Movie '300' called an insult to ancient Persia

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

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.

I'm glad people read my lengthy and informative post. Here's some more!

Has anyone ever read the history of Paul and his clashes with more moderate Judeo-Christian sects between 50-70 A.D., and his alignments with the Zealots, the anti-Roman possibly terroristic Christian sect in (now) Italy?

Obviously Paul won, as the original practicioners of Christianity have none of the Jesus=Son of God/Jews Killed Him/Immortal Soul stuff

In short, records show before the fall of Jerusalem in 67 AD, most Christians were obviously just an offshoot of Judaism who believed the Messiah had come and gone and his return would be the signal of The Last Days. Alot of Christians saw the complete and utter destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple as signs of the Apocolypse, Paul among them, which is indicated by a few things, not the least of which, Paul never bothered to date or proscribe future dates on or within his writings. Paul felt that older Christians weren't giving Jesus his proper place among God and promptly deified him (not the only man to be Deified at the time however, as Julius Ceasar and his 3 sucessors were all considered Gods or Sons Of God after their deaths...well except Caligula, who proclaimed himself God). After Jesus' deification, Paul stated 'For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, who we did not preach, or if ye receive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel (referring to James, Peter and John), which ye did not accept, ye will do well to bear with him.'

Obviously, Paul had no love lost for his predecessors, and was very vocal. As a result, he was denounced by the moderate Judeo-Christian groups in 59 or so, was arrested and taken to Rome (being a Roman citizen, most likely by his own request as he most likely would have been hung in Jerusalem for heresay). He was later released during the uprisings of 66-70 that resulted in Jerusalems destruction.

Paul's differences in belief, compared with the diciples in Jerusalem, differed mainly in two areas. 1) He had a conviction to preach among the gentiles (conversion), and 2) his belief that Jesus was not just a martyr, but divine. Christopher Rowland (very very interesting researcher/historian) talks about how Paul had a Hellinistic background, in that Hellinists had the idea of a 'salvation-God' (similar to the Egyptian's Osiris) and the 'fallen state of man'. As well, Paul had been palling around with Gnostic sects, some of which had adopted Platonist ideas and taught that every human was a compound of an immortal soul 'imprisoned' in a physical (and mortal) body.

Thusly, Paul's Christianity was an amalgam of three elements: Jewish Christianity (Messiah/Saviour-God), paganistic-saviour-god(s), and Gnostic ideas (namely fallen state/soul). This is what we (generally) know as Christianity today.

[Ayrahb]

One should never underestimate the pride certain groups have in their ancient history. Just today, I heard an Albanian girl refer to herself as Illyrian. I also heard many Iranians call themselves or their language Persian.

[HOZ]

In all fairness Hollywood does do a bad job with foreign cultures.

Mullahwood Block Buster....extolling the virtues of Iran


“235” … A Gore-inspired documentary about the peace-loving mullahs’ struggle vs. global warming in the face of cynical western opposition, as they try to reduce their dependence on domestic oil.

“Chadorezade” … a clever Persian girl figures out how to beguile a blood-thirsty misogynist Persian mullah who likes to bed virgins and execute them.

Some of my own:

Mission Impossible IV (Destroy the Zionic Identity)

The Sound of Fatwas

Nuclear Wars (The New Hope)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

In all fairness Hollywood does do a bad job with foreign cultures.

Mullahwood Block Buster....extolling the virtues of Iran


“235” … A Gore-inspired documentary about the peace-loving mullahs’ struggle vs. global warming in the face of cynical western opposition, as they try to reduce their dependence on domestic oil.

“Chadorezade” … a clever Persian girl figures out how to beguile a blood-thirsty misogynist Persian mullah who likes to bed virgins and execute them.

Some of my own:

Mission Impossible IV (Destroy the Zionic Identity)

The Sound of Fatwas

Nuclear Wars (The New Hope)

Is that supposed to be funny?

[blankall]

First of all I think that this is a bit different than the passion thing. Mel Gibson was purpoting his story as historical fact. 300 is clearly not. Also, Mel Gibson didnt use the bible as a source. That was the whole problem. The bible says very little about the crucifiction itself. It was the way Mel Gibson expanded the bible and borrowed from anti-semetic texts that were written much later. Mel Gibson also failed ot emphasis that Jesus and his supporters were in fact Jews.

I should also add that even though a lot of jews didnt like the movie tehy didnt try and ban it. There are a lot of jews in hollywood, tehy could have shut the movie down, but didnt. Contrast that with 300 which has been banned in IRan.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Is that supposed to be funny?

Yup.

More Movie titles for Iran


"The Burkanator"

"A Jew Too Far"

"Planes, Trains and Nuclear Weapons"

"Great Satan at the Gates"

"Mullahs of Hazzard"

[Five-hole]

You'd think someone in a political capacity over there would wise up and realize that this kind of press to the Western world alienates those who give them their best hope at manifesting imperial power. The pacifist, liberal parts of Western culture want nothing to do with war with the middle East, and could actually influence foreign policy towards Iran etc., but when they keep coming out with reactionary, whiny crap like this it's hard to take them seriously.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Yup.

More Movie titles for Iran


"The Burkanator"

"A Jew Too Far"

"Planes, Trains and Nuclear Weapons"

"Great Satan at the Gates"

"Mullahs of Hazzard"

Yeah, I get it. It's supposed to be funny. It isn't.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

You'd think someone in a political capacity over there would wise up and realize that this kind of press to the Western world alienates those who give them their best hope at manifesting imperial power. The pacifist, liberal parts of Western culture want nothing to do with war with the middle East, and could actually influence foreign policy towards Iran etc., but when they keep coming out with reactionary, whiny crap like this it's hard to take them seriously.

That's true--though I suspect the audience for a declaration like this is Iranians, not Westerners. Their regime is essentially fascist, so they'll do whatever they can to foment an "us-against-the-world" mentality. To us it seems paranoid, they probably see it as something for a populace that might otherwise fracture to rally around. Who knows if it will work--as I understand it, Iran may not have the best prospects for long-term political stability.

As for 300--I haven't seen it, so can't comment on how offensive it may or may not be. At least two movie critics HAVE remarked on some weirdnesses in the film, seeming to imply that it's a movie that would have made Leni Riefenstahl proud...

Dana Stevens of Slate has this to say:

If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew asa textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war. Since it's a product of the post-ideological, post-Xbox 21st century, 300 will instead be talked about as a technical achievement, the next blip on the increasingly blurry line between movies and video games.

This might sound outrageous, but she makes a compelling case if you read the whole review--again I haven't seen the movie, so take that for what it's worth.

Kyle Smith of the NY Post makes virtually the same analogy:

Keeping in mind Slate's Mickey Kaus' Hitler Rule -- never compare anything to Hitler -- it isn't a stretch to imagine Adolf's boys at a 300 screening, heil-fiving each other throughout and then lining up to see it again.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03092007...kyle_smith.htm


Not saying the Iranians' view of the movie isn't an overreaction, but it's worth noting that almost the same criticism is coming from a few American critics---just some food for thought.

[MarchHare]

As for 300--I haven't seen it, so can't comment on how offensive it may or may not be. At least two movie critics HAVE remarked on some weirdnesses in the film, seeming to imply that it's a movie that would have made Leni Riefenstahl proud...

I have seen 300, so I can provide some informed commentary on this.

First, any Iranian getting offended by this movie is being pretty foolish. The film never claims to be an accurate portrayal of historic events, Rather, it's based on a graphic novel which itself is only loosely based on the Battle of Thermopylae. The graphic novel was originally published in 1998, long before there was any hint of an upcoming conflict with Iran, and the film adaptation was only made because of the box office success of Sin City. To suggest that this was an anti-Iran propaganda piece is ridiculous.

That being said, when I was reading the graphic novel and watching the film, I wasn't exactly sympathetic to the Spartans. While it's easy to respect and admire their military training and discipline, what noble cause were they fighting for? Leonides frequently makes dramatic speeches about freedom and justice, but Sparta at that time was one of the most fascist societies in history. Missing from the film is the Spartan underclass, the Helots, who were little more than slaves with no rights under the law. Surely Leonides and his 300 Spartans aren't fighting for their freedom.

And while the film ends with an alliance of Greek city-states defeating the Persian invaders, what they don't tell you is that this alliance was short lived. Fifty years later, the Peloponnesian War was fought between the fledgling democratic society of Athens vs. the militaristic Spartans. Athens and its allies were subjugated, and the "golden age" of Greece came to an end. The great philosophic society that produced such thinkers as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Pericles never fully recovered. Within a few years all of Greece was conquered by Philip of Macedon and then Alexander the Great.

The Spartans, as portrayed in 300, may as well be Klingons minus the lumpy foreheads. They talk of glory and honour and a valiant death on the battlefield, and then we're shown Leonides speaking of freedom, justice, and reason. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Greek history is left scratching their head at the absurdity of it all.

But then again, this really isn't a movie for the thinking man. Turn your brain off at the theatre entrance and enjoy some of the most amazing action sequences ever filmed. If you want a more accurate depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae, go rent The 300 Spartans.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Good post, MarchHare. Definitely some food for thought. I knew about the graphic novel, but not much about Spartan society.

In fact, one of the reviews I linked remarks specifically on the moral emptiness that you refer to--that the "honor and glory" that Leonidas is advocating seem to be ends in themselves rather than standing as emblems of some other, more universal value.

Interesting, in any case. Another movie that's guilty of this, in my view, is Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, but that's another story.