HOLLYWOOD DECLARES WAR ON IRANIANS!

124»

  Comments


  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    god damn. the movie was one big battle against monsters! how can you possibly twist that into something political?
    Because the monsters were also supposed to represent Afro-Asians! for one thing

    who? the immortals? they all had masks on! the big guy with the fangs and the chains on his neck? umm...ok.

    Its kinda like calling return of the jedi racist cause the ewoks were supposed to represent native americans.
    no, because return of the jedi didn't call the ewoks "native americans" they called them "ewoks." vs. this movie, where the persians included actual monsters.

  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    where was all this anger when lord of the rings came out? you could say tolken did the same shit as miller if not worse
    not really. although there were troublesome racial aspects to that movie, sure, it wasn't a fascist spectacle.

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,899 Posts
    Iranian TV





    Funny. Them (Iranian State Television) calling 300 propaganda.

  • 33thirdcom33thirdcom 2,049 Posts
    god damn. the movie was one big battle against monsters! how can you possibly twist that into something political?
    Because the monsters were also supposed to represent Afro-Asians! for one thing

    who? the immortals? they all had masks on! the big guy with the fangs and the chains on his neck? umm...ok.

    Its kinda like calling return of the jedi racist cause the ewoks were supposed to represent native americans.
    no, because return of the jedi didn't call the ewoks "native americans" they called them "ewoks." vs. this movie, where the persians included actual monsters.

    This is stupid because the persian empire was called the... get this... THE PERSIAN EMPIRE... Your argument would hold up at least a little bit if the Persian Empire for the sake of the story were changed to the Islamic Empire but it wasn't so your argument jsut doesn't make sense.

    I can't wait to read Deej's review of "Shooter", you know being that its an action movie and I am sure there are a huge amount of racial and social issues you can pull out of that as well.



  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    Iranian TV



    don't go there. this thread could get ugly with a quickness.

  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    Iranian TV



    AND NOW, THE NEWS


  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    Iranian TV



    AND NOW, THE NEWS



    Back to Bibi in the Studio....


  • ElectrodeElectrode Los Angeles 3,087 Posts
    It must be miserable going through life looking for and ultimately finding racism, real or perceived, in every single aspect of humanity.


    Anyone seeing anything more into 300 than it being an action film set in Greek/Roman times is reading waaaay too much into it. the whole reason for even creating this film was mainly an exercise cinematography/visual effects and nothing more



    Both racial supremacy types (passive or vocal) and the ultra-sensitive hair splitters need to stop with their paranoia. I agree with the person that said Newsweek is always trying to stir the pot, as well. Even if this movie was some sort of propaganda tool, it will be forgotten by the American public by the time DVD sales start leveling off and it's rental fodder, just like most 'controversial', million-dollar budget, action packed or gory, special effects heavy popcorn flicks in the past. Like I alluded to the other week, this kind of stuff is on the level of those online debates regarding Godzilla or Star Trek being allegories for imperialism and race relations.

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,899 Posts
    Iranian TV



    don't go there. this thread could get ugly with a quickness.

    Don't get me mixed up. I have much love for the people from Iran. I have Iranian family and many many friends. But the State of Iran is another story. And for them to call 300 propaganda and use stuff like this is laughable to say the least.

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,899 Posts
    Iranian TV



    AND NOW, THE NEWS


    Not funny. Please don't

  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Actually, I think the Ewoks were supposed to represent the North Vietnamese.

    In any case, why are people staking positions on "300" in an either/or fashion? Just because one doesn't read the film as polemic celebrating fascism doesn't mean it's entirely disconnected from the realm of politics or, more specifically, jingoism.

    Personally, I don't see the film so much as advocating for foreign policy (though if it did, I guess you'd say it was actually anti-surge in favor of a more Rumsfieldian force of small, efficient soldiers but I digress) as its themes play very well into some national tensions around war, sacrifice and a very traditional and hardly new notion of violent, masculine idealism.

    I think it's very interesting that, as that news paper article suggested, rank and file military men are watching and cheering it but that said, it's a classic few-against-many narrative. I mean, that's (take your pick):

    I>Lord of the Rings[/i]
    I>The Matrix[/i]
    Star Wars/I>
    [i]Seven Samurai

    ...and about a thousand different stories from practically any mythology tradition around the world.

    If "300" is appealing to people, at least PART of that appeal has to do with how utterly familiar that underdog storyline is. I'm a Red Sox fan - I guarantee you, somewhere, one of my brethren is cracking jokes about Sparta = Boston and Persia = Yankees and how Xerces = A-Rod (and how both can eat a d---).

    This said, I do think the kind of not-so-subtle racial overtones of the film are troubling - it's made very explicit in the film that the Persian army is made up of different armies from across Asia (the Immortals are clearly some play on some crazy Japanese kabuki ninja steez) and wow - look, they have these crazy monsters. Talk about Orientalism run amok.

    I mean, sure, it's a comic book movie and it's not like "300" is the most distorted film ever when it comes to historical representations and what not. But that doesn't mean one can't watch it and think, "hmm...this seems kind of fucked up." If you watch it and it doesn't bother you, well, that's ok too. It's not like we're talking about "Birth of a Nation" or something (another underdog film, I might point out).

    I am annoyed at how the producers of the film have tried to argue, in typically bombastic fashion, that "the film is about 'democracy vs. tyranny' or some bullshit like that but hey, that's just bad PR copy.

    Re: the fascism thing - most of the association that would be made in this movie or in LOTR around fascism is less an argument about explicit ideology within the script; it has more to do with the AESTHETICS of the film. This debate harkens back, at least to some extent, with critiques of Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda films for the Third Reich and the quotation above of Susan Sontag who developed a theory of "fascist aesthetics" that's intriguing though not exactly laser precise in terms of what this means.

  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    im lebanese so our common Persian heritage gives me license.

  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    Iranian TV



    don't go there. this thread could get ugly with a quickness.

    Don't get me mixed up. I have much love for the people from Iran. I have Iranian family and many many friends. But the State of Iran is another story. And for them to call 300 propaganda and use stuff like this is laughable to say the least.

    that's real.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    " Warner Brothers which belongs to the famous and rich American Jew "



  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Don't get me mixed up. I have much love for the people from Iran. I have Iranian family and many many friends. But the State of Iran is another story.

    So true about many countries and the difference between their people and their gov't.

    *cough cough*

  • bassiebassie 11,710 Posts





    right (and yet so very wrong) dress codes, wrong country.

    women can (and do) show their faces in Iran.

  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    Actually, I think the Ewoks were supposed to represent the North Vietnamese.

    In any case, why are people staking positions on "300" in an either/or fashion? Just because one doesn't read the film as polemic celebrating fascism doesn't mean it's entirely disconnected from the realm of politics or, more specifically, jingoism.

    Personally, I don't see the film so much as advocating for foreign policy (though if it did, I guess you'd say it was actually anti-surge in favor of a more Rumsfieldian force of small, efficient soldiers but I digress) as its themes play very well into some national tensions around war, sacrifice and a very traditional and hardly new notion of violent, masculine idealism.

    I think it's very interesting that, as that news paper article suggested, rank and file military men are watching and cheering it but that said, it's a classic few-against-many narrative. I mean, that's (take your pick):

    I>Lord of the Rings[/i]
    I>The Matrix[/i]
    Star Wars/I>
    [i]Seven Samurai

    ...and about a thousand different stories from practically any mythology tradition around the world.

    If "300" is appealing to people, at least PART of that appeal has to do with how utterly familiar that underdog storyline is. I'm a Red Sox fan - I guarantee you, somewhere, one of my brethren is cracking jokes about Sparta = Boston and Persia = Yankees and how Xerces = A-Rod (and how both can eat a d---).

    This said, I do think the kind of not-so-subtle racial overtones of the film are troubling - it's made very explicit in the film that the Persian army is made up of different armies from across Asia (the Immortals are clearly some play on some crazy Japanese kabuki ninja steez) and wow - look, they have these crazy monsters. Talk about Orientalism run amok.

    I mean, sure, it's a comic book movie and it's not like "300" is the most distorted film ever when it comes to historical representations and what not. But that doesn't mean one can't watch it and think, "hmm...this seems kind of fucked up." If you watch it and it doesn't bother you, well, that's ok too. It's not like we're talking about "Birth of a Nation" or something (another underdog film, I might point out).

    I am annoyed at how the producers of the film have tried to argue, in typically bombastic fashion, that "the film is about 'democracy vs. tyranny' or some bullshit like that but hey, that's just bad PR copy.

    Re: the fascism thing - most of the association that would be made in this movie or in LOTR around fascism is less an argument about explicit ideology within the script; it has more to do with the AESTHETICS of the film. This debate harkens back, at least to some extent, with critiques of Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda films for the Third Reich and the quotation above of Susan Sontag who developed a theory of "fascist aesthetics" that's intriguing though not exactly laser precise in terms of what this means.

    no no no oliver, thinking about entertaining movies is stupid.


  • This said, I do think the kind of not-so-subtle racial overtones of the film are troubling - it's made very explicit in the film that the Persian army is made up of different armies from across Asia (the Immortals are clearly some play on some crazy Japanese kabuki ninja steez) and wow - look, they have these crazy monsters. Talk about Orientalism run amok.

    I mean, sure, it's a comic book movie and it's not like "300" is the most distorted film ever when it comes to historical representations and what not. But that doesn't mean one can't watch it and think, "hmm...this seems kind of fucked up." If you watch it and it doesn't bother you, well, that's ok too. It's not like we're talking about "Birth of a Nation" or something (another underdog film, I might point out).

    O, the story is narrated by a soldier who has his eye gouged out by the enemy. Is he supposed to humanize the enemy to rile up his troops?

  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts

    This said, I do think the kind of not-so-subtle racial overtones of the film are troubling - it's made very explicit in the film that the Persian army is made up of different armies from across Asia (the Immortals are clearly some play on some crazy Japanese kabuki ninja steez) and wow - look, they have these crazy monsters. Talk about Orientalism run amok.

    I mean, sure, it's a comic book movie and it's not like "300" is the most distorted film ever when it comes to historical representations and what not. But that doesn't mean one can't watch it and think, "hmm...this seems kind of fucked up." If you watch it and it doesn't bother you, well, that's ok too. It's not like we're talking about "Birth of a Nation" or something (another underdog film, I might point out).

    O, the story is narrated by a soldier who has his eye gouged out by the enemy. Is he supposed to humanize the enemy to rile up his troops?

    Huh?

  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    he's on some forest-for-the-trees shit.

    the answer is no, but when people say birth of a nation is racist they're not saying they want the klan as depicted in the film to pretend to be for civil rights either.

  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts


    right (and yet so very wrong) dress codes, wrong country.

    women can (and do) show their faces in Iran.

    Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 ??? Women who violate Iran???s strict Islamic dress code will be flogged immediately, prosecutor???s offices in provincial centres announced on Tuesday.
    In the central Iranian city of Shahin-Shahr, the prosecutor???s office posted huge notices on billboards and shop windows warning women that dress code violators will appear before an Islamic judge immediately after arrest to receive a sentence, usually 100 lashes in public. The prosecutor will be demanding maximum penalties, the notice warned.

    ???Individuals whose state of attire and make-up is against religious laws in public will be prosecuted without having to first wait in a queue and will be sentenced to flogging and fines???, the statement said.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts


    right (and yet so very wrong) dress codes, wrong country.

    women can (and do) show their faces in Iran.

    Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 ??? Women who violate Iran???s strict Islamic dress code will be flogged immediately, prosecutor???s offices in provincial centres announced on Tuesday.
    In the central Iranian city of Shahin-Shahr, the prosecutor???s office posted huge notices on billboards and shop windows warning women that dress code violators will appear before an Islamic judge immediately after arrest to receive a sentence, usually 100 lashes in public. The prosecutor will be demanding maximum penalties, the notice warned.

    ???Individuals whose state of attire and make-up is against religious laws in public will be prosecuted without having to first wait in a queue and will be sentenced to flogging and fines???, the statement said.

    Sab, I think Iranian dress code still allows women to show their faces. They need to cover their hair, ears and neck, which is pretty traditional. I think the crack down is because the previous president of Iran let up on rules and let women wear make-up and tighter fitting clothes, which the current Iranian administraiton is now trying to crack down upon.

  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts

    Sab, I think Iranian dress code still allows women to show their faces. They need to cover their hair, ears and neck, which is pretty traditional. I think the crack down is because the previous president of Iran let up on rules and let women wear make-up and tighter fitting clothes, which the current Iranian administraiton is now trying to crack down upon.

    a stiff beating will straighten them out quick, i bet.


  • This said, I do think the kind of not-so-subtle racial overtones of the film are troubling - it's made very explicit in the film that the Persian army is made up of different armies from across Asia (the Immortals are clearly some play on some crazy Japanese kabuki ninja steez) and wow - look, they have these crazy monsters. Talk about Orientalism run amok.

    I mean, sure, it's a comic book movie and it's not like "300" is the most distorted film ever when it comes to historical representations and what not. But that doesn't mean one can't watch it and think, "hmm...this seems kind of fucked up." If you watch it and it doesn't bother you, well, that's ok too. It's not like we're talking about "Birth of a Nation" or something (another underdog film, I might point out).

    O, the story is narrated by a soldier who has his eye gouged out by the enemy. Is he supposed to humanize the enemy to rile up his troops?

    Huh?

    The narrator of the story is deliberately distorting and dehumanizing the enemy to rally the troops for one last stand.

  • yuichiyuichi Urban sprawl 11,331 Posts
    I used to love to Bowl but now that I realize it's just a metaphor where a big black ball knocks down all the white pins with the red necks

    Hell yea! That's my mindset when I throw my big yellow ball.

  • he's on some forest-for-the-trees shit.

    the answer is no, but when people say birth of a nation is racist they're not saying they want the klan as depicted in the film to pretend to be for civil rights either.

    BN is racist because the producers offered it up as fact, going out of their way to depict black people as bumbling idiots and sexual predators, or using white people in blackface. On the other hand, "300" features a racist narrator who cannot necessarily be connected to the producer's own racism, a producer who clearly makes no pretenses about his movie being factual, since it's based on a comic book rendering of a legend.
Sign In or Register to comment.