'300' has been criticised as an attack on Iranian culture?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6446183.stm

who agrees with it ? i think they are right...since all we know about Spartans that they were warriors...not Persians...

Answer 1

Old answer of mine...too lazy to argue and type up a new one





That would be really hard considering that it is based shot-for-shot from Frank Miller's graphic novel (which was written in the late 90's). Now, the movie is being filmed threw the eyes of the Spartan warrior (Dilios) to the Spartan council in order to receive more troops and to tell the tale of Leonidas. With that being said, Spartans at the council had no clue what immortals, rhinos, elephants, or anything of that matter looked like. So they depict immortals as demons from hell, they depict Persians as evil beings, they depict monstrous beasts that go crazy.

Plus, it never made Persia look evil. In fact, the whole time they gave Sparta fair chance to be bathed in gold, women, and be recognized as warlords. Of course, Spartan pride took over and stood against the Persian empire in order to retain in what they believed. We should all be greatful for that too. Spartans were the hotheaded people. Persia just got a little too widespread and greedy with land and dominance.

And last of all, PERSIA NO LONGER EXISTS!!! So Iran has nothing to do with it.

As far as you last comment. Many have heard of him. In fact, if we wanted a history lesson we would have read a book and not watched this film, but we did NOT WANT A HISORY LESSON, we want entertainment which provokes the mythos of America. This is a comic book movie. You are an idiot.

Answer 2

I think it is a great strecht to characterize the movie 300 as an attack on Iranian culture. And even if you make the extreme assumption that the movie was intended as an attack on ancient Persian culture, that still does not neccesarily equate an attack on modern Iranian culture.

While it is true that Iranian's are ethnically Persian, as opposed to the majority of the Middle East, which is ethnically Arab, the Persian culture has drastically changed since Ancient Persia. Well after the completion of the Persian war, in which the battle depicted in 300 was fought, Alexander the Great conquered the ancient Persian Empire and spread Greek culture there. Persia then when through several phases under the Parthians, the Sassanids, etc over the following century. In the 7th century AD it was conquered by the Arabs, who subsequently merged Islamic and Persian culture. Over the next centuries it would come under the influence various groups of Turks. It then became the Safavid Empire. It then came under the influence of Colonial powers. After World War II, it was ruled by the Shahs under heavy American influence until the Islamic Revolution of the 1970's.

Why the history lesson? The heavily fictionalized version of Ancient Persian culture in the movie 300 really bears no resemblance to modern Iranian culture because their is not the same continuity of culture between the ancient and modern as you might see in a nation like China. Persian culture has drastically changed over the millenia due to the wide variety of influences it has had on it. So even if 300 makes a few digs at the Persians, the Iranians shouldn't take offense.

Answer 3

The film has historical elements, but it is based on a graphic novel, not on Herodotus' Histories. As I said there are historical elements in the film. The 300 Spartans did face a huge army at Thermopylae, where the film missed it was that there were 7000 other Greeks who stood with them until they were betrayed, then it was only the Spartans and a few hundred Thesbians who defended the Hot Gates against the Persian Empire.
The Persian Empire consisted of armies from Persia, Egypt, Arabia, and various other conquered nations, and numbered between 250,000 to 800,000 men (not the million as the movie state), and for all intents and purposes, they could not defeat the Spartan led Greeks without help from a Greek betrayer. Historians like to speculate how much longer Leonidas could have held the Persians had he not been betrayed, perhaps for a few more days, perhaps for a few weeks, perhaps indefinately. Who knows? What we do know as far as historical fact was that a handful of Greeks kicked some serious Persain *** for 2 and a half days.
Of course Iran is going to criticize the film, it shows a great defeat on their part (after all Persia later became Iran). The British cringed when they saw Braveheart, and the Patriot as well, of course they didn't say it was propiganda like Iran has.
Which brings me to the point of my answer.
For Iran to state that this movie, which was based on a comic book, not some extensive government study, is American propiganda and worse, shows their ignorance and stupidity.

Yes the film offends them, it shows how their ancestors who were supposed to be the greatest military power in the world, got their asses handed to them. Much in the same way that some Vietnam movies do to the U.S. But I don't really give a damn what Iran says, and neither should any American. History is history, and history tells us that the Greeks held the Hot Gates for 2 and a half days, and eventually defeated the mighty Persian army. History tells us that a few years later, the Greeks led by a Macedonian named Alexander the Great would later conquer all of Persia, and that he did it with relative ease in comparison to other campaigns.
I don't care that Iran doesn't want to accept history. It is what it is.
And if you haven't seen the movie 300 I highly recommend it.

Answer 4

First of all I don't believe for one second that it was an attack on Iranians as they were not even in existance at that time. In the same manner, Persians of old are not in Iran today. That argument alone is moot.

Secondly, the director and filmmakers all agree that the argument was unfounded. They screened it for historians before it was released and no one objected.

The Berlin press had nothing but bad things to say about the film even though it was highly successful. If people were truly as offended as they claim to be, the movie would not have had near the success sofar that it has.

Why are people unable to enjoy it for the entertainment value instead of ruining it for the rest of us?

If someone wants to make a pro-Persian version of the story, the director Zach Snyder gave them permission to do so at the Berlin press conference. But this is his film and Frank Miller's. It was never intended to be 100% accurate.

Answer 5

It is a stylized account of 300 soldiers who died fighting against insurmountable odds. Why is it an attack? Does the idea of the Alamo demonize Mexican culture. Persia is different than modern Iran. Especially in the B.C.

Answer 6

Likes a million: i like our celebrations and our history. 2: i like the cost we place on education in Iran. Dislikes: a million: I hate how some human beings substitute for the extra serious while we bypass away Iran. 2: I hate how Persians, Kurds, Azerbaijanis, and different Iranian peoples make racist jokes approximately one yet another and not get alongside with one yet another. If we stop hating one yet another Iran would be a extra appropriate place. there is a lot i prefer to jot down in likes yet you purely stated 2..........

Answer 7

it seems 300 was not meant to be historical, but just simply an exciting new movie to draw a crowd.
although i do have my list of complaints about the movie, i would give it a thumbs up.
almost every movie is attacking some type of race, religion, or culture of some sort. preserving the true history of things is not in their priority list.
just makin a sellin movie is.

Answer 8

If you want a more realistic version of the Spartans vs Persians, read Steven Pressfields 'Gates of Fire'.

Answer 9

From what I've seen so far, it has no historical value at all...just pure senseless hollywood entertainment.

The real spartans (The 300) stopped the Persian invasion, I believe at a pass in Thermopolis.

Answer 10

i dont think its that serious, seeing as it come form a comic book, but they do kinda have a point.

if there was a movie, portraying a war. lets say, YOUR COUNTRY against NEW ZEALAND. and the NEW ZEALANDERS were beautiful and strong young men and the people of YOUR COUNTRY were portrayed as monkeys would you be offended? probably. especially from the outside looking in. remember this is a foreign film to them they dont know what the filmmakers intentions were. all they see is their people being portrayed as less than human.