The leader of the most powerful empire in the world invades a small country to avenge his father's failure to do so years ago. His army is relentlessly attacked by a proud group of insurgents who denounce the empire's decadence.At any rate, this controversy never got out of hand. Something else did.The leader of a brave fighting force vows to defend freedom at all costs against an enemy from the Middle East. To rally his troops, he makes a speech, declaring, "The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant."
Is one of them President Bush?
ABC News
The first I noticed was when a modern Persian wrote me irately about a story that had been told about Shapur that I had repeated (with disclaimer) as a related anecdote in my account of the death of a Roman emperor. My correspondent was indignant that I, as a westerner, keep painting the Persians so badly. My correspondent's explanation of the event is a different interpretation, and not related to what the article was about. However, the correspondent did have an incidental point. I referred to Shapur as king of Syria and I should have written Persian king. The error has been corrected and I have made even clearer the fact that the story about Shapur is just an interpretation.
The next step in my round-about discovery that modern Iran is boiling over with wrath about 300 came when I read a comment in this blog on my Comments on 300. It was hard for me to believe the person writing the comment had actually seen the movie. I hunted for more information and found the following headlines "Hollywood has declared war on Iran" and "300 Versus 70 Million Iranians". Iranians, who are celebrating a 3000-year old new year's festivity right now, are fuming over the depiction of their Zoroastrian ancestors. Some are puzzled that the Alexander the Great movie failed at the box office and 300 hasn't failed. Timing is blamed. When Alexander came out there were no rumblings of the possibility of war with Iran and now, sadly, there are.
For a people prone to conspiracy logic, the box office success of 300, compared with the relative flop of Alexander (another spurious period epic dealing with Persians) is cause for considerable alarm, signaling ominous U.S. intentions.As for the "why," maybe 300 is just a better movie than Alexander.
300 Versus 70 Million Iranians
Historical images of the Great King Xerxes show him fully clothed. In 300, he is close to naked. Almost all the other Persians, except those engaged in the indoor sex scene, are fully clothed, and elegantly. It is the Spartans who appear to be running around in diapers. Yet one of the complaints I've read is that the movie humiliates the Persians because it shows
the Persians in rags and its Great King practically naked.EUROSOC: Hollywood Battle Upsets Iran spells out the objections.
300 Versus 70 Million Iranians
To Javad Shamqadri, the cultural adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, the film is part of a "cultural war against the people of Iran."It should be noted that in the movie, Persians try to spare lives -- offering peace and power, instead. The Persians keep offering the Spartans the opportunity to become part of the Empire. Leonidas would hold power within the Empire. It is the Spartans who do the uncivilized and unthinkable when they toss the ambassadors into the bottomless pit. It is the Spartans who are eager for killing. The Spartans, the losers in this battle, are the ones behaving like wild barbarians to the cultured, civilized, mostly sedate Persians. It is the rare Spartan who only in an un-Spartan emotional breakdown laments that he never told his son he loved him. It is a Spartan who rapes (or at least sodomizes) the queen, not a Persian. The Spartan ephors are described as inbred. The two traitors are Greek. The Persian allied forces dress elegantly. They are an inclusive group who don't toss their imperfect babies off a hill at birth. Et cetera.The Persians, he claims, are depicted as sexual degenerates and barbarians; the Spartans, by way of contrast, are noble warriors. A leading Iranian newspaper claims "The film depicts Iranians as demons, without culture, feeling or humanity, who think of nothing except attacking other nations and killing people."
Comments
First can we please have some areas where modern politics have no place. Secondly, I agree with the Spartans when they turned down the persians, and would have done the same. In my mind, it’s better to die in battle defending your country, and home, than to surrender, and become a slave. Even if you hold power under another nation, your still a slave. To me glorious death is better!
Whether or not the Spartans were justified is not my point. My point is that the Persians were not shown in the light described by Javad Shamqadri. However, the idea that being part of the Persian Empire is the same as being a slave is something modern Iranians reject citing the freedoms granted by Achaemenid kings.
As to whether there are some areas where modern politics have no place. I don’t know the answer to that. This, however, is mostly about ancient politics.
Interesting enough, the movie’s main attraction has been exaggeration, placing a fallacy of a million Persians against 300 Creeks while not placing what reality states that the battle was fought between 120,000 Persians against 300 spartans, a thousand Phocians, 1500 Thebans and other forces from Greek states. There werent that many men in the world at that time to constitute an army of a million, the Greeks in fact would be able to count till a million, the number in its most probability was a hyperbole.
The movie forgets to mention that the Spartans were pro slavery, they had heliots with them, who serve as slaves into the whims of the Spartan yoke.
Interesting enough, the movie seems to forget that the Persians were the first to instate human rights, the equality of men and women, during the battle of salamis, one of the generals of the navy was a woman and etc while the Greeks practice inequality, slavery and etc.
Iranian people dislike this film because of so many reasons. Like why Iranian soldies look like devlis?, why iranian people look black? and so on. Some of these are true. But thats just a movie. And I think its not that political. I dont take it serious.
Something else: Xerxes(as is told in xerxes link here) wasn’t cyrus’ grandson. Darius(his father) was Cyrus’ cousine, not his son.
I thought Cyrus was a maternal grandfather of Xerxes. Didn’t Darius marry one of Cyrus’ daughters? If not, could you please provide a source? Xerxes ruled over Africans, including Ethiopians, so why wouldn’t he have had Africans among his troops? It is only the Immortals of the Persians who were depicted looking like orcs. Since they seemed to be deathless they would have semed like some kind of supernatural being. There was a troll among the Persians, but there
were also some pretty hideous looking Greeks. I really don’t understand the objections.
About the source, I will provide you soon. Maybe you are right and darius had married one of cyrus’ daughters. About the black guy, you are right. But these people has not watched the movie and they are upset. But about immortal, it is a misunderstanding here. Immortal is a translation for JAVIDAN. Here it means that king has a constant amount of troops, like modern armies. They didnt clame that the soldiers themselves are immortals.
Well I think the biggest thing that most people don’t even realize is that 300 is the story of King Leonidas being told – by a Spartan. People embellish and tell tall tales all the time and that is exactly what this is, a tall tale recited by a Spartan. Dilios (the narrator) is a telling a story of how the heroic 300 Spartans stood against and evil barbaric enemy. Why wouldn’t he embellish and make things as outrageous as possible to paint his countrymen as the good guys fighting the good fight. Everything in the move had a mystical or fantasy twist, just as if someone is telling as story (which happens to be exactly how the film starts). I am sure if the story was being told from the Persian point of view the Spartans would be depicted as sinfully proud blood thirty warmongering brutes who enslave their own countrymen and beat children. Funny thing about ancient history is that it is always a little different depending on which history book your reading.
What you didn’t mention was this: that if you ask 10 average Americans where Persia is, or its modern name, you’ll likely get one right answer and nine blank looks. It’s kind of difficult to argue that the film is raising or reflecting bias against Iran when most Americans won’t connect Iran and Persia!
i did not watch that movie ,but i saw pictures ,and a small parts of that movie ,first of all its only a movie nothing more ,we can make movie to show
some people are bad ,or to show some people are good it dependent on our aime,well ,western people make movie about themseleves to show they are brave ,they are civilized,they are modern and generally superior race
they don,t make movies about other cultures to show they are civilized ,you can see most of their movies are about Greece and Roma and their power and their civilizations,which they claim they are generation of those encient civilizations ,Persia was their powerfull enemy in history and there were some war betweem Roma or greece and Persia .and they were not winner always .that story is about their resistance when persians invaid them ,yes they never show their failures
its better for them to show their defence of their country ,they show persians are uncivilized because wanted to show they are civilized ,they want to say HEY LOOK!!!! we are civilized
clever ,powerful ,and from superior race ,just because now they have more power,and economical power ,and some other cultures have not their power ,i watche many movies of Americans if you watch them very carefully you can see some expressions of those movies ,they always show themseleves (people with white skin and blue or green eyes)clever,brave ,with high justice but others like Indians for example are stupid ,weak and cruel .there is no surprise of making such movies about persians,to show them naked,wild and roud and generally uncivilized,but all educated and aware people know what is facts ,they just watch it as a movie like many other boasting
movies that holliwood makes to show power of western with political aims or anyother aims,aware people watch just for entertainment not for learning history .
anyway ,Certeinly its obviously that civilized cultures don,t need to try to show they are civilized because their behaviors and what they say and what they do ,showes who are they!!!
when they respect other religions,other believes ,other cultures,when they show all facts with out lie or changes,when they use their power to help others but not to abuse it ,when they are powerful but they are humble and they never become above themseleves ,all of those reasons are very strong reason for every one to say WOW they are VERY civilized people !!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of the biggest deviations from the graphic novel was the inclusion of an additional subplot: the struggle for the queen to press the Spartan council to send more troops to aid Leonidas. More than anything else, it was this call for military support that made me believe that this movie was a veiled reference to supporting American troops. The script’s cynical look at a legislative government in favor for more executive power also made me think this was a pro-Bush movie (I still enjoyed it in spite of that, much like I do 24).
HOWEVER, I do not believe that this movie was made to endorse the current troop surge that we are currently experiencing. After all, wasn’t this film shot more than a year ago?
I have to say, I only went to see the movie purely for entertainment. I am a Zoroastrian and initially I did not feel like this was a deadly insult to the Persians. I tend to like to separate real life and entertainment forms. However, I agree that the depiction of the Persians was WAY off mark and it bothers me simply based on the fact that whoever researched the historical facts for the movie did not seem to put effort into an accurate depiction of the people and their comportment.
All my life I have heard of how Persians were the first to truly espouse democracy and equality and to see such an extreme depiction in 300 is just irritating. I can see how this might be taken as an insult, especially by the Iranians who are already fighting against a wave of ‘anti’ feelings for their peoples and country. It is bad timing, and while accepting that movies are entertainment, I personally do feel that filmmakers have a responsibility to their audiences and their world to be as accurate as possible. ‘Interpretation’ is one thing, but bias and irresponsibility is never ok from a media which tends to affect and influence so many across the globe.
This whole thing that Persians were deplicted as evil in this movie, was because from the point-of-view of a Spartan, they would have been evil. Now if we flip this around, re-do this movie from the perspective of the Persians, the Spartans would have been made out to be evil. Here again, is the lack open mindedness to place one in another’s shoes.
I saw this movie and persoanlly liked it. I DID NOT walk away from this film feeling like I was preached a political bunch of horse crap about Iran-US affairs. I DID NOT walk away from this film feeling that Persians were evil people. It’s a movie. It’s fake. It’s Fiction. It’s only ment to entertain with great battle scenes. Nothing more.
Now if Warner Bothers had jumped out and said this was a DOCUMENTRY, I would have been upset. But this movie was produced from a COMIC BOOK. These type movies you only take at face value and nothing more.
It’s a movie, for goodness’ sake! If you’re looking for something closer to fact, read Herodotus. But this isn’t the first time the Islamic Hordes have overreacted to cartoons…they can’t distinguish between fact and fiction, anyway. We should be above all that, dontcha think??
It is clear from the movie that, like all other similar movies, Western have very cheap orientalist, racist feelings against Eastern falsely. However, though the movie tried us to hate Persians (which was in fact one of the great civilizations on earth, even more than Greeks, which Alexander The Great envied and savagely burned glorious city of Persepolis) I much liked Persians, and especially the way Xerxes behave and wear, than the stupid, old-fashioned Spartans:). Persians had taste
)
Alexander the Great the movie went into considerable pains to show accurate depictions of customs, clothes and peoples including ethnicity not only of the Persians but of the Greeks and the Macedonians. 300 the actual story behind the movie is clouded with much dispute regarding its authenticity, 300 states is has not even remnants of actual history. Most Iranians couldn’t give a flying fig to be honest. The furore seems to be generated more by the media than anything else. However the fact that Alexander the Great failed and 300 succeeded shows that we have actually not moved on from Alexander’s times. He felt it obligatory to show respect and adopt the values from the countries he conquered but his men believed them to be barbarians. Unfortunately I think it is the same today. This accounts for 300’s success. It can hardly be classed as a good movie (success does not equate to good at all) but it plays on stereotypes. Trying to bring realism and accuracy hardly sells. Alexander’s vision is as elusive today as it was then.
This article is complete subjective bullsh*t to be honest. Its’ only a movie crap’ comment is also quite disingenuous as all movies sell something weather ideologies, ideas or a morality of sorts or whatever the maker has in mind. Propaganda can also come in movie form its not a sacred art.
America always feels itself superior. Very few foreign movies sell or are marketed (British movies are classed as foreign .. go figure) their but American movies sell everywhere. So making the protagonists black and white when neither the Spartans nor the Persians would be either is simplifying for an audience who can’t cope with anything else. The comments and article show clearly the disdain westerners feel to even accurately acknowledge any grievance towards its own superiority ( And Iam not talking about the movies here) The Iranian government would hardly have any sympathy with the Zoroastrians but peoples of that area are not representative of the government.
Don’t patronise us please! (By the way I am not Iranian but Indian so sorry another stereotype up in smoke)
I don’t know which article you are referring to as subjective B.S. If it’s my blog, it is very clearly in the first person, so it is obviously intended to be subjective. I don’t know why you think it’s B.S., but I also don’t know why you think Alexander is a superior movie to 300. If you ask for a good story in a movie, with lots of action and motivation for the action, I think 300 fills the bill. It may not be great literature, but that doesn’t make it a bad movie. Even if more authentic or better literature or more/less racist, there are lots of reasons Alexander failed as a movie that are completely independent of patronizing or racism. Most important, in my recollection, is that its actors were ill-suited to the roles. I still disagree that the Persians were portrayed as any more degenerate than the Greeks. The Greeks are portrayed as barbarians, the men who betray their side are Greeks, the ephors are monsters, a Spartan sodomizes/rapes, the Spartans toss their newly born. As I’ve said before, if any group should feel humiliated by the portrayal, it’s the Spartans.
Many of the anti-300 comments, including the one preceding this, sound like people are trying to use the 300 as an excuse to grouse about the U.S., period.
I thought that the movie was rather hilarious. Who would believe the notion of a rhinocerous being used as a weapon of war or elephants being brought through a narrow pass. Among the funniest was when the chained beserker was presented. Yeah, like the Persians had Norse beserkers on their side! I couldn’t stop laughing. And Samurai? Uh, that was 1000 years later. I frankly thought the whole thing was laughable and Persians really should be laughing at the movie, not being angry at it.
This link answers you pretty well I think.
http://forums.tweakguides.com/showthread.php?p=65050