Everyone with a blog and a dream thinks they are a pundit these days. Political pundits are paraded about on CNN and Fox News daily to rant and rave about one side or the other. Film critics, myself included, are pundits in their own right. They only difference is that way play within the politics of Hollywood, a world that is arguably less detrimental to society and often less serious. I mean, who can say that talking about an exit strategy for Iraq is anything comparable to Katie Holmes’ exit strategy, also known as marriage to Tom Cruise. We get to talk about the disturbing, depraved world of celebrity and the schlock that gets put in front of moviegoers everywhere. Real pundits, well, they talk about more important things — or so I’m told.
Another thing that real pundits get more of than the pundits of the silver screen is hate mail. Despite the fact that readers will get very angry when I torch the latest Sandra Bullock movie because I “just don’t get it”, the amount of hate mail I get cannot compare to that of say, Rush Limbaugh — and deservedly so.
But there are those issues that cross over, uniting the world of film with the world of politics and bringing more angry people into the mix. Lets take, for example, an article that I wrote about two weeks ago, titled “The Anti-300 Debate?” It referred to a petition that was put forth by an Iranian doctor who said that the recently released film 300 was both historically inaccurate and “fraudulent and distorted, and its broadcast guarantees the violation of undeniable international legal rights.” My rebuttal, as a member of the film community, was simply that it is “just a movie,” a spectacle created for the mindless enjoyment of college kids everywhere who revel in simple themes like insurmountable odds, gratuitous female nudity and comically gory action. I couldn’t understand how someone, anyone, could be so offended by a simple film. But I had obviously spoke too soon, as I seemed to have awakened a segment of my readership that I did not know that I had.
In just 12 days the article had received over 110 comments, something of a small wonder considering this is my personal blog, a site that attracts less than 1,000 visitors per day. It became apparent then, and even more so when I read an article in Newsweek by Evan Thomas, that this was a broad and heated political issue. I realized that there must be a better way to explain my side of this issue without resorting to the fact that film is film, it is a work of art completely in the hands of the filmmaker and it has no responsibility to be historically accurate. That would obviously not do anything to calm the storm around this issue. I devised a list of statements made about this issue, both from comments on my site and themes from various news sources, in an attempt to find out what is fact, what is fiction and what has been left on the table. So without trying to sell myself as a pundit who knows anything about politics, I humbly present my take on the controversy around 300, a bit of Fact v. Fiction:
300 displays the Persians as a brutal, heinous people who would enslave all of Sparta to expand their Empire.
Fact. There is nothing false here, the Persians are the bad guys. There are ogres, giants with saws for arms and a God-King that dresses like Elizabeth Taylor and stands 8 ft. tall. Rarely have we seen a more comic exaggeration of an evil army. But from my perspective, you have to look at it all in context. The story itself is being told through the eyes (or eye, due to the fact that he only has one) of the Spartan Dilios, played by David Wenham. It is apparent at the outset of the film that he is telling this fantastic tale to a group of young soldiers, most likely to ready them for battle, a common practice among military leaders. Therefore if you are paying enough attention to the story you can easily see that this is not exactly how things went, but rather the hyperbolic ramblings of a leader trying to rally his troops.
This film is historically accurate.
Fiction. The film itself is by no means historically accurate. There was a Battle of Thermopylae, there did exist a King Leonidas and a Xerxes the Great, but I assure you it didn’t go down in the same manner that has been put onto film by Director Zach Snyder. In fact, the film is nearly a frame-by-frame reflection of the graphic novel written by Frank Miller, which was based on how Frank himself saw the battle happen in his own mind after viewing a film (The 300 Spartans) in 1962 which is based on the actual battle. The overall story is true, but the specifics, as you would expect in this long winded game of telephone, have been modified a bit.
Author Frank Miller’s politics lean to the right.
Fact. It is no secret to fans of Frank Miller that he sports some “post-911 conservatism.” As Evan Thomas pointed out, he is working on a new graphic novel that pits Batman against Al Qaeda. There are also several cultural themes within the film, including “Freedom is not free” and the fact that Leonidas goes against the will of both the law and the Spartan council in going to war. For a lesser educated America, these look like political statements ripped right out of our own headlines, when in reality they were themes that existed way back then as well — unfortunately for us, they are still around. So I can see where there would be concern that some of the American audience would be lead to believe that there are parallels between Leonidas and President Bush, between the Persians and terrorists and between the ephors (the grotesque Spartan elders) and Vice President Cheney… Actually, I made that last one up just to keep things light. Moving on…
The U.S. Government secretly funded this film in order to further their anti-Iranian agenda.
Fiction. Someone really did say this to me in one of the afore mentioned articles of hate mail. This is one of those things that would be hard to believe, even if proven to be true. When talking about the U.S. Government and the majority of Hollywood we are talking about two polar ends of the political spectrum. Also, the film was produced by Warner Brothers, a seedling of AOL Time Warner, which is a company who isn’t necessarily in the President’s bedroom closet (as far as I am aware). If we were talking about a movie put out by 20th Century Fox, owned by News Corp., then we’d have a completely different story on our hands.
Historically Persians were a civilized and innovative people.
Fact. Based on both previous knowledge and research that I have done based on this debate, I can honestly say that the Persian culture has contributed a great amount to modern day religion, human rights, education and medicine. Cyrus II the Great was credited with the first documented universal declaration of human rights. Persians were the first to systematically use alcohol in medicine. Zoroastrianism, a religion that came from Persian culture, had a great impact on Judaism, which in turn had great influence on both Christianity and Islam. Also, As far as the film 300 goes, the Persians weren’t depicted all that poorly. Yes, there were the weird ogres and beasts, but in comparison to some of the things that were depicted about the Spartans (i.e. the fact that they threw away weak babies), they were not that uncivilized.
People are making this out to be an unnecessarily larger issue than it should be.
Fact. This is the overwhelming truth of the entire argument, but you already knew that. It is sad that in this period of humanity, a time when we would consider ourselves to be more intellectually advanced than the civilizations of 480 BC, that we would see a work of cinematic art such as this be used to further political agendas on both sides.
An Iranian newspaper published this headline: HOLLYWOOD DECLARES WAR ON IRANIANS. I mean, come on people. Do I possess such a higher sense of logic that I can see that this movie was not intentionally created to ignite more tension between the United States and Iran? I will agree that this film doesn’t help our two cultures understand each other, and it may even create undue prejudices for ignorant and uninformed moviegoers, but we cannot say that this is all a great conspiracy. In the grand scheme of things, if influential pop culture figures like Zach Snyder, Frank Miller and Warner Brothers CEO Alan Horn are going to be leading us into yet another unnecessary and unsubstantiated conflict in the Middle East, then what purpose does the current administration serve? My only hope is that President Bush doesn’t see this flick until he is well out of office, because if it is the propaganda that people say it is, then he is the target demographic, and needless to say we would all be in a lot of trouble.
Tagged: News
March 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
You forgot one more fact or fiction item. 300 wasn’t even a hollywood production. It was produced in a studio outside of Montreal. So not only can’t the Iranians get their facts straight about the holocaust, they can’t even get their facts straight about hollywood.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Dude, right on. It is not un-ironic that the Iranians propaganda is much like that of Fox News when it discusses Hollywood. Typical Right-Wing overreaction, has anyone mentioned that the govt of Iran is Right-Wing? Oh, yeah, and the 300 were gay… no really, they were called Warrior-Lovers and it is not even mentioned in the Wiki article.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 am
All this talk of disrespect towards ancient ancestors is smokescreen meant to make people focus on something useless so no one will look closely what is really happening today. Their government won’t allow them to see anyhting cool like 300, so they rile them up and tell them that it is propaganda so that they won’t be so pissed when all they get for entertainment is a puppet show about a greedy crow. I hope you don’t think that I am making this up. My internet is not filtered, I looked up Iranian cinema. I can do that, because once upon a time, few stood against many.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 am
On the issue of Hollywood cooperating with the Army, I think you are being over zealous to call it nonexistent.
I seem to recall seeing that the military is involved in several hundred films a year, although I could find a solid number online. Below are some links to information regarding military involvement in film.
Here is a book about the military pressuring movies it associates with:
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Hollywood-Pentagon-Shapes-Censors/dp/1591021820
This quote from here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/agenda/0204/books.htm
“Since 1980, the DOD has been actively involved with motion pictures vilifying Arabs. What�s happening, here? Assuming that screenplays are given to the military in advance are there any guidelines that enable those reading the scripts to approve/disapprove movies that denigrate peoples? Perhaps all copies of notes and memos, etc. pertaining to the DOD movies should be submitted to the GAO. The GAO review should examine the files that contain the names, titles, and ranks of those individuals responsible for reviewing the screenplay[s].”
This quote: http://www.kcet.org/lifeandtimes/archives/200607/20060721.php
“Robert Anderson>> Our mission here is to get the Navy onto the big screen and the little screen every chance we get with every production that wants to use us. I’ll be blatant about it. We’re trying to get the Navy out there in some manner that shows our people and our equipment and what they do for the country and how they function as a service.”
and
“Saul Gonzalez>> That was the case in the filming of “Black Hawk Down” shot on location in Morocco. Its production used over one hundred active duty Army personnel, including elite Army Rangers. Of course, the military’s helping hand to Hollywood does raise some serious questions and concerns, namely is there a point where Uncle Sam’s assistance on a film or television project turns show business into government propaganda?”
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 am
This article you’ve concocted in some wild delirium of self importance seems to be directed at readers who live in a surreal reality, devoid of any sense.
300 is a well crafted fiction, part greek mythology, part history, and part Hollywood.
To make an argument that this film is not historically accurate is preposterous in itself. In doing so, you enter an idiot’s arena to do battle with cretins. There are gods, monsters, and satyrs playing flutes in the film. Xerxes stands ten feet tall and speaks in impossibly deep tones previously reserved in silver screen stories for Satan or Zeus. To anyone who would even take up the argument that it’s inaccurate, I must ask: Are you retarded?
Those Iranians who protest would likely take pleasure in holding our dripping heads aloft in grainy video recordings of their madness, as punishment for depicting Mohammed in our free newspapers. They are fools. Why humor them?
The message is not from the far right. It’s the same message that’s been echoed for centuries in Western legends. It’s known, not new. It’s familiar, not scandalous. The reason this is a hot topic is that it involves a past incarnation of Iran in politically tense times.
Shall all villains and bad guys be white males with thick accents of indeterminate nationality from here on out for the sake of political correctness? Shall we abandon our culture and mythology for the sake of the zealots who wish to eliminate our free speech and freedom?
Or can we just watch an f—ing movie once in a while and enjoy it? It’s a fairy tale. It has nothing to do with Iran. It’s loosely based on true events, but any who are idiotic enough to take it as history deserve their dim, unenlightened existence as punishment.
The concept that this argument exists frightens me. Doesn’t anyone read anymore? Are we this dull as a nation? The answer is yes. You’re helping.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 am
pardon my english.pearsians wear civilised,if civilisation is subjugating and taxing people for the glory of king .cyruss II did he own slaves?zoroastrianism,judaism,christianity,and islam they have one thing in common war!
March 24th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
SHITE SITE SUPORTED BY SHITES JUSTIFYING A SHITE MOVIE MADE BY SHITES
March 24th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Do you mean “shiites”? Or shit?
Not sure if I should be offended or not…
March 26th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Ok a couple of things that bother me about the argument against the movie, one as you have stated, the movie doesn’t really depict the Persians in that bad of a way. If you think about it, it depicts the Persians as centralized nation working towards one goal, and it depicts the Spartans as War hungry barbarians. That is a nice way to look at it, yes they had slaves, so did Americans and every other nation at some point in time, and some still do at the moment. But unlike the Iranians or whomever is complaining about the movie, we can accept our past inst perfect, there are plenty of movies about slaves and wars we have fought, many of them are inaccurate too. The other thing that really bothers me that i have recently found out, how many Americans will actually make the connection that Persians and Iranians are connected, um sure its a fairly low number maybe half if not lower. The general public is, to be blatant, dumb. The only reason they would make the connection is because of all the uproar the Iranians are making about the movie.
As for will’s statement about the military in the movie buisness, when did anyone say the military wasnt involved, maybe i missed it. The military is invoved with movies, duh, they provide lots of input on accuracy of accounts and weapons ect. That doesnt mean the government had thier hand in “300″. Neil even said that it isnt too far fetched to have the government involve themselves with movies, “If we were talking about a movie put out by 20th Century Fox, owned by News Corp., then we’d have a completely different story on our hands.”
March 27th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I live in The Netherlands and have heard all the controversy on the issue. I agree with your assessment of the importance of 300: The impact (and I dare say, political importance) of the movie has been blown way out of proportion.
If 300 is what passes for propaganda against the Iranian regime these days, then one would be forced to conclude that all Americans are mindless, petty, anti-intellectual and bigoted. Clearly this is not the case.
In a year’s time we will forget about 300. Its cultural impact will be zip. It is only a comic-book account of an event that occurred 2500 years ago, simply for entertainment.
If the Iranians are so concerned about their image in the West, they should look to Mr Ahmadenijad and his consistent firebrand rhetoric on Israel and the West, and not to Hollywood.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:17 am
It never ceases to amaze me that a dumb Hollywood movie can cause more international debate than a well-placed bomb. It is impossible to say anything meaningful about modern Iran by analysing a piece of entertainment about a few hundred men running around in skirts throwing spears at each other.
It is, however, worth analysing the over-the-top reactions such a movie can provoke.
If only books could wield so much power and influence.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Whether 300 is fact or fiction doesn’t really matter to me. Movies are only supposed to be entertaining and that is all that matters to me
September 7th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Curious whether we shall see Andrea Merkel upset about the depiction of Germans in Saving Private Ryan?
November 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Ok, you people need to quit bitching, and you need to understand the fact that 300 is a movie. In the movie production they make movies where people will watch them. Im in 11th grade and i know most of that shit is not real. Where do you get Iran in this Chris Lee????