300 (Movie) as Anti-Iranian Propaganda?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Lord Blackadder, Mar 16, 2007.

  1. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #1
    There has been an outcry from Iranian expats that 300 promotes an "irresponsible" and "distorted" view of ancient Persians.

    Was this intentional or is it simply projection due to current events?

    I'm probably going to see it tonight, it's either that or Mad Max 3, which my housemates rented...
     
  2. stevehp macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    It's not a house, it's a home.
    #2

    ummmm maybe these people should read Frank Miller's 300 then before seeing the movie. The movie is no more "irresponsible" or "distorted" than the graphic novel is.
     
  3. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #3
    Doesn't matter. The movie sucked mostly anyways. Frank Miller should have been mad.

    On the other hand, Sin City was great.

    And 300 isn't even all that historically accurate. I do agree about cultural bias however.
     
  4. Motley macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    #4
    I think I speak for most Americans when I say "What's Persia got to do with Iran?"


    If no one get's the message, is it propaganda?
     
  5. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #5
    Persia, as it WAS called, is far larger than Iran is currently.

    Sounds like someone is a bit conceited!
     
  6. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #6
    Indeed, why all the flap over a movie that was rather lousy to begin with?
     
  7. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    Wuz reading somewhere about some potential consequences had the Persians won. Or maybe it was a History Channel comment. Anyhow, if the Persians had won, the Athenian concept of Democracy would have gone down the tubes. There also would not have been the organization of the city-states into "Greece".

    For the historians, then: Where else, or when else, might the concept of Democracy risen again? Would Rome have come about, as a world power? Would there have been wars between Persia and Rome? And so, back to Democracy as a dead issue?

    'Rat
     
  8. Lord Blackadder thread starter macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #8
    I think the problem stems from past Western historians somewhat subconsiously portraying the Persians as the antagonists, since the West traces its cultural heritage back to Greece.

    But I don't most Americans are aware that Iranians are descended from Persians. I'll bet most Americans, (if they even think about it) think that Iranians are Arabs.

    Not propaganda in IMO.
     
  9. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #9
    Uh, Roman Empire (even as portrayed on HBO) wasn't all that democratic to begin with... mostly brainwashed Westernized history that teaches us that.

    Of course, guess what happened to Rome the supposed democracy in 476 AD? Hmm...

    I can't wait for the Dark Ages Part II, baby. :rolleyes:
     
  10. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #10
    I thought the movie rocked, but then I'm a sucker for any period piece involving the ancients. The Iranians probably don't like the portrayal of Xerses as a pierced freak employing every physically mutated, gender bended freak his juggernaught of an army picked up along the way.

    I enjoyed it for what it was: escapist entertainment.

    Watch it win a bunch of Oscars. It's a lock on cinematography at a minimum as far as I'm concerned.
     
  11. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    Iriquois Confederacy?

    Panchayats in ancient India? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchayat
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    Oh, the irony! Or should that be Irany?
     
  13. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #13
    Dark Ages II: Part One: The Shadow of Darkening...already in production according to this site.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    The city states, most of which incidentally were oligarchies, were not "organised into Greece" until the nineteenth century. Many of the Ionian ones were happily under Persian satraps already.

    Athens was not a democracy for long, was defeated by the Spartans with their dual kingship, then by the Macedonians, and certainly did not pass its political ideals on to Rome. Rome was a Monarchy, a Republic and finally an Imperial fiefdom. Democracy had little to do with it.

    And, while we're about it, Xerxes' grandfather Cyrus drafted the world's first law on Human Rights, and set free the Jews from their captivity in Babylon. This film's historicity is total bunk.
     
  15. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #15
    well after all the persians won in that battle ;)

    at the time it was actually considered a humilating defeat in greece because sparta sacrificed his men for rather little
    and as an outcome of the battle sparta was weakend for decades to come because of the high amount of losses
     
  16. Lord Blackadder thread starter macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #16
    I haven't heard it was ever intended to be at all accurate - the story uses the temporal/geographical setting and events merely for atmosphere and raw plot outline.

    It's just an imaginative interpretation of Thermopylae designed to satisfy a 21st century audience. It doen't do justice to any of the events or peoples involved historically and wasn't intended to. I think that these reactions are simply people reading to much into a movie in the context of current events.
     
  17. joepunk macrumors 68030

    joepunk

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    a profane existence
    #17
    I liked the movie for what it was, a movie. Of course its not historically accurate. I did find their portrayal of Xerxes to be very misleading and false. The forebears of the Persians were Indo-European Nomads, known as Aryans (the Helios people that we know were also Aryans).

    Of course there was no mention of the Spartans having male companionship (this affair between boys and men also would help keep a tight Phalanx). Neither did the 2hr History Channel show about the invasion. Mentions everything else but the male companionship.

    The films history is cr*p, but I sill like the movie.
     
  18. Motley macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    #18
    I don't get it ;)
     
  19. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #19
    I just saw this movie last night. It was incredible. Visually stunning.
    Anyone who would construe this as anti-iranian propaganda is not playing with a full deck.
     
  20. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #20
    I agree it's not propaganda, but imagine how you'd feel about an Iranian movie where George Washington was portrayed as effeminate and American troops as mindless, weak slaves?

    It is a tad on the racist side, this movie, as much of the world is.
     
  21. carbonmotion macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #21
    you know conceited means having an excessively favorable opinion of one's appearance. Right? I think you did not use the word correctly. Pwnd. Hahahahaha.
     
  22. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #22
    conceited excessively proud of oneself; vain

    narcissistic, self-centered, egotistic, egotistical, egocentric; proud, arrogant, boastful, full of oneself, self-important, immodest, swaggering; self-satisfied, smug; supercilious, haughty, snobbish; informal bigheaded, too big for one's britches, stuck-up, high and mighty, uppity, snotty; literary vainglorious.
    His use of the word is correct.
     
  23. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #23
    Wouldn't a screenshot have been easier?
     

    Attached Files:

  24. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
  25. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #25
    Movies maybe "unconscious" propaganda and still be used as such by those interested in pushing a particular point of view. It is no accident that during the height of McCarthyism we saw many movies made with the aliens "boring from within" (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, etc.) During the Reagan era I remember sitting in a movie theatre cheering along with everyone else when the Aliens heroine Ripley and Cpl. Hicks decide the only sane course is to "nuke 'em all." This when Reagan was pushing the confrontation with the "evil empire" and refused to negotiate with the Soviets. So, even if the film makers don't consciously endorse a political viewpoint, the views of the time are often reflected in the films made and in the messages people take from them.

    I haven't seen the movie yet, and I intend to do so because the story is one of the great stories of ancient times, but my concern has been from the moment I learned it was being made that someone was going to use this movie as an example of how heroic "western" men stood up to "eastern" despotism and so should we in today's world. That view is pure propaganda and distortion of history.

    I think one can argue the "organization" of Greece happens a century and a half later under Philip and Alexander, at least in its first form. I also wouldn't claim the Ionians states were happy under Persian rule as it is the "Ionian revolt" that sets off this whole series of events leading to the Persian Wars with the Greek City-States.

    I'd beg to differ. While most modern people wouldn't recognize any Greek City-State as much of a democracy (the presence of large numbers of slaves with no say, lack of female suffrage, etc.,) the forms of government that included voting rights (Athens and to a very limited degree Sparta) to at least sectors of the population is unique to Greece in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean worlds. It is important for both the development of the Roman Republic and later Enlightenment thinkers that such ideas grew during the Greek's classical age.

    While what you say of Persia under Cyrus is absolutely true, it is still a society organized around a God-King. To have the Persian Empire triumph in the wars with the Greek City-States would have had a profound, and to my way of thinking, detrimental effect on human history, especially concerning the development of democracy. Of course, none of which has any bearing on current conflicts.

    btw, even without seeing the flick, I'm sure you're right history is the first casualty of the film. It is Hollywood after all. "Troy" made me want to puke and that was only a distortion of a fictional history.
     

Share This Page