Such nonsense news... I remember the same kind of thing coming out between India and Pakistan over some movie during the nuclear standoff.

ROFLS...I suppose it's not really difficult to offend Iran.

Maybe muslims, including those in Iran, should be more concerned with their present-day portrayal in the media than how they are portrayed in the past: http://www.videosift.com/video/Reel-Bad-Arabs-How-Hollywood-Vilifies-a-People

I dunno guys, I must admit, while I was watching I did have the unsettling feeling that they kept hammering home the clash of cultures almost to the point of ridiculousness, that one should die for freedom, one should not be a slave to a potentate of the East, etc etc etc.

It really did kind of feel like I was watching a propaganda yarn structured around a hijacked Frank Miller story and drove home certain concepts to the point of repetition. All this was super glossed over with captivating visuals of violence sex and death... all very base instincts humans possess and crave... It was kind of creepy really, because we were in one of those massive theaters, it was a very 1984 moment.

:31 makes me what to rip my hair out:
"It's just a historical battle film, and it doesn't really mean much about what race the people are or what, uh, country they come from.."

For shame Warner Bros. Someday this is going to be contextualized into the contemporary political climate and it is going to be classed right alongside the Wagnerian operas of Nazi Germany.

"I dunno guys, I must admit, while I was watching I did have the unsettling feeling that they kept hammering home the clash of cultures almost to the point of ridiculousness, that one should die for freedom, one should not be a slave to a potentate of the East, etc etc etc."

Raven's point is interesting - but I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment. All I will say is that the release of a movie about a small number of Westerners bravely holding off the advances of the oppressive East is interesting, and anti-Iranian and anti-Islamic elements in this country are singing the film's praises.

However, what is ironic about this is that some elements in the Iranian regime tried very hard to destroy Iran's non-Islamic heritage a few years ago. Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali - a particularly nasty individual with a penchant for strangling cats (no I'm not lying) - tried to destroy Persepolis - the old capital of Persia, just outside modern day Shiraz - a few years ago. He turned up in Shiraz with a whole load of bulldozers with the express intention of destroying the ruins of Persepolis. However, on hearing of his intentions, the people of Shiraz surrounded the site and eventually chased him out of town - literally. He only just escaped a lynching.

However, the vast majority of Iranians are enormously proud of their non-Islamic heritage, which has taken on a particular symbolic importance for those who oppose the regime.

I fail to see how this can be called anti-Islam, or anti-Iran, since it takes place about 1100 years before Islam came about and much longer before Iran ever existed.

At the time the Persian Empire encompassed several modern day countries including Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Armenia as well as Iran. It would seem to me that the "Arts Adviser" is fishing for another Mohammad cartoon episode.

Yes Wumpus, it is, technically difficult to say that the film is specifically anti-Muslim as you have pointed out it takes place before Islam was even a twinkle in Mohammed's eye...

But you have to keep in mind that this "clash of cultures", this East vs West grudge match, has been a long standing issue, one that keeps playing out over the last three millennia with different peoples, religions, and political entities replaying the same mistakes of our ancestors over and over and over again. That the film is technically about "Persians" (who were by definition the elite people of the Persian Empire, which was an amalgamation of Eastern peoples (as you well know)), is just a detail when looked at as an overall history of conflict... just because the film is not literally Spartans vs. Muslims, or Iranians, it's pretty explicit that these cinema Persians, are the ancestors of the axis-of-evil headliners.

Given that fact that we are currently in the grips of another cycle of this age-old conflict, it is understandable that the Iranians feel they are the target of a hollywood style smear campaign. Having seen the film, I can only say that they have every reason to be pissed, the more I think about it the more I realize that the overall tone of this film aimed to reiterate this this cultural conflict by appropriating history.

That is one of the reasons that chuckle-head at :31 pisses me off so much. People need to start realizing just how much of an impact the respresentation of history has on current political/cultural affairs.

If you need more evidence of this fact and similar controversies, I suggest you look into the current problems between Greece and Macedonia over who has the 'right' to actually be called 'Macedonians', or the various problems in identifying cannibalism at archaeological sites, especially those in the American Southwest. The portrayal of ancient peoples and cultures does have a direct bearing on current attitudes, and one cannot simply write this film off as a good bit of bloody fun.

all I have to say is: Lol

First of all, Iranian [state-run] media comes out and says that it's part of a psychological war aimed at Iranian culture; setting aside their history of exporting terrorism and their nuclear program, what we do not hear about is the impact of Iranian culture. Since the Islamic Republic pretty much disavows history before the rise of Islam, the only real purpose of this statement would be to appeal to Persian nationalists in Iran to see America as antagonists.

Going back to the "clash of cultures", what part of our cultures is shown to be in conflict in this movie? Of course we can't make direct parallels, but how are supposed to view the Spartans and the Persians as representations of America and Iran? I think you're reading way too much into this, given that the movie is based on a graphic novel published in 1998, which was inspired by a movie on the same subject in 1962, which was noted for for its Cold War overtones. They are all still based in historical events, but are all works of dramatic fiction.

If Iran thinks there is a psychological war being waged against them, Hollywood is the last place they need to worry about. Lastly, before this story broke I don't think a single person who saw this movie saw Spartans vs. Persians to be Americans vs. Iranians...or even knew what Persia was.

I think you are partially correct Wumpus, yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran is definitely being hypocritical given their own policy on history.... probably their complaints are an attempt to galvanize one of their own disenfranchised factions in the fight against the Great Satan, I won't argue that.

But I also think that even if there aren't direct, literal parallels, there is enough in the general theme of the film that one doesn't need to read much into it. As for pointing out that the original graphic novel was published in 1998, you must keep in mind that much has been added to that original text... and much of that is what I am taking issue with. The major themes that are repeatedly beat out over and over again may have been presented in that original book but not to the extent that they are in the film.

Also, I think you bring up another salient point (that, no offense, undermines your argument) by noting the similar film from 1962, with its Cold War overtones. The story of the Spartans at Thermopylae is one of those tales that has been repeatedly hijacked to suit whatever current political message is relevant... post-Revolutionary Napoleonic France was noted for the appropriation of many stories of antiquity, notably, during Napoleon's campaigns in the East he was compared to not only Alexander, but also at times Leonidas (the proverbial defender of the West), see Jacques Louis David's (Napoleon's official portrait artist) Leonidas at Thermopylae
http://www.abcgallery.com/D/david/david33.html

Also, Hollywood is exactly where Iran should be looking... the film just did another 31.2 million dollars this weekend. People, lots and lots, and lots, of people are going to see this film. Even if they are uneducated, and have no idea that there are these overtones, they will still get the message. After all, the best propaganda is subliminal, the audience shouldn't know it is being fed this stuff... in fact, it is all the more effective if most of your audience doesn't really know what a Persian is (although I think you are underestimating the viewing audience by saying that no one knew what a Persian was before this story broke).

On top of that, the visuals that go with it, brutal violence, sex and death, are classic primal triggers of all the urges that one could hope to gain through a campaign such as this. Nothing psychologically solidifies a nation of people better than a group viewing of such materials... just look at the long human history of public executions, gladiatorial events, witch burnings, etc, etc. Nothing gets a group of people to rally around the flag better than having them witness the smiting of the enemy, it is a proven fact... and it works all the better if the audience does not realize it is happening and simply thinks they are there to be entertained!

I don't get it. I've seen the movie. It's the longest and best gay porn I've ever seen. Oiled, buff muscle bears in leather speedos do battle with the forces of Ru Paul, spraying each other with bodily fluids and sticking things in each other. How is that insulting to pre-iranian culture?

I'm more confused as to how the Persian leader and messenger ended up being african? I mean, Persia is right around where the Caucasus mountains (hence term caucasian) and the term Aryan comes from. "Iran" literally means "Land of the Aryans"

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Great comment Sometimes.

It is not historically correct, but historically accurate? Yes accurate, insulting to Iran? No. Its just a unrealistic war movie with realistic moments. The phalanx is great, the rhino and elephants are not so great, the wall built of men OK i can believe that. The beheading of people with a downward stroke with them on a chopping block, and having their head fly around in a circle. Or the beheading of the guy by the horse man with the battle axe. It is impossible to make a cut go horizontal when swinging the axe like you are going to throw a softball in slow pitch. What the hell was with all the deformed people? I see truth in all comments, that it was a good film, and that it was a way to make fun of the Persian ancestry.

http://gallery.upshizzle.com/albums/03.07/Jengaaaa.gif

The film is deliberately left open to interpretation - thus, whatever baggage you bring into 300 is what you will bring out.

American hawks will see Bush as Leonidas, anti-war types will see Bush as Xerxes, and the rest of us will note such parallels yet still enjoy the film on its own.

Ironic that in stating such nonsense Iran's leaders are creating propaganda out of thin air. This movie was exploitative but it's not some propaganda piece. Lay off the Kool-Aid people it's a movie based on a comic by freaking FRANK MILLER not some joint top secret project that came about as the result of long-term research in anti-Iranian propagation. That .gif is great btw!

I enjoyed it alot. I watched it in the cinema today and couldn't help screaming out this is sparta with all the might i had. I scared a few families out enjoying St. Patrick's Day.

Am going to hell clearly.

The Persians in the film look like Africans because that is how Frank Miller depicted them in his original... really, all the characters look pretty much exactly like they do in the book. I'm not sure if Miller intended for the Persians to be mistaken for Africans though, in his novels he is not so great at defining racial differences, everyone who is white looks white, everyone who is any other race tends to look 'black', is it just his 'style' or is there something deeper going on with that? I don't know, you'd have to ask the artist.

And yes, you do get out of this film a lot of what you bring to it, no arguments there. But given this fact, and the amount of baggage a lot of people (iran etc) bring with them, don't you think then that, given the current political atmosphere, it was kind of a huge oversight on the part of the producers and director to put out something like this at this time?

"The film is deliberately left open to interpretation - thus, whatever baggage you bring into 300 is what you will bring out.

American hawks will see Bush as Leonidas, anti-war types will see Bush as Xerxes, and the rest of us will note such parallels yet still enjoy the film on its own. "

Snowflakes must be falling in Hell, because I actually agree with you.

"setting aside their history of exporting terrorism and their nuclear program"

Its funny, because every time I post something about Israel's illegal and uninspected nuclear arsenal, or the terror tactics used by the Israel military to suppress and murder the Palestinian people on a daily basis, wumpus votes against it. Yet he seems to be outraged by Iran's attempt to gain nuclear weapons, and their support for organisations who help the Palestinians and fight Israeli advances into Lebanon.

Wumpus - your double standards on these issues sickens me!

Here's The Daily Show segment on 300 pissing off Iran: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2832998

"Having seen the film, I can only say that they have every reason to be pissed, the more I think about it the more I realize that the overall tone of this film aimed to reiterate this this cultural conflict by appropriating history."

Have you read any of Herodotus? Herodotus, who is our best source for battle of Thermopylae, wrote his histories with the express purpose of exploring the cultural conflict between East and West, especially it's origins and it's outcomes. In other words, any modern depiction of the Persian Wars will necessarily have overtones of cultural conflict because our best source on the wars took for granted that they were culturally motivated. Therefore, I don't think it is a misappropriation of history to emphasize cultural conflict in a film about Thermopylae. If that is politically incorrect, then it's just something that we will have to live with until a more authoritative source than Herodotus comes along.

This may be a little late, but it might be interesting for all to know that Sparta had slaves, they called them Helots. They were a nationalistic and jingoistic society, in many ways no better than the Persians, who under Darius, were actually pretty cool. It's a cool movie to watch though.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.

Eklek has fixed this video's dead embed code - no star awarded because Eklek was awarded too recently.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.