The movie, 300, based on Frank Miller's graphic novel recently opened to a lot of controversy. It is loosely based on the battle of Thermopylae in the year 480, when an outnumner Spartan army of 300 defeated the Persian Army, under Xerxes The Great.
Arguments against the movie:
- It is a classic West (good guys) vs East (bad guys). It is a battle for democracy (Spartans) against slaving (Persians), a gross historical inaccuracy.
- Undertones of racism: It portrays the Persians as brown or black people, who are handicapped and/or deformed. Xerxes is shown as androgynous in stark contrast to the white masculine Spartans.
- It is an excuse for American conservatism. The Spartans (read Americans) stand up for God and Country.
Arguments for the movie
- It is just a movie. There are no undertones of racism or bigotry towards Iran. Live with it!
- It is a fantastic tale. No one in their right minds will believe that the Persians were beasts or had rhinos for war.
2007-03-27 17:16:13 · 15 answers · asked by Taharqa 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
Its just a movie. A fictional movie with bad guys and good guys. Somebody has to be good guys and somebody has to be bad guys.
We do fictional Evil Russian bad guys vs the American good guys and I would imagine they have films that crank out to that same end. Politics, intrigue, racism, lust, murder, hate, love - it what adventure and fantasy books consist of.
If you have a book with no struggle, no cause, no obstacles to overcome - its a dead book. Its insane that this political correctness crowd tend to find every thing and anything spoken, written or photographed as racist or xenophobic. A man cant even say "Hello" without someone screaming some inane accusation.
I tell ya.., the 21st century is starting off really crappy and its these idiots thats making problems if there are actually any situations where there are non. Thats the facts.
2007-03-27 17:25:05 · answer #1 · answered by Victor ious 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I loved the film! It's one of those films where you check your brains at the door.
Persians may not have had rhinos in the wars but some cultures used elephants. Anyway, there's no such creature or human being that has rhino tusks sewn onto his hands anyway!! It's just a film... a movie! A fantasy!
Like you said... its loosely based on a battle long time ago but it's more based on a fantasy graphic novel! Frank Miller's!
If anyone thinks a movie may be or is offensive then don't go to see it! Problem sorted!
2007-03-28 05:07:27 · answer #2 · answered by _ 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
300 Spartans and 300 other Greeks took on 50,000 "Persians". The Athenian navy also played an absolutely crucial role. Whilst all the Spartans were killed, they are usually credited with a win as the psychological effect of their stance is what made Xerxes (he doesn't deserve the term "The Great") about turn. This was the greatest military victory in human history, and the Spartans proved themselves the bravest ever army. The whole event leaves one in awe.
Then some dumbass comes along, steals the basic realities and devalues the heroism and truth of what actually happened. It is typical of an American writer/film-maker to do this.
Do you know that the Americans were going to make a modern version of Escape From Colditz with Americans as the heroes. There were huge protests about this by British, Canadian and European servicemen because there was never an American imprisoned in Colditz.
This ridiculous Americanisation of history is simply as bad as the Nazis re-writing of history, in as much as the truth is usually pretty impressive in it's own right. It doesn't need some vain money-grabber to come along and p*ss all over people of great bravery and deeds.
Three hundred against a million? What a load of CRAP!
2007-03-28 00:34:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think that it was just an amazing movie. I enjoyed every minute of it. It was visually stunning as well.
And as for its historical inaccuracy...
It was originally a graphic novel which Frank Miller took artistic liberties to change historical facts.
Then when the graphic novel was translated for screen Zack Snyder and Kurt Johnstad had to take even more artistic liberties to fit it for screen.
I also think that any deformaties of any of the Persians were only there because they wanted to the "big bad guy" to look scary.
I believe it is JUST A MOVIE.
It's pleasing to watch.
Enjoy it.
2007-03-28 00:26:21 · answer #4 · answered by azporter02 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
FIRST OF ALL!!!!!
The Spartans DID NOT defeat the Persians at that battle!
I assume that EVERYONE knows that the 300 Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae died, but you must of not gotten that memo.
Secondly, the director stated that this was an "over-exaggeration" of the historical events
2007-03-28 00:26:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Its good that you've posted this, as I seen the movie twice, I can say with certainty everything that you have mentioned to be against the movie is correct. Its disgusting that it had to be played out this way. Persians are the evil doers, the black and asian looking, with disfigured bodies, monsters.... etc, but the spartans to be white and beautiful, loving, and care for honour and family.
This film plays with the physcology and you subconcious to make you believe in the american ideal... whatever it is,
2007-03-28 00:25:51 · answer #6 · answered by MU.SK 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
As an adult, I read graphic novels and go to movies for entertainment not for a neccesarrily accurate portrayal of every single event. If I wanted that I would watch CNN, when I go to the movies and shell out my money I want to be entertained by a good story.
I couldn't care less how the Iranians(Persians) feel they as a people are portrayed in it, does anybody believe they are not a war loving people, look at the six o'clock news.
2007-03-28 00:52:06 · answer #7 · answered by STFU 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Wow - it's JUST A MOVIE!
Are you serious, or are just joking around? Everything that's wrong with the United States is summed up in your question. Wow, what's wrong with you people when you can't even go out and enjoy a film?
2007-03-28 00:21:04 · answer #8 · answered by Christopher 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
the maker were not being racist to persians. They couldn't help the fact that the persains were the bad guys, and as for the hadicaped or disformed persians, thay wrer trying to make the movie better.
IT WAS A GREAT MOVIE
2007-03-28 00:22:11 · answer #9 · answered by America's Team is back!!! 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is a Hollywood movie loosely based on one battle in history. I sure didn't hear people poo pooing Braveheart. I think it is what it is. Silly. A movie. There should be any controversy.
2007-03-28 00:22:17 · answer #10 · answered by Julia B 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋