300 (Zack Snyder, 2007)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Jean-Luc Garbo
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
Contact:

#101 Post by Jean-Luc Garbo » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:49 pm

I know, but the term is so pretentious.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#102 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:48 pm

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:I know, but the term is so pretentious.
Why, because the term "novel" has an automatic association with high literature? You're alright with them being called "books," so why should "novel" be inappropriate? "Graphic novel" is certainly a much more accurate title than "comic book."

Harvey Domino
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:18 am
Contact:

#103 Post by Harvey Domino » Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:24 am

It isa pretentious term regarding Frank Miller -- because he's a total hack who has spent his career aping the art styles of his superiors (Jose Munoz, Moebius, Koseki Kojima) and writing texts barely removed from Mikey Spillane while being hailed as a "groundbreaker" etc.

Also, if the true modern geniuses of the form - Clowes, Woodring, Ware, etc. - prefer to be called "cartoonists" instead of "graphic novelists" I think that says something.

User avatar
Schkura
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: Mississippi

#104 Post by Schkura » Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:38 am

My nerdometer goes up to 12 and somehow this thread still broke it.

I'll post my comments here after I see 300 tonight.

User avatar
Steven H
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: NC

#105 Post by Steven H » Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:21 pm

Comic books or graphic novels, what does it matter? That's like calling someone pretentious for saying they're a "filmmaker" versus somone who just makes moving pictures. Just steer clear of the term Scott McCloud invented, Juxtaposed Pictorial and Other Images In Deliberate Sequence (though in the end of his Understanding Comics, he does just prefer the term "Comics", as do I).

I'm glad love me do pointed out Jose Munoz's brilliant work. His Billie Holiday biography is fantastic (though all too short), and if anyone out there is enamored of Miller's style, they should look this guy up. Especially if someone is like myself, watched the trailer for 300 and said "no thanks."

User avatar
Jean-Luc Garbo
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
Contact:

#106 Post by Jean-Luc Garbo » Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:03 pm

Graphic novel gets thrown around by people who act all embarrassed talking about comic books. So to look cool they call it a graphic novel. Come on, it's a comic book. Embrace its pulpy trash with its high points! It is a good term, yes, but it's used for all the wrong reasons.

Robert de la Cheyniest
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:06 pm

#107 Post by Robert de la Cheyniest » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:14 am

Getting back to 300 I thought the movie was laughably bad. First off the film is ideologically disturbed beyond belief. I know this is just a big budget action epic but hear me out. First of all it puts all enemies of the Spartans as complete and total others which must be destroyed, so that a universe of buff white manly-men can continue. It constructs the Spartans essentially as Aryan supermen, who I, as an audience member, am apparently supposed to root for (?). For those who'd like to ignore the movie's politics I understand (though the movie doesn't really have a set of "politics" as much as ignorant stupidity. But I will at least say that there was a group of kids a few rows back from me cackled/cheered like idiots when the Spartans were killing the Arabs (errr...Persians) and if that's not at least some sort of passive embrace at the film's ideology...then I'm not sure what is. This might be forgiven if the movie was decently entertaining as spectacle but I have to say surprisingly...it was not. The completely artificial aesthetic was not all that visually impressive, some shots like Leonidas standing against the raging sea, I'll give you. But the movie is so mired in being a video game (and rife with constantly nauseating slow-motion and freeze frames) that fails to really come alive in any sort of way. With a movie like this, you don't need to give me fully developed characters, but you at least need to give me a cause that I root along with them to achieve, sorry, no dice.

And this is already in the top 250 on IMDb... oy vey!

Also, the sex scene with Leonidas and Gorgo was absolutely hysterical. Forgot to mention that.

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#108 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:27 am

Saw this tonight and it turned out exactly how I thought it would be: fun trash just like Miller's comic book. Actually, the film tones down some of the more contradictory elements to Miller's book. Like the book, the main theme is (surprise!) freedom and how the Spartans are fighting for it. You know the drill. However, in Miller's book there's a "weak" Spartan who's repeatedly beaten for making minor mistakes. It's almost done in a humorous fashion but came off in my view as rather sadistic and makes me sort of question how much freedom those Spartans actually enjoy. Would being beaten by Persians be much different? Snyder's film thankfully dropped that bit in favor of the Captain/Son relationship that, admittedly, is rather cliched. The film also beefed up the wife's role and created a sub-plot of her trying to rally Sparta to fight the coming Persians, which I think helped the film overall.

And like Miller's book the Persians are the evil other without any degree of humanity injected into them. It's a black and white tale and it's damn proud of it. There are many moments of unintentional humor that usually involve large groups of men yelling ("traitor! traitor!" in the senate scene had me chuckling) about something or another. I liked the visual look of the film, even if the slow motion/freeze frames were done to death.

So if you're interested in staring at one of the largest collections of finely toned male torsos in a film in quite sometime, look no further. Those Spartans had killer abs. :wink:

User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish

#109 Post by jbeall » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:00 am

Roger_Thornhill wrote:Saw this tonight and it turned out exactly how I thought it would be: fun trash just like Miller's comic book. Actually, the film tones down some of the more contradictory elements to Miller's book. Like the book, the main theme is (surprise!) freedom and how the Spartans are fighting for it.
Just saw the film last night as well, and I think your assessment is pretty spot-on. I went in expecting to be pissed off at the film's politics (having already read the comic), but Snyder definitely toned down the more fascistic elements of Miller's Spartans.

At the same time, I couldn't help but think that the portrayal of the Persians (with all the jewelry and ambiguous sexuality) corresponds to the way certain folks in the heartland view those creepy metrosexuals on the coasts! (Yes, I'm kidding here.)

I was entertained, and Gerard Butler makes a very charismatic Leonidas. Unfortunately, my girlfriend has now fallen in love with the Spartans and their uniformly washboard abs. But overall, while I was pleasantly surprised (and I went in with very low expectations), the film certainly wasn't memorable in any appreciable way.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#110 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:32 pm

Robert de la Cheyniest wrote:First of all it puts all enemies of the Spartans as complete and total others which must be destroyed, so that a universe of buff white manly-men can continue
To be fair, this is kind of historically accurate. That really is how the Greeks saw themselves, and how they reacted to foreigners (Greek myth is just filled with cautionary tales about foreigners, especially female ones). Hell, the term 'barbarian' comes from the Greek barbaroi, which essentially means a people whose speech sounds like "bar bar bar bar"--ie., nonsense. That encompasses everyone who didn't speak Greek.

Not that taking this perspective isn't rather disturbing in modern times, especially when your movie is so fake anyway that history hardly matters and you could make the Persians be whoever you wanted; but we really only have the Greek account of the Persians, and their opinions aren't flattering.

Robert de la Cheyniest
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:06 pm

#111 Post by Robert de la Cheyniest » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:49 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:
Robert de la Cheyniest wrote:First of all it puts all enemies of the Spartans as complete and total others which must be destroyed, so that a universe of buff white manly-men can continue
To be fair, this is kind of historically accurate. That really is how the Greeks saw themselves, and how they reacted to foreigners (Greek myth is just filled with cautionary tales about foreigners, especially female ones). Hell, the term 'barbarian' comes from the Greek barbaroi, which essentially means a people whose speech sounds like "bar bar bar bar"--ie., nonsense. That encompasses everyone who didn't speak Greek.

Not that taking this perspective isn't rather disturbing in modern times, especially when your movie is so fake anyway that history hardly matters and you could make the Persians be whoever you wanted; but we really only have the Greek account of the Persians, and their opinions aren't flattering.
I definitely agree with you, but like you said since the movie isn't exactly concerned being historically accurate it could have avoided it anyway.

I Should also clarify that I wouldn't be so critical of the movie's "politics" if the movie had been entertaining, which I honestly didn't find it to be. Hell, I consider Munchhausen (1943) to be a wonderfully fun piece of cinema despite the fact that Goebbels had a huge hand in its production.

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#112 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:17 am

One thing that I found rather strange about the film (and comic book) is that none of the "Persians" look Persian. I know the Persian Empire encompassed many nationalities and ethnicities, but Persians are descended from Aryan tribes (that also settled in northern Europe & possibly India) and consequently Persians have a fair complexion like many Europeans. It's not uncommon to see a Persian with blonde hair and blue eyes. Of course present-day Iran has been invaded numerous times over history by Mongols, Turks, Arabs, etc which has given Iran a very mixed group of ethnicities (if I remember correctly roughly half of present-day Iran is ethnic Persians).

I think it's fine to include people from the various ethnicities that the Persian's conquered, but not one single Persian looking member of Xerxes II's forces? Xerxes didn't look Persian to me either.

For some reason it seems most Westerners think Persians look like Arabs and from what I could see that in the film Snyder & Co. does as well, except for the obvious servants/soldiers/diplomats of black African descent. Maybe it's because most of the people who run Iran are not ethnic Persians? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad certainly doesn't look Persian. It seems apparent to me that few of the people associated with 300 opened a book and read about the Persian people. I don't think many people realize that many ethnic Persians could pass for one of Leonidas' men.

Minor quibble I suppose considering this film doesn't purport to be historically accurate, but really, if you're going to make a film that's about the Persian Empire please include one person who at least "looks" Persian. :?

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#113 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:18 pm

Roger_Thornhill wrote:I don't think many people realize that many ethnic Persians could pass for one of Leonidas' men.
Or that many Greek warriors from polis' that had submitted to Xerxes' forces would have fought in the army (by compulsion, I'm sure).

I think this is pretty much a white hat/black hat thing.

User avatar
a.khan
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:28 am
Location: Los Angeles

#114 Post by a.khan » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:04 pm

I saw the movie with a culturally diverse group of guys -- one of them was Iranian. I've been goading him to write a review of the "300" for my blog, telling it 'from a Persian perspective.' Whenever its done, I'll post a link here.

Disregarding the abrasive political themes, I thought the film tonally was all over the place. Truth be told, the narrator had me yawning with his squeaky/baritone voice...5 minutes in and there were more speeches and grandstanding, this time by Leonidas and fellow Spartans. Perhaps my expectations of the movie were coloured by the promise of good ol' trashy fun and high-camp. But I soon realised was that Snyder was actually taking this shit seriously. Perhaps I am to blame here, but the movie never recovered for me. It constantly shifts between highly stylised action and political drama and kitschy-perky-titty sex romps and 6-pack WWF/E-style homoeroticism.

This is a dumb action film pretending to be above its simple foundations. The best scenes are literally in the trailer. Just go watch that again.

User avatar
ellipsis7
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin

#115 Post by ellipsis7 » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Some people are taking it too seriously...
Iran accuses Hollywood of 'psychological warfare'

Robert Tait in Tehran
Guardian Unlimited

President Ahmadinejad's spokesman branded the film 'an insult to Iran'. Photograph: Warner Bros

Hollywood is already firmly established as a source of cultural decadence in Iran's pantheon of hated western symbols.

But now the country's Islamic leadership has accused it of "psychological warfare" over its depiction of the battle between the Greeks and Persians at Thermopylae in 480BC, regarded as a key event in the birth of western democracy by some historians.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government has joined MPs, bloggers and local media in denouncing the newly-released Warner Brothers epic, 300, as a calculated attempt to demonise Iran at a time of intensifying US pressure over the country's nuclear programme.

Mr Ahmadinejad's spokesman branded the film "an insult to Iran" while four MPs have urged the foreign ministry to pressure other Muslim countries to ban it.

The film, directed by Zack Snyder and based on a novel by Frank Miller, grossed nearly £40m in ticket sales in three days after opening in north American cinemas last week. It portrays the heroic endeavours of 300 Spartans, under King Leonidas, who are shown resisting an invading force of 120,000 Persian troops led by Emperor Xerxes.

The plot depicts the tiny Spartan force repeatedly outmanoeuvring the invaders and being defeated after a three-day stand-off only through treachery. Iranians complain that it represents them as savage, murderous and warmongering.

The film's availability in Iran has been limited so far to pirate DVDs, but that has not stopped an outpouring of official condemnation.

The government spokesman, Gholamhossein Elham, described the film as "cultural intrusion" and an attack on Iran's ancient civilisation. "Such a fabrication of culture and insult to people is not acceptable by any nation or government," he told reporters. "[Iran] considers it as hostile behaviour which is the result of cultural and psychological warfare."

The reformist newspaper, Ayandehno, accused the makers of trying to set international opinion against Iran to fit President George Bush's description of the country as belonging to an "axis of evil".

"In the film Iranians are considered to be monsters devoid of any culture, humanity and wisdom who know nothing except attacking other lands, threatening peace and killing human beings. There is no option other than to confront, fight and destroy this wicked tribe so that the world can be saved from this axis of evil," the paper's film critic wrote.

It is not the first Hollywood production to cause upset in Iran. There was widespread anger over the favourable portrayal of Alexander the Great in the 2004 film, Alexander. The Macedonian king is reviled in Iranian culture for destroying the seat of Persian imperial greatness at Persepolis after defeating Emperor Darius III in 330BC.

User avatar
a.khan
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:28 am
Location: Los Angeles

#116 Post by a.khan » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:31 pm

There's a lot of rhetoric from the Iranian side, that's for sure. But I also believe that had a mainstream movie like "300" so passionately used anti-Semitism as a major narrative theme, there'd be all manner of teeth-grinding, name-calling and Op-Ed wildfire.

"300" is not meant to be taken serious or anything. I get that. But not everyone in and around the Persian Gulf does.
Last edited by a.khan on Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
blindside8zao
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

#117 Post by blindside8zao » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:33 pm

The best part of this movie going experience for me was the drunk musclely guy sitting in the front row who yelled "Sparta!" at the screen while pointing every 5 minutes.

Whenever my friend and I laughed during the sex scene someone behind us whispered, "grow up." I would have liked to have told the enthusiastic audience the same thing.

King Leonidas' performance had me chuckling every moment. Each second of this film is ripe with cheese.

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#118 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:Or that many Greek warriors from polis' that had submitted to Xerxes' forces would have fought in the army (by compulsion, I'm sure).
Indeed, throwing that element into the film would've made it far too complicated for Zack Synder (or Frank Miller) to handle. :wink:

A 300 sequel? Very possible.

Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am

#119 Post by Cinesimilitude » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:14 pm

My mind is running wild with the possibilty of something Starring Lena Headey as the sequel. Just use hot female warriors this time. It could have an extremely cult film title, like "Queen Gorgo and her 300 Amazons"

see this link for enough historical speculation for the film to be greenlit. Depending on what happens to Xerxes after the battle of the 300, they could work in a tale about the revenge for Leonidas' death.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#120 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:13 pm

SncDthMnky wrote: Depending on what happens to Xerxes after the battle of the 300, they could work in a tale about the revenge for Leonidas' death.
He goes back to Persia after his defeat at Salamis; his successor, Artaxerxes, invades some time later (is also repelled). Frankly, you could make a large number of movies on the Persian wars, including prequels to 300 , when Darius I (Xerxes father) invaded.


300 would make a great propaganda movie. It fails as drama, as it must, but it succeeds as spectacle. Indeed, despite being a "Greek" movie it actually works much like a Roman gladiator match, where the crowd takes pleasure in the spectacle of battle, and in viewing weird and exotic animals fight men and each other. It is rousing enough entertainment, although it sinks somewhat under the weight of its own seriousness; and its isolated attempts at profundity and lyricism fail. The film could do more with mood than it does, especially given its preoccupation with style, but it would rather imitate the epic heroics of countless other sword and sandal movies.

The film works most in the moments where it is most problematic: in the scene at the Persian camp. It displays the luxury, mollitude, and exoticism that Persia and the east represented to Western culture (as it still often does), and the fantastical elements work. The problem is, of course, that the choice of perspective is unsettling, especially given how unhistorical the movie is (I believe I mentioned this earlier).

Also, I cannot help feeling a bit sad that Sparta's reputation in the eyes of the general public is going to sink back to "warrior cult," when the truth is much more interesting. People make much of Sparta's official policy of killing deformed infants (including my woefully misinformed highschool history teacher), but the reality is that all of the Greek peoples practised the exposure of deformed or sick infants; they just did it clandestinely.

The film has nowhere near the energy and strange momentum of Sin City, but it achieves its aims, and has fun reveling in sweaty, bulging muscles and meaningless deaths. It can't compete with the excitement I felt in theaters with Casino Royale or The Departed, but I don't regret the money it took from me. It actually makes me want to dig out my books on Greek warfare and start making comparisons, which I find is always rewarding.
Last edited by Mr Sausage on Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#121 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:06 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:...and the fantastical elements work.
I agree, I particularly liked the shot where the young female Oracle is contorting her body left and right in slow motion with a bit of CG mist and other enhancements surrounding her. It really struck me as hypnotic, beautiful, and horrifying considering she's essentially a sex slave to those old, diseased, leperous men.
Last edited by Roger_Thornhill on Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#122 Post by colinr0380 » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:36 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:300 would make a great propaganda movie. It fails as drama, as it must, but it succeeds as spectacle.
It sounds like a perfect propaganda movie. You get to show all the 'best' bits of war (getting to see the world while committing sanctioned violence and getting the chance to have sex, sometimes both at the same time!) and by dying gloriously you get to live in people's minds forever and don't have to face a society back home that might have moved on to other things and not appreciate your achievement - after all what use is a soldier in a world at peace except as a reminder of a bloody past?

In fact if people don't care, it makes your sacrifice seem even nobler to future generations!

That is why there always has to be the person in films who says "Maybe the other army are really the good guys?", or "Let's not try to storm the cockpit and disarm the terrorists", or " I don't believe in Scrunts". So that when they get killed while trying to communicate with or help the bad guys or get eaten by a fantastical creature, they conclusively prove that the good guys were right to do what they were doing all along! :wink:

Plus dying gloriously would save you from the awkward moment when you returned home and told your family of your exploits: "You killed how many? After the feast tonight you are going to sit down and write apology letters to all their parents, young man! .... I don't care if they started it! And then get a job - you have fifteen illegitimate babies to feed and take care of!"

Although they are set in different historical periods, I keep thinking this would make a great double-bill with
Flesh + Blood! I will have to see 300 to tell whether that is a good comparison though!

filmnoir1
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:36 pm

#123 Post by filmnoir1 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:17 am

I saw this film at a matinee this afternoon and I have to preface my remarks by saying that I am not opposed to entertaining action films if they are done well. Unfortunately, this film is awful both at the narrative level and on a technical level. In many cases it feels as if you are watching bad community theatre where people are standing wooden and emotionless. The staging in the film is pedastrian at best and you definitely feel as if you are watching a film shot for green screen. (King Kong had more life and action to it than this film.) Also the camera work which in the trailer looks revolutionary is simply a repeat of things which we have seen done in the Matrix films and the multinational martial arts films like Hero or The Promise.

Now in regards to this film reading like propaganda for Bush and the war on terror, I defy anyone who has seen this film to deny that it does in fact try to argue for the go it alone approach to America's foreign policy. Many of Leonidas's speeches feel as if they were cribbed from Bush's addresses such as when we hear multiple times that "freedom isn't free" or that "we will never yield because we are just and mighty." I would argue that this is a film intended to generate further support for the US's actions on a global scale and furthermore make the case for a strike against Iran (which was part of the Persian empire.)

I also can see how many viewers have argued that this film feels a bit like a cheesy beefcake movie, there are more shots of buff naked men's chests then I can remember in Schwarzenegger films of the 1980s.

My last thougths about this film is that is a male fantasy of a world where white men rule without challenge, a world where people of ethnicity are exterminated, where women have no voice or rights over their bodies or lives and one in which the disabled or so-called unfit have no legal reason to exist. Sounds like the Project for a New American century to me.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#124 Post by DrewReiber » Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:57 pm

filmnoir1 wrote:Unfortunately, this film is awful both at the narrative level and on a technical level.
Judging from the clips on MTV.com, Snyder doesn't even know how a POV shot works. I asked some friends of mine how that worked out in the film and it sounds like you can make a drinking game out of how many times the director shows he doesn't know what an eyeline is.

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#125 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:50 pm

filmnoir1 wrote: Now in regards to this film reading like propaganda for Bush and the war on terror, I defy anyone who has seen this film to deny that it does in fact try to argue for the go it alone approach to America's foreign policy.
I accept that challenge. :D
Many of Leonidas's speeches feel as if they were cribbed from Bush's addresses such as when we hear multiple times that "freedom isn't free" or that "we will never yield because we are just and mighty
The notion that "freedom isn't free" wasn't originated with Bush or his cronies but has been echoed for many years by conservatives. A country singer named Chris LeDoux even wrote a song titled "Freedom Isn't Free" in 1981.

Leonidas' speech could easily be associated with other leaders like Churchhill or Roosevelt who both often spoke of paying the bloody price for freedom throughout WWII. Churchhill, in particular during the Battle of Britain, spoke often of the justness of Britain's cause and that they'd never surrender to Nazi Germany.

In reality, there are countless examples throughout history of leaders arguing that their cause was just and that their will would never be broken, that the price for freedom will be paid in blood. Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek, Ho Chi Minh, Washington, Lincoln, Stalin etc...
I would argue that this is a film intended to generate further support for the US's actions on a global scale
Highly doubtful. Besides mentioning the obvious that this is based on a comic book written years before Iraq, the producer and director of this film have repeatedly said there is no conscious attempt to justify the Iraq War.
...and furthermore make the case for a strike against Iran (which was part of the Persian empire.)
You haven't been talking to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have you? Honestly I think you're giving the filmmakers too much credit for injecting hidden meanings and such given the simplistic thematic elements to 300. I'm not even sure if they know that Iran used to be called Persia, let alone that they're secretly making "the case for a strike against Iran."

People see what they want to see in films, you probably went into 300 determined to see a parallel to Bush's foreign policy and through coincidental elements you got just that. I've seen others argue that this film actually criticizes the Bush Administration over Iraq by depicting warriors genuinely fighting for actual freedom in a literal sense, unlike the contrived sense in Iraq.

My personal thoughts is that any connections to the Bush Administration's foreign policy from either point-of-view is wrong. If you read Frank Miller's comic book you'll see that the essential structure and even in many cases dialogue is taken straight from Miller's book, which predates the Bush Administration by three years. That's not to say that one can't argue that's 300's politics are conservative, which I would agree they are, but any metaphorical connections to the present seem highly dubious to me.

The problem is with a simplistic tale of good and evil like in 300 (or Star Wars, Lord Of Rings, etc) is that it can easily be interpreted to fit one person's idealogy or another. If I wanted to, I could make the case that 300 is really about the ongoing tensions between China and Taiwan and China's numerous threats over the years to use force to take Taiwan back. The Persian Empire in 300 represents China and the Spartans the tiny island of Taiwan that has refused to come under Chinese rule since Chaing Kai-shek's forces fled there after they lost the war. After all, Taiwan is a democratic country defying the vastly more powerful "evil forces" of Communism that threaten to devour the freedom loving people of Taiwan. See how easy that is with a story like 300's? Now you try it with South Korea and North Korea. :D

Post Reply