Movie '300' called an insult to ancient Persia

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well even though I had no plans to see Passion of the Christ, I defended it aganst being Anti-Semetic with, 'chill it's just a movie and one guys point of view, why does everyone have to think everything is against them?'

Flash forward to 2006 and a drunk Mel Gibson... And things seemed to look a little different.

Although I will say I doubt it is the case with this movie, I could see how the broad generalizations and charactures might be taken that way. I guess it's supposed to be based on a graphic novel but I could see how certain people or groups might feel that way.

Personally I think a lot of people are too senstive and of course, lots of media outlets and power brokers will turn anything into a crusade for their case.

But see the argument. Maybe not agree with it, but see it.

Mel Gibson was retelling a story that has been written and told for a very very long time. If Jews have a problem with it, tough crap.

MYK

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Circa89

Nine out of ten Americans would not know that Persia is now Iran/Iraq. So this arguement has little merit.

They do now...

All that Iran has succeeded in doing is exactly what they said the movie would do (which it didn't). Americans are sick of other countries trying to censor them. Now they're mad. (Or something.)

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Mel Gibson was retelling a story that has been written and told for a very very long time. If Jews have a problem with it, tough crap.

MYK

Because if someone is offended by something and you're not, they are wrong? Gimme a break.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Burninator

It seems like nothing these days can escape not offending someone.

Where is PETA in all of this? I thought they would be up in arms after they killed a computer generated rhinoceros and elephant. Clearly this promoting cruelty to animated animals.

Originally Posted by Burninator

Because if someone is offended by something and you're not, they are wrong? Gimme a break.

Me thinks you doth protest too much...

I think what myk was saying is "why aren't they offended at the Bible then? It's in there... why only the movie version of it? And that particular movie version of it?" It's been done a number of times before and all of a sudden now it's anit-sematic... Why do you suppose that is?

He just doesn't say it very eloquently.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Me thinks you doth protest too much...

I think what myk was saying is "why aren't they offended at the Bible then? It's in there... why only the movie version of it? And that particular movie version of it?" It's been done a number of times before and all of a sudden now it's anit-sematic... Why do you suppose that is?

He just doesn't say it very eloquently.

Exactly. I'm not religious, but after watching that movie, and talking to a few Catholic friends of mine. They say that the Movie is basically word for word what is told in the Bible.

[Agamemnon]

Meh, a couple of Iranian papers call it an outrage, big deal. Until Iranians are flooding the streets of Tehran in protest, its just the regime publishing its own personal opinion on the movie. Tons of Iranians have satellite/dvd players, they'll watch it on their own and love it, just like I did. This is not evidence of a Clash of Civilizations, its a semi-legitimate hard-core conservative regime pushing its (probably unpopular) personal opinion onto the public.

I don't get why the US doesn't just conquer the Middle East the easy way; drop 10 million satellite dishes/tv's into the region and blast the whole place with nothing but 200 channels of 24/7 Western entertainment (maybe broadcast in Farsi, like 'Everybody Hates Abdullah' or 'Beauty and the Sheik'). They'll be eating McDonalds and hitting the waterslide parks in no time... they just don't know it yet.

Why even bother responding to what the Iranian government thinks about the movie? Why legitimize their obviously outdated and politically motivated beef?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Me thinks you doth protest too much...

Making light of an extremist animals rights group and a race of people are not exactly on the same playing field.

I think what myk was saying is "why aren't they offended at the Bible then? It's in there... why only the movie version of it? And that particular movie version of it?" It's been done a number of times before and all of a sudden now it's anit-sematic... Why do you suppose that is?

He just doesn't say it very eloquently.

Somehow I think if Jews or any group of people call for the banning of bible it won't be very well received. But someone can tell a story and slant it toward one side and make the other side look worse (the case made by some Jes about Mel Gibsons moive). Passion of the Christ was meant to be a realistic retelling of the story. 300 is based on a sensationalized comic that was based on a battle.

[La Flames Fan]

Deleted by mod: Profanity.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Because if someone is offended by something and you're not, they are wrong? Gimme a break.

Did I say that? People need to "man-up" and take responsibility for their own actions and quit being so pissy when someone calls them on it. If you are are drunken phornicator and I call you such and you are offended (like I said before) tough crap - the truth hurts and your ever continuing whining about it is starting to hurt my ears.

I dont really care if Persians were offened by 300 because there is likely no way to tell if this story was true or not. If its fantasy than what is there to be mad about - so abunch of phornicating devil worshiping westerners who are destined for hell anyways liked the movie, what is the problem.

Also, the reason people dont take offense to cartoons "that are from that part of the world" is simple, they are the only one so far that have crashed planes into buildings and most people are scared $h1tless that the same thing could happen to them.

MYK

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Making light of an extremist animals rights group and a race of people are not exactly on the same playing field.
Somehow I think if Jews or any group of people call for the banning of bible it won't be very well received. But someone can tell a story and slant it toward one side and make the other side look worse (the case made by some Jes about Mel Gibsons moive). Passion of the Christ was meant to be a realistic retelling of the story. 300 is based on a sensationalized comic that was based on a battle.

I totally forget the point of this tangent now.

You're right, someone can slant a movie (see the Michael Moore thread for evidence of such). The fact that the Jewish people were offended by the movie which was an accurate representation of the story in the Bible leads me to believe they should also feel offended by that... as it is also slanted to make the Jews look bad. Its supposed to.

Again though, I still have no idea the point of this tangent, so I don't know what we're arguing about. So I'm not going to argue.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Did I say that? People need to "man-up" and take responsibility for their own actions and quit being so pissy when someone calls them on it. If you are are drunken phornicator and I call you such and you are offended (like I said before) tough crap - the truth hurts and your ever continuing whining about it is starting to hurt my ears.

I dont really care if Persians were offened by 300 because there is likely no way to tell if this story was true or not. If its fantasy than what is there to be mad about - so abunch of phornicating devil worshiping westerners who are destined for hell anyways liked the movie, what is the problem.

Also, the reason people dont take offense to cartoons "that are from that part of the world" is simple, they are the only one so far that have crashed planes into buildings and most people are scared $h1tless that the same thing could happen to them.

MYK

I agree that people are way too sensitive and most things (such as this movie) are not out to attack certain groups of people. For instance making the Persians out to be be evil sex mongers is done to make the movie more entertaining and further the plot, not persecute the Persians. All I was getting at was that I don't think 300 and the Passion of the Christ are as comparably offensive as some people are saying.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I totally forget the point of this tangent now.

You're right, someone can slant a movie (see the Michael Moore thread for evidence of such). The fact that the Jewish people were offended by the movie which was an accurate representation of the story in the Bible leads me to believe they should also feel offended by that... as it is also slanted to make the Jews look bad. Its supposed to.

Again though, I still have no idea the point of this tangent, so I don't know what we're arguing about. So I'm not going to argue.

I was just defending why I don't think 300 and Passion of the Christ are comparable. I think this tangent is done.

[octothorp]

Though the article doesn't really get into it, I think part of the conflict might be that Iran seems to be very proud of their non-militant history; they've generally been the invaded rather than the invader (by Iraq, Russians and Brits in WWII and WWI, the Ottomans, Imperialist Russia, Mongols, Turks, Timurids, more Turks, Arabic Muslims, and the Huns). The last time Iran was actually a major aggressor in a war was probably against the Roman Empire during the Sassanid dynasty, sometime around 300 AD (though there was also a minor Safavid campaign into India). The US and Israel have really worked hard to try to paint Iran as a military aggressor, a claim that is absolutely false and really offends Iranians, given their recent (1700-year old) history as a peaceful, conservative, intellectual people. It's also the same argument the US is using to try to build opposition to an Iranian nuclear program. So I can see how the Iranian authorities and probably some intellectuals in the country see this as part of a campaign to portray Iran/Persia as something it isn't.
I'm not saying they're justified in their belief; I think the evolution of this film came about very organically, what with the comic book, the success of previous Frank Miller films, etc. Making this movie was completely motivated by commercial and creative interests. But it's a very sensitive nationalistic issue for Iranians.

And just in regards to the Persia/Iran naming convention, many Iranians think of themselves as Persians, it doesn't really have much to do with opposition to the current regime. When the Islamic State was founded in the 1920s, it orginally kept the name of Persia, then changed it to Iran in the 1930s. But because there was such a strong attachment to the Persian history of the country, they later decided that both Iran and Persia were legitimate names, essentially saying that Iran and Persia were synonyms. Thus even today there are many who choose to identify themselves as Persians rather than Iranians.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Circa89

Nine out of ten Americans would not know that Persia is now Iran/Iraq. So this arguement has little merit.

And the tenth is smart enough to realize that Hollywood's version of history is hardly accurate.

Though as stupid as Iran looks out of all of this, they are hardly unique. Muslim groups protested "The Siege" because they said it was nothing but negative stereotypes of Muslims. Some Italians hate the Sopranos for the same reason. Advocacy groups for the blind found "Mr. Magoo" to be offensive. Advocacy groups for albinos whined about the Matrix Reloaded.

Basically, any extremist group will find insult in anything that even hints at being negative to their viewpoint. The Government in Tehran being one of the most extremist on earth.

[PsYcNeT]

^Snakeeye hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Exactly. I'm not religious, but after watching that movie, and talking to a few Catholic friends of mine. They say that the Movie is basically word for word what is told in the Bible.

Now here's where it gets murky. Gibson's 'Passion' is based on what is considered a very orthodox and strict retelling of the 'Passion' story, (usually done in hyper-religious communities in play-form). But in all cases, the story itself is based on King James Bible interpretations, which, as it stands, is the most widely-accepted form of the bible amongst Christians. Moving back past the compilation of this version of the bible, we can see many different retellings of every single story in the bible, none ever surviving without addenums and additions during each subsequent edit (not to mention the non-surviving or less accepted interpretations that have been lost to ages).

Scholars tend to believe more of the shift towards the blame of the Jews instead of Pontius and the Romans occurred during Paul's Gnostification of the resurrection story around 72-75 AD (after the fall of Jerusalem), when he was recruiting gentiles and painting Jesus as a saviour God (which he was not known as before this point). The shift to blaming the Jews was used by Paul to convince converts of the Jewish religion that Chrisitianity was the right choice, as why would you want to associate yourself with a religion that kills Great Prophets?

There is obviously alot more to the story, but this isn't a theological discussion forum. If anyone would like to have some sources cited just PM me and I can recommend some reading/lectures you could attend.

[burn_baby_burn]

When it comes to Movies like Passion of the Christ. So what if it makes certain Jews out to be bad guys 2000 years ago? I don't see Germans demanding that Schindler's List be banned because it portrays some Germans in a bad way.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Mel Gibson was retelling a story that has been written and told for a very very long time. If Jews have a problem with it, tough crap.

MYK

300 is about the same.

Based on a true story, but changed to be more appealing.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

When it comes to Movies like Passion of the Christ. So what if it makes certain Jews out to be bad guys 2000 years ago? I don't see Germans demanding that Schindler's List be banned because it portrays some Germans in a bad way.

I'm not sure the Jews agree that they were 'bad guys', the Germans accept their role in the Holocaust. I don't think Jews accept responsibility as a race/religion for the death of Jesus Christ.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

When it comes to Movies like Passion of the Christ. So what if it makes certain Jews out to be bad guys 2000 years ago? I don't see Germans demanding that Schindler's List be banned because it portrays some Germans in a bad way.

Part of the problem with that is that we actually know the holocaust and the story of Oskar Schindler actually happened. The Germans know it happened, you and I know it happened. And besides, German is a nationality, not a religion or "race".

The Passion of the Christ, on the other hand, is not a historical fact, and it paints the Jews as the killers of the Son of God, and a billion people believe in that Son of God. The idea that the Jews killed the Son of God has been used as a justification for a lot of bad things over the years including, coincidentally enough, the holocaust.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm not sure the Jews agree that they were 'bad guys', the Germans accept their role in the Holocaust. I don't think Jews accept responsibility as a race/religion for the death of Jesus Christ.

It is ridiculous to point the finger at an entire race or religion for anything. That is why I chose the word "Certain" when talking about the Jews. But if the Jews didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God and in fact was an inposter. So what. Many people in history have been put to death because of their radical ideas.