15

Totally agree with Lucy on “they are just the opposition and this is how opposition is portrayed in hollywood”, unfortunately anything hardly can be done to change it. Hollywood doesn’t care for historical accuracy in most of cases.
Which is probably more good than bad, as nobody would be watching stuff about how things really happen.
Real life is just not interesting in movie.

Steph is so right.
By the way, reading Greek mythology you’ll find that Hercules was killing just everything when he was in a bad mood, and fucking everything that moved. Nothing in common with that nice guy portraid by Kevin Sorbo.
But I still like the series :unamused:
Even being offended by Hera being represented as such a bitch, and Ares as such an idiot.

And +1 to stuff about Cold War :wink:

#16

Here is a review of 300 from the Chicago sun times, just for interest

[quote]
Plenty of violence, nudity, but ‘300’ hardly a political statement

March 13, 2007
BY RICHARD ROEPER Sun-Times Columnist
Even as some deep thinkers tried to ascribe heavy political and racial and social meanings to “300,” audiences embraced it for what it is: a cool-looking graphic novel come to life with great battle scenes and lots of skin.

The film made a whopping $70 million in its opening weekend, setting a (not-adjusted-for-inflation) record for March.

This, despite the ramblings and rumblings from many critics who found “300” to contain troubling themes, what with the supposed historical inaccuracies and all those scenes of Greeks slaughtering dark-skinned Persians.
Guess they should have cast more Swedes as Persians. And though it’s inspired by the Battle of Thermopylae, “300” is not supposed to be an accurate history lesson.

As for the politics: A number of readers have sent me a piece titled " ‘300’ Flick is Ready-Made for the Right-Wing Crowd," by Canadian online journalist Steve Burgess, who says if a friend tells you “300” is his favorite movie, “Your new friend probably kills cats for fun. Worse – your new friend may be George W. Bush. [The] new dramatization of the epic Spartan stand at Thermopylae will probably go down real well at the White House . . .”

Burgess goes on to say “300” will be a hit with “the Ann Coulter crowd,” and says, "As a tribute to a particular worldview, ‘300’ could play on a double bill with Leni Riefenstahl’s ‘Triumph of the Will.’ "

Good God.

So a movie based on Frank Miller’s comic novel, which was written in the late 1990s and inspired by a 1962 film and, of course, a battle from 480 B.C., is actually a pro-Bush piece of propaganda? Really?

So is Bush represented by Leonidas, the bloodthirsty king defending his country, or Xerxes, the warlord trying to conquer the world? If he’s Leonidas, I think there’s a bit of a difference between a warrior-king who’s on the front line as he tries to save his country from a mass invasion and a non-warrior-president overseeing a controversial war in a foreign land. And if he’s Xerxes – well, then “300” would hardly be a pro-Bush film.

(As the New York Times noted, reporters at an international press junket for “300” disagreed about whether Bush was Leonidas or Xerxes. The article was titled, "That Film’s Real Message: It Could Be: ‘Buy a Ticket’ " Amen.)

“300” has its political overtones, but at heart it’s a big silly fun movie, with great battle scenes and near-campy dialogue.

It’s also rated R, and for good reason. From the moment the battle is joined, the blood spurts in glorious arcs in stylized, slow-motion fight scenes. We see thousands of warriors experiencing gruesome deaths. And there’s considerable female nudity as well, including a topless oracle swirling about, and the very hot queen Queen Gorgo giving her man Leonidas a proper sendoff before he goes to war.

As I said in my review last Friday, “300” is the “Citizen Kane” of cinematic graphic novels. That’s a joke – a play on an infamous quote that a ratty little film called “Shakes the Clown” was called the “Citizen Kane” of clown movies. My point was that for fanboys of both genders, “300” is a near-perfect hard-R thrill ride.[/quote]

#17

Yeah, yeah, the world always goes around the Bush, we know…
Ok, since it’s Chicago sun times that probably makes sense for Americans.
You know, there were so much resentment about “The Two Towers” movie, they were saying it’s an insult of the memory of those who died on 11 September, because the name of the movie clearly points to the events of 11 September. Yup.

#18

The point about the cold war movies is well made. Were they deliberately planned as US propaganda to put the Reds in a bad light? Possibly some were, but overall probably not. More likely they just reflected the view of the makers which was in turn reflected the propaganda-laden culture they lived in, and made it to the production stage because they seemed “relevant” at the time.

Likewise now we’re seeing a lot of movies about Africa and the Middle East. I don’t think it’s pure coincidence that these movies are coming out at the same time as the US is taking a politicial interest in these regions. Naturally they reflect the US culture, the culture of the makers, somewhat.

Sure, the Persians are the baddies in 300 and Frank Miller typically turns the baddies evil dial up to 11 in his work. The evilness of the enemy is a type of artistic stylisation, it’s probably not supposed to be a political comment. But in the current “evil arabs” environment in the US this movie is going to have political resonance whether it intended to or not, and it may not have gotten made if it wasn’t for the sale value of the resonance.

“Kingdom of Heaven” did not do all that well, and many in the US (and in Muslim countries) objected to the fairly balanced view it took of the sides in the Crusades. If it wasn’t for Ridley Scott driving it, perhaps it wouldn’t have gotten made.

A more clearly “evil baddies” movie will probably do better (it seems to be), and the fact that the evil baddies are also the precusors of the US’s current “enemies” will only help sell it in the west. So this will sell partly because people like a story about a fight against Evil and partly because the Evil in question aligns with people’s existing prejudices.

All this talk about Iran’s real objection is that their ancestors historically got walked over. Tell me that’s not a jab at Iran! “Oh, the evil stuff is just Hollywood… but you really did get walked over, didn’t you?” Yeah, that’s not inflammatory in the modern West vs. Middle East political environment.

I’ll see it, it looks wicked. Crazy naked red-cloaked comic character warriors and piles of bodies on screen, it’s different in a really interesting way like Sin City was. But I totally respect people pointing out that you need to be aware of the political subtext, intentional or not.

#19

So right, Ryan!

People need the image of the enemy.

#20

Actually, it was a plot by LEGO…

http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/11546