18 Responses to “300 = Psychological Warfare Against Iran?”

1. Cmpnyflow
   March 13th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

   America and its dammed electoral system, here we go again.

2. WildBluff_Matt
   March 13th, 2007 at 8:36 pm

   What if we have 300 Spartans vote in the electoral college instead? That might work.

3. Hosein
   March 14th, 2007 at 11:34 am

   I’ve never voted to Ahmadinejad & his cultural advisor’s just one of the many reasons. (his full name’s Javad Shamaghdary) I’m watching the movie right now on my PC, so I can’t be pissed off cause I couldn’t get to see the movie…but believe me; It hurts! it really feels bad! I’m not angry! I just feel humiliated…feel it’s not fair!

   Calm down & don’t reply with an angry answer please. already, we’ve got enough hatred trading between our countries; just try to look at this from my point of view; how often does Hollywood make a blockbuster including Persians as their main characters? & once in a century, when it happens, it’s the image of my people getting killed & stabbed like fools in a battle! I don’t feel bad because Spartans could resist 3 days in front of Persian army. In fact, I wouldn’t feel bad even if the Persian army was defeated in the first day; I just feel bad because the Persians are portrayed like beasts. hundreds & hundreds of them get killed & it’s like nothing important has happened, just like when Orcs were killed in LOTR….I feel bad cause 300’s Persians are NOT human beings.

   I get it; I know the movie’s good & stylized (I watched the trailer like 4 times & couldn’t help). I can see how the story of 300 men confronting a great army is fascinating & magnificent…but you can’t call it a “fantasy”; specially when you put real names of real historical figures on your movies’ characters (it’s Xerxes for god’s sake). when you do that, you should take the responsibility & consider the fact that you might hurt other people’s feeling, that you may insult them. Entertainment is good & watching a beautiful movie is even better…but at what cost? is it still worthy if it portrays other nations as mere savages & promotes hatred? specially in these days?

   It’s all like high school again; having fun together is good…but is it still good if you’re having a good time making fun of one of your friends?

   It’s not just that the history’s distorted…well, it is; the Persian clothing has nothing to do with what they wore those days. the pederasty was considered something normal among Spartans, & not at all among Persians. Spartans were not that good & open-minded; of course they fought bravely & they’ve got an election system but not everybody had the right to vote & it was confined to professional soldiers themselves. other parts of their society like “Helots” were mere slaves & even were used as unarmored targets to be killed in young spartans’ educational courses! Persians,on the other hand, were not that evil. they had a vivid ethical system, were famous for fighting with dignity & even respecting their brave enemies. even the the world’s first charter of human rights was written by Cyrus the great (Xerxes’ grandfather). it’s called Cyrus cylinder & it’s replica is held In United Nations HQ.

   I’m not saying that Persians were all good…of course not. we’re talking 2500 years ago for Christ’s sake. Those were days of the kings & you know, it’s called Monarchy; & as far as we know it had little to do with justice!

   Simply, my problem’s this distorted black & white image; with all the evil-doings & corruptions & creepiness in Persians’ Side & All the dignity, bravery & good stuff in Spartans’ side. It’s just too childish, too unbalanced. & you know what bothers me most? this simple fact that an unbalanced world’s not only bad for the oppressed half; it’s bad for both, cause when the ship sinks, water doesn’t ask “who was top dog?”

   P.S. wow…how long I was writing?…sorry for commenting like this but take it as an honest sign of how I feel!

4. WildBluff_Matt
   March 14th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

   Hosein, that was a great response. I certainly appreciate getting your view of the situation.

   Please note that I never called the story “fantasy” as you implied and I certainly know Xerxes’ name (check out my review of the movie). That’s great that you get to watch the movie on your PC, but what I was referring to is that it will never be released in Iran.

   After watching the movie I didn’t feel any anger towards Persians or think poorly of them as a result of this movie. I thought it was a fictional retelling of two armies battling each other, that’s it. Both sides lost lives in rough manners, so it wasn’t that just one side was humiliated either.

   I’m sorry you feel the movie portrays Persians as evil. I really didn’t get that out of the film. Just as I don’t interpret Napolean’s quest to conquer his region or the expansion of the Roman Empire as “evil”. I saw this as the underdog fighting the top dog, and it’s always fun to root for the underdog. That doesn’t mean you have to dislike the top dog or find them evil.

   If anything I would think the movie portrays the Spartans as the barbarians. Xerxes repeatedly offered to end the fighting, but the Spartans refused his offer over and over again. Xerxes appeared as the more rationale one to me while watching the movie. As Xerxes’ messenger said to Leonidas in the movie, “this is madness”, when the Spartans threatened him, something that was not acceptable in those times.

   I hope you enjoy the movie and are able to not take the movie personally.

   Thanks again for sharing your feelings on it. Hopefully you’ll come back and poke around some and find something interesting.

5. knox
   March 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pm

   I agree completely, but it’s not just off a comic. The wars are written about in length in the bible, — ok, don’t torch me:)

6. WildBluff_Matt
   March 15th, 2007 at 1:21 pm

   No torching at all. Actually I heard the same thing very recently. A story in the Bible about an army of only 300 soldiers going up against one with thousands and thousands. I need to read more about that.

   Thanks for sharing.

7. pointygnomehat
   March 15th, 2007 at 7:18 pm

   I’ll have to straddle the fence on this one…

   It’s not ridiculous that a person or group of people might take offense to how they’re portrayed in a movie. Sure, it’s tempting to argue that somehow the impact that this movie will have on its audience can be reduced to “the fictional retelling of two armies battling each other, that’s it.” I mean, both sides lost warriors, both sides engaged in brutal, barbaric, lethal (and certainly graphic (O: ) violence. But from my perspective, the truth of the matter is that movies, just like the media and each of our own individual life experiences, impact us in profound ways, often without our even been consciously aware of it. The truth of that statement is evident by the fact that companies are willing to spend billions of dollars a year on advertisements; it’s the origin of the phrase “power of the press”; and it’s being used by both of our governments, Iranian and American, to influence how we as citizens think about and perceive each other both consciously and unconsciously even as we type these posts.

   With respect to the portrayal of the Persians in 300, there can be no arguing with the fact that the Persians are cast as the archetypal Foreign Oppressors, and that the Spartans are portrayed as the Righteous Underdogs, the few who are willing to stand for what they believe to be right and good. When you watch 300, the Spartans are the ones with beautiful bodies, families and children, friendships, and society. On the other hand the Persians are the group with uncountable numbers (kinda like a colony of bees in the sense that the individuals aren’t really that important), elite fighters who wear masks to hide their barely-recognisable-as-human faces, decadent tents filled with promiscuous women, and a psycho, self-delcared omnipotent supreme leader, of (SHOCK!) questionable sexuality (note the ultra-masculine Spartans). Note here that the makeers of 300 portrayed the Spartans using all the classic cinematic vocabulary of Good (love, valor, family, civilization), while at the same time developed the Persians using cinematic vocabulary of Evil (inhuman, powerhungry, mindless masses, even a tastey bit of homosexuality). All of the Persian images directly contrast with those of the Spartans. We’re dealing with two diametrically opposed sides here, no doubt a conscious stylistic and cinematic decision made by the creators of this film.

   As for the cultural context of this film; this is a movie we’ve seen a lot more than 300 times (the righteous underdog vs. the powerful, david v. goliath, humanity v. the machines in the matrix, rebels v. empire in star wars, “fight the good fight”, mighty ducks, LOTR) And it’s a movie that strikes a cord with Americans in particular, who are taught to from a young age to hold rugged independence and ’sticking it to the man’ as ideal cultural traits. Our nation was founded when the colonies stuck it to Britain, we helped the world stick it to the Nazi’s in WWII, and we stuck it to the USSR when we walked on the Moon, despite the fact that at the time Soviet technology and experience in space was far superior to ours. Anyway, we Americans vote primarily with our wallets, and we’ll keep opening them when Hollywood manufactures another underdog v. decadent establishment for our viewing pleasure.

   OK. So given that the makers of this film portrayed the Spartans as the forces of Good and the Persians as the invading forces of Evil, and given that this film does not exist in a vaccuum but was released in a particular political, historical, and cultural context, there are two important questions we have to answer here. First, what did the creators of this film, those who went about making thousands of thematic, stylistic, and cinematic choices with full knowledge of the power of their chosen medium… what did they intend to communicate to their audience about modern Iran through their portrayal of the Persians? And second, in light of the current political, historical, and cultural context, does it even matter what the filmmakers intended by portraying the Persians as they did in the first place, and if it does (or doesn’t) how should citizens of both our nations react?

   The short answer: I don’t know.

   The slightly longer answer: Personally, I view the entire matter like this. The 300 was created first, to make money (and as much as is possible in the shortest about of time possible), and second, to entertain a group of people who like to watch arbitrary, violent, and completely unrealistic stories about small groups of good people sticking it to the man before they either triumph or die trying. I believe that the makers of the 300 didn’t have any sinister plan to plant a subliminal message into the minds of a demographic that probably cares more about paying less on their taxes next year than what’s happening “over there”. And I fail to see the motivation for such an action, considering that the movie’s origins are from a comic published in 1998 (3 years before America became obsessed with international terrorism), a comic said to be inspired from the 1962 film “The 300 Spartans” which the writer watched as a small boy. good ‘ol wikipedia It seems much more likely to me that Frank Miller and co. were just trying to make an entertaining movie that sold well, which, in America, means heavy on the graphic violence, heavy on CG, light on plot, and light on reflecting the complexity of world where there has never been (and never will be) a situation where Good and Evil were clear-cut as in the movies. I also think that given the current political context, it doesn’t particularly matter much what Frank Miller intended to say about modern Iranians. The Persians are portrayed as Evil, and given the historical context and the more recent events of the past 50 years concerning America’s creation and maintenance of it’s current level of influence over the world, I’m not surprised that the government of Iran and a vocal group of its citizens are sensitive to the content and time when this film was released.

   On the other hand I could be wrong. It’s completely possible that Frank Miller might have a hidden agenda of anti-Iranian sentimate and that he used 300 as a method for diseminating his anti-Iranian agenda. Subtle, but there none the less, and in line with the Bush administration’s “axis-of-evil” rhetoric and certain irresponsible American press organizations (I’m pointing at you National Fox Network). Although I’d have to both talk to him personally about the issue and see anti-Iranian messages in his quite large body of work before I’d commit to this particular theory. And even if Frank Miller didn’t consciously weave anti-Iranian propaganda into 300, I suppose one could make the argument that he was just unknowingly reflecting a presumably anti-Iranian cultural context in his work, being that he was born in America, went to school in America, and has been exposed to the influence of American media as the rest of us Americans.

   All I know for certain is that I was both exhillerated and disgusted by the violence that movie exposed me to, that I was really impressed by the images of the Persian fleet, and that I sure as hell am not buying the large popcorn next time… no matter how many people point out to me that for only 30 additional cents I can up-size from a reasonable amount of popcorn to a gi-normous bag of popcorn that would probably give a 5-year-old heart palpitations on salt content alone.

   I’d also like to mention that I’m grateful for the opportunity to participate in this cultural dialog. Thinking about this issue has forced me to consider my personal politics in relation to this movie and the reactions of a number of people living lives very different than my own. One thing I’m very happy about is that I now have links to a number of blogs written by Iranians that I would not have had otherwise. Along those lines, I’d like to make a personal thanks to those who are posting in English. Personally, I’m very grateful for any extra effort made to conduct these conversations in English, because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to participate!

8. Phrozen
   March 16th, 2007 at 1:40 am

   First of all, I would like to express my joy and pleasant surprise in reading such well thought-out and comprehensive responses. Given the current political context and heavy atmosphere, I think its wonderful that people are still willing to read and understand what others are saying before responding. So for that, thank you.

   Personally, while it is difficult to ignore the depiction of the Persians as malevolent and inhumane, I think that a closer look at the Spartans does not necessarily reveal a flattering image of them either. Sure, they were talking about bravery, never retreating nor surrendering, which are values that certainly appeal to the broad public, but let us not forget that we are dealing with an essentially militaristic society here. Yes they had a council which gave a semblance of democracy, but they discarded one of the most basic rights of all: that to live. This society “discarded” any or all children who had birth defects or did not seem strong. They also subdued children to extreme trials, which robbed them of all emotion and filled their hearts with hate more than anything else. Their values were not very open-minded, and their repeated historical conflicts with the philosophical Athens demonstrates this clearly. Though at first sight their values may appear glorious and morally just, they are in fact not so far from the values which were treasured and upheld by the Nazi regime. This may appear shocking, but a closer glance at the society clearly demonstrates this. Does this mean that Greeks, or the whole Western world for that matter, should protest? No, of course not. At the end of the day, it remains a movie. Whether for the Iranians, or for the Western world, this fictional work should not influence our real-life decisions. If it does, then perhaps its time to re-examine our priorities in life. To me, there is a very clear difference between an enjoyable movie which depicts the epic Battle of Thermopylae (Persian numbers were by the way greatly exaggerated by Greek historians), and a very real international conflict which involves the potentially most destructive force known to man: nuclear power. Now I’m not expressing opposition or agreeing with Iran’s nuclear policies as that is not the topic at hand. I simply think that all the viewers out there should take this movie with a grain of salt.

   Those who interpret this movie as representative of the current geopolitical atmosphere should seriously get back to thinking of some real tangible solutions, rather than flaming this movie. Ironically, the more attention it gets, the more the views that are associated with it are empowered.

9. WildBluff_Matt
   March 16th, 2007 at 7:26 am

   Wow, these are some really great comments. I appreciate everyone taking the time to express their thoughts here. I’ll be sure to email Hosein and let him know to come back and read these.

10. pointygnomehat
    March 16th, 2007 at 9:04 am

    Phrozen,

    I completely agree with your statement about the notion that the more we discuss and relate this movie to the current “geopolitical atmosphere”, the more these two things will become associated regardless of the original intent of the filmmakers or the actual portrayal of the Persians and Spartans alike.

    Yeah, we should definitely be spending time sorting things out for real and stop wasting time going back and forth about some film. However, for a guy like me who isn’t in a position to make any real changes other than with the ballot, discussing movies provides a great common ground on which a number of people from different cultures and backgrounds can discuss some of these serious issues that affect all of us everyday.

    I also enjoyed your observations about the Spartans. True, true, true. There’s no arguing with the fact that 300 was just a brutal film in general!

11. Tom Hill
    May 21st, 2007 at 11:06 am

    Someone wrote the movie is based on ‘fiction’?! Correction: This movie is based on facts. The main events portrayed actually happened in history. Nothing fiction about the incredible battle at Thermopylae. The 300 Spartans would have held out until reinforcements arrived had it not been for the infamous traitor Efialtes. In any event, the Persians were defeated decisively in the battle of Plateia. In all the battles with the Persians, the Greeks were heavily outnumbered - whether 1 Greek to 400 Persians or 1 Greek to 3333 Persians, the point is that the Greeks were victorious.

12. Matt
    May 26th, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    No one wrote that “the movie is based on fiction”. I wrote that it is a fictional movie. It uses recorded events in history as its core, but to fill 2 hours they have to make things up. Also note that the Greeks were not victorious, they all died. It was a great movie and I really enjoyed it, but it’s sensationalized and fluffed up to make great entertainment.

    You should go back and read our movie review where I linked to sites providing historical information: http://www.wildbluffmedia.com/2007/03/09/300-movie-review/

13. Imran
    November 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am

    It is obvious that the Spartans are idealized. They are the protagonists and therefore the characters that the audience (particularly Americans) will identify with.
    Now as far as being historically accurate, I just found one instance so far as to a whitewash (no pun intended).
    The Persians are offered as evil while the Spartans are not. The Spartans are ultramasculine. But how masculine would American audiences (rightly or wrongly) view them if it were revealed they were homosexual? And then pedophiles? This “pederasty” was a part of Spartan life, not surprisingly, missing in this historical account.
    Now to characterize the Persians as perverts and the Spartans as not is a WHITEwash.
    This feeds into the existing cultural views of “the other” , referred to as Orientalism. The lionization of the Spartans is obvious. Whether or not intentional that is not the issue. People from the target or affiliated communities will better be able to pick up the biases of the offending group or society.
    Consider the in the closet Hollywood actors who will stay in the closet because they do not want to jeopardize their star potential with American audiences. Imagine how much difficulty you would have processing the Spartans as heroes knowing they engaged in pedophilia?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism#Edward_Said_and_.22Orientalism.22

14. Hassan
    March 22nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    [Deleted. Ed. note: No hate talk allowed.]

15. Hassan
    March 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Tom Hill u are wrong use your brain persians were very powerful and fierce people the mongolian empire were people frm persia who has settled thr ANYWAY IF THE SPARTANS WERE THT POWERFUL WHY DIDN’T THY TAKE OVER MORE LAND EXPECT GREECE

16. REme
    May 21st, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    No one cares because both America and Iran sucks

Leave a Reply

Pingbacks & Trackbacks:

1. Google AdSense lacks Sense (or Google AdSense Nonsense) | Wild Bluff Media
   March 14th, 2007 at 9:03 am

   [...] a funny example. Yesterday I put up a discussion on how Iran is angry about the movie 300 portraying their ancestors (2500 years ago) negatively. On that page is a [...]

2. 300: The PG Version - Video | Wild Bluff Media : Entertainment Examined
   March 23rd, 2007 at 8:37 pm

   [...] an attempt to resolve hard feelings between Iran and Hollywood, the movie 300 has been reworked to provide a happier, more pleasant viewing experience for [...]