http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Political_aspects
"Political aspects
The filmmakers assert that any parallels to the current Iraq War that some in the media have implied were not intended. Indeed, Zack Snyder sees that comparison by some as a possible hindrance in the long run.[77] The studio and filmmakers had discussed the sensitive issue about the film's "contemporary resonance" of the East versus West conflict.[78]
Snyder reports that after advance screenings, he was taken aside by reporters at a screening for the international press, and asked about political implications by one reporter who insisted that Xerxes had to be symbolizing George W. Bush, only to have a second reporter suggest that Leonidas represented Bush. At a later showing at the Berlinale, Snyder says, he was asked, "Don’t you think it’s interesting that your movie was funded at this point?" Snyder clarifies, "The implication was that funding came from the U.S. government."[77]
In an interview on National Public Radio in January, Frank Miller echoed much of what Leonidas says in the movie about the clash between West and East: "It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western world is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants."
Miller said he had no problem judging American culture to be superior to Islamic extremism. "Let's finally talk about the enemy," he said. "Nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against, and the sixth-century barbarism they actually represent. These people saw people's heads off... . They do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us."[79]
[edit] Controversies
The film has attracted controversy over the portrayal of the Persians. Greek critic Dimitris Danikas suggested that the film showed Persians as "bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies," and went on to say, "They are stroking (sic) racist instincts in Europe and America."[69] As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, while the Persian emissary and King Xerxes are depicted as androgynous. This meant to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army.[80] However, the ancient Persian kings did not present themselves as deities.[81]
By references to "tyranny and mysticism" and depictions of hyper-sexuality, the Persians become the vehicle for an anachronistic cross-section of Western stereotypes of Asian and African cultures[82]
Furthermore, the "bad guys", the Persians, are depicted as black people, brown people, handicapped or deformed people, gays and lesbians. The traitor Ephialtes is played by a hunchback as in the graphic novel; however, historically there is no mention that Ephialtes was a hunchback. [83]
The president of Iran's Art Affairs Advisory has expressed strong condemnation over the movie which he said insulted the Persian civilization. Javad Shamqadri, who is also a filmmaker, said the film specifically had racist intentions but called the film's effort fruitless however, saying, "values in Iranian culture are too strongly seated to be damaged by such plans."[84]
"
Originally posted by stockenWe're getting out of track here, but I take it you're not a Leni Riefenstahl fan. I am.
In short, the whole story becomes rubbish because of that fact. It's like
if you make a movie where a bunch of Nazis play a leading role in WW2
Germany and the Jews are portrayed as uncivilised and unpredictable
enemies to be stopped at all cost. I'm sure you would react then, uh?
That said, I don't even think those are comparable. Frank Miller's portrayal of the Persians and the Greeks should not be seen as representative of an era, but simply metaphorically. Independently if you think that Persians were the greatest civilisation of ancient times, or that the Spartans were simple-minded despots and intolerant, to me, the portrayal of the Persians in Frank Miller is the portrayal of invaders as seen by the invaded, in these case the Spartans. If anything, it is the Spartans who play the role of freedom fighters facing certain death against a mighty empire. What image do you think someone, whose contact with a culture was only that of warfare, has of an invading civilization?
Originally posted by zeeblebotAnother good example of the amount of crap being said about this film. Some people have completely lost their sense of proportion in their strive for ultimate political correctness. Art is art, it doesn't need to conform to history, politics or culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Political_aspects
"Political aspects
The filmmakers assert that any parallels to the current Iraq War that some in the media have implied were not intended. Indeed, Zack Snyder sees that comparison by some as a possible hindrance in the long run.[77] The studio and filmmakers had discussed the sensitive issue ...[text shortened]... lture are too strongly seated to be damaged by such plans."[84]
"
Originally posted by PalynkaI think I've said my piece. If you don't see anything wrong with how the
We're getting out of track here, but I take it you're not a Leni Riefenstahl fan. I am.
That said, I don't even think those are comparable. Frank Miller's portrayal of the Persians and the Greeks should not be seen as representative of an era, but simply metaphorically. Independently if you think that Persians were [b]the greatest civilisation of anci ...[text shortened]... one, whose contact with a culture was only that of warfare, has of an invading civilization?[/b]
Persians are portrayed, so be it. It's curious how he missed a well known
fact. In order to portray Spartans as masculine heroes (apparently) he
depicted the Persians as gay (from zeeble's post above)? The Greeks
were famous for their homosexual companionships within their army. In
fact, one could argue that these relationships is part of what made the
Greeks so strong on the field. Why would they use homosexuality as a
sign of weakness when one of the strongest armies of the time lived by
very homosexual standards?
Referencing the most complete encyclopedia in the world, possibly the
source of all useful knowledge and worthwhile subjects 😀 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece
Seriously, the more I learn about the movie the less respect I have for
it's creators. It really is just rubbish. The thing that irritates me the most
is that now I have to see it. I'm told that it's very well made if only
I can just get past these historical faux paus they made. 😞
Originally posted by stockenYou should never open up a book like The Iliad that mixes historical figures with mythological beings and portrays their action in a poetic way that makes an absolute mockery of sober historical principles.
But unlike Conan the barbarian, this one uses characters from real history.
Call me nerdy, but that irritates me. You enjoy the film. I'll pass. 🙂
Originally posted by stockenSpartans and Athenians are very different. You do know that homosexuality was forbidden in Sparta, don't you? If anything Spartans were HOMOPHOBICAL with respect to Athenian standards. Assigning this characteristic to invaders is just more evidence of the embodiment of evil in the portrayal of invaders, as perceived by Spartan culture.
I think I've said my piece. If you don't see anything wrong with how the
Persians are portrayed, so be it. It's curious how he missed a well known
fact. In order to portray Spartans as masculine heroes (apparently) he
depicted the Persians as gay (from zeeble's post above)? The Greeks
were famous for their homosexual companionships within their army. ...[text shortened]... t's very well made if only
I can just get past these historical faux paus they made. 😞
Wikipedia is incredibly innacurate on this subject. Try different sources. Here are some quotes:
If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other.
~Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 2.13
But the men of Lacedaemon, holding that "if a man but lay his hand upon the body and for lustful purpose, he shall thereby forfeit claim to what is beautiful and noble"--do, in the spirit of their creed, contrive to mould and fashion their "beloved ones" to such height of virtue,[71] that should these find themselves drawn up with foreigners, albeit no longer side by side with their own beloved,[72] conscience will make desertion of their present friends impossible. Self-respect constrains them: since the goddess whom the men of Lacedaemon worship is not "Shamelessness," but "Reverence.
~Xenophon, Symposium (The Banquet) 8.70
Any male Sparta that admires a Lakonian youth, admires him only as we would a very beautiful statue. For bodily pleasures of this type are brought upon them by Hubris and are forbidden.
~Maximus of Tyre "Declamations' 20.e