I hate to say it, but -- though I think he went overboard -- Razmju is basically correct. The Persians are shown as an invading horde of hapless slaves and grotesque inhuman monsters lead by a decadent, androgynous megalomaniac. By comparison, the Spartans (who were, obviously, Greek in real life) are played by a bunch northern European wonder-soldiers with sculpted bodies and waxed chests. I mean, come on, that alone should raise some red flags.

That said, I found the movie too silly to really take offense over it. But, I can certainly see how others might.

Imagine, by comparison, a movie where the heroes are a band of movie-star handsome Waffen-SS "heroically" fighting off the hordes of allied invaders who are presented as -- if Soviet -- mindless hordes of devolved humanoids whipped into action by their demonic Commissar masters or -- if US and British -- as effete and decadent technologists fiendishly unleashing their unholy creations upon their enemies.

How many here in the "west" do you think would take that movie without any negative comment?

This would depend on how it was done, I think. If they stuck to the history and gave at least a generally accurate view of both sides I don't think there would be a problem. However, if the Zulu's were presented as literally inhuman and bestial while the British get halos about their heads (or vice versa) then I think some might quibble with such a presentation.

Although, honestly, I don't agree, for the most part, with Razmju, I will agree that you perspective is fairly accurate. The portrayal of the Persian appearance is absurd from a historical perspective. However, the hapless slaves part is somewhat correct. How else do you describe the first day's casualties - captured Medians forced, against their will, to be the victims of the first wave? And do you disagree that the Persians were an invading horde? How else to describe them? I think that's pretty accurate

This is more accurate than you may realize. The Spartans were the super-soldiers of their day. Reasonable estimates point to their being outnumbered at the stand at around 100/1 in infantry. Reasonable estimates put their efficiency to at least 10 elite Persian soldiers killed per Spartan. That's an awesome ratio if you know your military history. For instance, the elite US Army Rangers averaged around 4/1 in kill ratio in Viet Nam. Also, we have fairly substantial evidence of the sculpted bodies and waxed chests. They were members of a warrior-cult that placed euthanistic extremist value on physical conditioning, and were also known to be vain. History tells us of Xerxes being stunned to hear from is scout that on the 3rd morning, the Spartans were waxing each other's bodies and doing each other's hair. He mistook this for simple vanity, when in fact, they were preparing each other as corpses. Overall, I recognize your point, but there is more to the story if you research it

I can also see how some might take offense. But this is true of all war movies, wether old John Wayne yarns or Julius Ceasar romantizations. It's just the genre, and the nature of storytelling. 2 good guys senselessly annihilating each other doesn't seem to have the same visceral appeal.

Apples and oranges, and trying to poison the well as well Nazi comparisons, especially when not directly relevant, are a bad sign trying to present an argument.

Probably how we take most movie, magazine, television, internet, newspaper, etc... articles about the west, eminating from the Middle East, where the West is commonly described in derogatory terms that dwarf this movie - ie; with a gigantic "Meh" Sure, there would be few vocal groups looking for something to be offended by, but by and large, no one would care. But, again, we are flirting dangerously on the verge of decorm and political rules. This is probably best left to angrynight's blog

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Happy No Ruz, thank you,

I did not say it advocated at point blank, for if it did there would be outrage, instead the film uses clever tactics to make the Persians look evil through other means.
I know its just a movie, but then if 10 films were made that portrayed Persians in a bad light would you still say that? ;-). Its just a movie now, but I am sure it would encourage for other films to be made that posses the same derogatory ignorance.

No I wouldn’t, but there are many other great battles that the Persians won in order to expand / defend their empire…yet no movies about that. They would be very interesting believe me. During gladiator the romans where the invading force (if iam not mistaken) yet they were shown in a good light.

I see your point however I would disagree, I believe there would be a lot of people willing to watch such a film (providing that they have amazing graphics, detail and gore of course ;-). Is that statement based on any market research or is that a general feeling you have? (don’t mean to slander either ). Yes one would hope for the film to drive viewers to research more but in reality out of a 100 people how many would you say would actually go home and research what happened? The fair chunk that don't (i believe) will not have a good overview of the Persian empire (which did so much in terms of currency, trade and technological advancements).


(I would again presume Greek texts). And also what does “elite Persian soldiers” mean? I thought the army had a mixture of soldiers from all parts of the empire, where they all “elite”? Pardon my ignorance ;-).


Yes many other movies out there (for example Braveheart) that create offence , but then again there is always another film that makes them look good. From the Persian perspective they are all bad (i.e 300) !!! Lol.


As a summary I would say I wish there were a balanced number of films out there about the Persians but there isn't!!!! That is why I voiced my concern.

From everything I've read this would not be accurate. The troops of Xerxes' army weren't slaves in part or in whole, but rather paid soldiers. I've also seen no evidence that the Medes were "forced against their will" to attack -- they may have been reluctant to make a frontal assault, but that is far different than being slaves whipped into charging to their doom. The Medes were, after all, favored in the Empire and were second only to the Persians themselves in status. Meanwhile, the Greeks did bring along slaves who were doubtlessly made to aid in the fighting to one degree or another.

Yes, the Persians were the invaders, but remember they had been provoked. While that doesn't necessarily justify their actions it certainly demonstrates they weren't just a "Lord of the Rings" like tide of evil as portrayed in the film.

Sure, but this wasn't just the result of the Spartans being better battlefield fighters. Far more important was that they were fighting in the best possible circumstances -- a close-in attrition battle where their flanks were secure from attack. This negated the Persian advantages of numbers and mobility while heightening the advantages of the Greek heavy infantry phalanx. This shows that (at least in this case) the Greeks were better tacticians, but it is does not as such prove any innate superiority as a whole (which is what the film basically suggests).

Likewise, the film grossly exaggerates the role of the Spartans in the battle. The Greeks had many thousands of troops from various city-states that took part. The Spartans may have been the best available, but the rest weren't merely the clumsy, if enthusiastic peasants as shown in the movie. After all, the "boy-loving" Athenians defeated the Persians all on their own at Marathon ten years earlier. Alone the mere 300 Spartans likely would not have lasted even a day in the real battle. They would have been simply too few to hold the pass (although they could have died just as heroically).

Ah, but they weren't all Northern Europeans with a king who apparently grew up in Edinburgh. Nor did they routinely go around in their underwear nor survive years of harsh conditioning and combat without nary a scar or lingering injury. And, although admittedly one cannot be entirely sure, it is also unlikely they all had movie-star good looks.

That is what gives what would otherwise be a historical retelling its racial overtones (IMHO) -- the effective hijacking of the valor of a group of pagan Greeks by modern WASP culture. Again, I was not personally insulted, but when the movie goes out of its way to use such provocative and heavy-handed imagery it opens itself up to criticisms of racism and bias.

I don't think the imagery of the movie can be dismissed so easily as a mere result of genre conventions. Sure, we expect to see movies told from a particular point-of-view that tends to bias one side over another. Take Braveheart, a movie that 300 clearly wishes to emulate. As it is told from the viewpoint of William Wallace and his struggles the movie clearly has a pro-Scottish bias. Nothing too alarming or unprecedented about that as such things go. But, then again, it doesn't present the English as literal monsters, whipped slaves, or unthinking minions of evil.

That is were 300 goes from merely being a genre picture to one that shamelessly offers us ideas and images that in most any other context would be immediately vilified as racist. It takes those conventions and warps them beyond all recognition. Yes, it is just a “comic-book movie”, but I don’t think that fact can serve as an excuse to exempt a movie no matter how extreme from criticism.

Actually, I think you are completely wrong here -- and disingenuous to boot. My example was right on the money -- I was presenting a theoretical movie with imagery just as biased and distorted (IMHO) as 300 that would doubtlessly raise the ire of many if not most people in Europe and the US (and rightly so).

Consider this -- 300 offers us as heroic figures a group of elitist, hyper-masculine sociopaths who can calmly chow down on lunch while human beings are butchered around them and who take pride in the fact that they murder their own children who don’t measure up to their notions of genetic purity. Meanwhile, their enemies are presented either as mindless slaves to authority, literal inhuman monsters, or as decadent, effeminate megalomaniacs whose amount of body piercings seems directly proportional to their need to compensate for feelings of inferiority. Now add in the fact that all the “good-guys” are attractive white Anglo-Saxons that look as though they just walked out of a body-building competition while the “bad guys” are of black or middle-eastern stock – not to mention often physically deformed or otherwise grotesque looking. Come on! When discussing that sort of brazen imagery the difficulty is in not bringing up the subject of Nazis.

Maybe, but then again I’d consider it intellectually dishonest to talk about the aspects of the movie we like and then cry foul when others bring up points we don’t.

I'm going state this: I disagree with nearly everything you say. I also believe you have an agenda and an axe to grind. I think most of your history is off when not dead wrong. Your uneeded comparisons to Nazism, "boy-lover" shots, WASP jabs, etc... are belying a hyperbolus, emotional appeal. I could, easily enough (although it would take an incredible amount of time) refute you point for point.

However, when you accuse me (or any other member) of being disingenuous, and end suggesting I'm "intellectually dishonest and crying foul when others bring up points we don't", you are crossing the line. First off, I don't need to cry foul - I have an easy enough time refuting your posts and still could. I only asked you to keep it from being any more political than needed, reminding you of forum rules on decorum and politics. You can either abide by these same rules we're all restricted by, or post elsewhere should you disagree with them. If your post were directed at another forum member, I'd officially warn you. I'm more easy going about myself, but don't appreciate being the strawman for your anger, nor do I appreciate the accusations. This thread is beginning to walk a thin line, as I've tried to warn you of above, and I urge you to reign in your passion and ease off the suble and not-so-subtle ad homs. I have a delete button about 3 inches away from my mouse pointer, and a ban button not much farther. Were I (or any other staff) even remotely interested in stifling your opinion, I could use it. Obviously, I am not, nor would I even consider such unless you egregiously and repeatedly refused to follow the rules of this forum. I have absolutely no interest in keeping you from expressing your opinion on this or any other subject, wether I agree or disagree, so long as you obey the rules of the forum. You have a right to post your thoughts, so ease up on the fascist angle. Forgive me if I belabor this, but I want this to be crystal clear, so we can avoid further unpleasantness.

Feel free to continue to discuss your point - I'm not going to stop you if you can do so in a civil manner. However, I am going to withdraw at this point, because I've posted my view, you've had your response, and I'm going to leave it at that - my blood pressure is up after reading your accusations. Again, however, I'm cautioning you - keep it civil and on topic, and leave the racist (yes, WASP is rascist), and other ad homs, as well as the agenda, out of your posts.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

In a thread about Spartans, you guys have to settle your arguments with swords.

To battle.

__________________
Fields of Space

LOGIC, n.
The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.

In the Year 2525.

"One small step for (a) man. One giant leap for mankind".

If an astronaut doesn't need good grammar, niether does you.

Host of Seraphim

No, I think it's just best to leave things where they are

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

I think there is something you are missing.

Remember, I have not accused you or anyone else in particular of anything relating directly to the movie -- I've not named you as a "racist" or anything similar. Heck, technically I've not even per se accused the movie of being such things. Rather, all I have pointed out is that 300 clearly borrows heavily from concepts and images commonly considered to be racist and elitist, so much so that it cannot help but make one bring such ideas into any conversation relating to the meaning and structure of the film. This strikes me as being so self-evident I am frankly surprised you disagree with this at all and that we aren't instead debating just how far the images go and how fair criticisms of them may be.

Instead, you have with alarming speed turned to being the one making "accusations" of racist and otherwise improper statements on my part. One can call this "Arguing from Personal Insult" -- instead of challenging the statements of the other person (which, remember, in this case aren't being leveled at you or your moral character) an individual instead takes automatic umbridge and uses that supposed offense to dismiss another's arguments without further consideration. This may also be backed up with threats of punishment if the other person does not cease challenging the individual's views.

Problem is, such responses are really only appropriate (and even then one can argue otherwise) if the other is making direct accusations toward the individual in question that not only clearly extreme and provocative, but have absolutely no intellectually validity. I don't understand how anyone could see what I wrote and suggest it comes anywhere near fitting that criteria. Therefore, in the absence of meeting such a requirement the tactic of "Arguing from Personal Insult" becomes at best a case of the individual who has lost emotional perspective or at worst a case of an individual using intimidation and threat to quash disagreement with his views.

While I believe the truth is the former and not the latter, nevertheless one must ask -- Just who is the one being "disingenuous" in this instance?

Um, how were they "provoked" into wanting the Spartan territory? I mean, regardless of the fact that the Spartans did, indeed--as portrayed in the movie--violate all custom and honour by killing a messenger, the messenger kind of was there to say, "Give us your land or be destroyed." It's not as though he were there to say, "Xerxes says he likes your helmets." Now, it's not my era, so I could be wrong on this, but the Greeks weren't trying to overtake Persian land, were they? They were perfectly content to fight amongst themselves. Why is it okay for the Persians to invade?

Well, no, but it is a movie. For a start, I didn't think all of the Spartans were "movie-star good looking." I thought very few of them were, in all honesty. Besides, a Spartan with a lingering injury wouldn't have been brought along.

First off, what's wrong with Pagans?

Second . . . it's a war movie. Provocative and heavy-handed imagery is part and parcel of the genre. And it's not as though the movie (more so than the graphic novel, in point of fact) doesn't show the flaws of Spartan society and of a few individual Spartans. Yes. The Persians were over the top. That's because Frank Moore likes things that way regardless of who his adversaries are.

I do. Not literal monsters, but think about this for a minute. The English were rapists in that movie, and murderers--not just Longshanks, but the rank and file as well. And at that, it's much more even-handed than your average World War II movie--I mean the era, not the event. Have you seen how the Japanese used to be portrayed? How the Indians usually are in your average Western? Americans like things clear cut, and humanizing our adversaries doesn't help with that.

Except I don't think most people associated the Persians with modern-day Iran until the Iranian government (which, again, needs to look to its own discussion of Jews for a minute) started kicking up a fuss. I did, and I'm sure at least 90% of the people here did, but I doubt the average movie-goer did. The Persians are an exotic villain with no direct correlation to any modern people--and let's face it, the Ephori, who are Greeks, are also pretty much shown as inhuman monsters--and worse, given how willing they are to sell out all of Greece.

Well, let's start with the distance of a couple thousand years, shall we? The wounds of the Holocaust are still fresh. Besides, the Czechs weren't exactly leaping up to invade Germany, now, were they?

Show me where the Spartans are shown slaughtering millions of Persians--or anyone else--because they're the wrong ethnicity or even because they disagree with Spartan politics. Let's start there, shall we?

Let's continue with the fact that the Spartans were not sociopaths. A sociopath doesn't care about societal standards. In Spartan society, dying for the sake of the greater good of the state was a good thing, second only to, well, killing lots of other people for the greater good of the state. Yes. They were practicing eugenics a couple thousand years before the term existed. And they suffer for it in the movie by being betrayed by someone who escapes their program, right?

As to the "grotesque" nature of the Persians, well, it was a popular battlefield tactic of the time to seem scarier than you actually were. Winning by intimidation might save the lives of your men. We only really get a look at Xerxes' court, which was decadent. Which, you know, it was, historically speaking. I don't think a majority of the Spartans looked Anglo-Saxon; quite a few looked more Celtic, frankly. They looked white, but that's different than Anglo-Saxon.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Historically, the invasion of Greece was the direct result of earlier Greek (mostly Athenian) intervention in a revolt against the Persians in Ionia. That is why the primary target of both invasions was Athens (in fact, some historians argue that the primary reason why Xerxes gave up his invasion after Salamis is that he had already achieved his aims, namely the destruction of Athens -- he burned it to the ground). Technically, the Persians never got near Spartan territory, but the Spartans certainly feared they would thus their participation.

I'm not suggesting that it was as such. I was just pointing out that in real life the invasion and the motives of those involved are for more grey than the black and white rationale given in the movie. Also, given that "invasions" of one group against another were part-and-parcel of life back then the act did not carry the same sort of stain of immorality then as it does now.

What about scars? I find it hard to believe that a lifetime of hardship and conflict would result in a legion of men who all look like the greatest danger they've ever had to face was a bowflex machine. :-)

However, this is admittedly (like most of these points) minor when taken in isolation. It's just the sum total that invites criticism, IMHO.

Nothing.

Again, let me be clear -- I was not personally insulted by the movie. Nor am I suggesting that the movie shouldn't have been made or that those that made it acted immorally. I'm just pointing out the the attitudes and imagery used in the movie seems needlessly heavy-handed and simplistic and invites criticsm from others (particularly those of Persian descent). If one makes a movie or TV show and uses material typically associated with racist or culturally chauvanistic attitudes they shouldn't be surprised when others comment on it even if ultimately that material was used innocently.

Oh, the movie certainly had a Scottish bias (not saying that was wrong, only that it is evident), enough perhaps to criticize. But, I'd argue that it is clearly not the same level as 300.

Sure, but 300 is a movie about an invasion of ancient Greece that occurred 2500 years ago, not an attack on one's family and nation in progress. Even with that the portrayal of the Japanese -- while understandable given the circumstances of the time -- in such movies is now generally seen as an embarrassment (compare those movies to a modern war movie such as Letters from Iwo Jima).

I would argue that is is precisely because the movie is about people who aren't Americans who fought thousands of years ago that effectively gets 300 off-the-hook for much criticism outside those cultures that still identify with the ancient combatants. I frankly wonder if my own lack of moral outrage is because I too am an American and have no emotional investment in the peoples and areas of the movie.

That is why I brought up the WW2 example (and because it is one easily understood) -- to basically ask the question that if we use the same imagery, but make the story about areas and events many in American do care about does the movie suddenly appear obviously racist? I'd argue that it does, at least given modern sensibilities about such things. Whether the movie is racist in fact (as opposed to just culturally tone deaf) is another matter.

I'm sure that was a factor -- how much I don't know. But, I (and others I know) started asking these questions upon seeing the movie. We didn't wait for any official note of outrage from Tehran.

Well, the term "Persia" is still closely tied to that of "Iran" even in the West. I am personally not sure how anyone with any related historical or cultural knowledge wouldn't make the connection. However, beyond that the juxaposition of white heroes taking on hordes of dark-skinned enemies (played by actors who are Black or Middle-Eastern) would be enough to at least raise eyebrows I would think.

As for the Ephori (which, of course, in real life were nothing like how they were presented in the movie) they are offered as being so literally inhuman and morally disgusting that it's easy to dis-identify with them in the movie -- e.g. they don't represent a stain on the Spartan character so much as they are just an adjunct to the Persian menace. IMHO, at least. They also fit the movie's clear "good is beautiful, evil is ugly" sensibility.

This is an interesting quesiton: Is something less prejudiced because it refers to something in the distant past, although many today still identify with those involved? Or, to put it another way, if the movie portrayed the Persians as enlightened do-gooders wishing to save the slaves of Greece from their literally inhuman Spartan oppressors would that be no different than the actual movie? More to the point, would the average American be as blase' about the imagery of the movie in such a case? I personally suspect not, which is ultimately the point I am trying to make.

The movie shows the Spartans not only commiting, but taking implicit pride in infanticide. It also shows them slaughtering wounded men who were no longer a threat. Maybe the body-count remained in the mere tens of thousands, but how high does the total need to get before it would make the Spartans look bad?

And, note that my example of the Waffen-SS was narrowly defined -- I was deliberately offering an example that would allow the movie to easily cut-out the worst of Nazi Germany's crimes in the same way 300 side-stepped the vast majority of Spartan behaviors that modern audiences would doubtlessly see as horrific. By doing so it makes it far easier to show the Spartans in a positive light.

But, the emotional reactions to my example just help prove my point -- is the potential racist/prejudice imagery of a movie okay just because it doesn't push any of our own cultural buttons? I ask that honestly, not rhetorically. My point is that 300 by its very nature makes us ask such questions.

Not as I understand it. A sociopath is someone who feels no empathy for others. That doesn't prevent them from following rules or realizing the practical benefits of going along with the law when it is to their own benefit.

I bring up the term because it is the only one that really fits (IMHO) when you present a scene where the "heroes" are mercilessly killing wounded and helpless men while cutting jokes and eating lunch. Basically, no empathy is being shown, thus my use of the term.

Of course, I'd argue that one of the flaws of the movie is that it tries to have it both ways -- the Spartans are presented as both noble knights out to defend justice and freedom yet at the same time heartless butchers who relishing killing and feel not one apparent ounce of empathy for anyone not Greek. I just don't think that works.

Folks, while I appreciate the discussions as much as any other history geek, maybe we should rein in the passion a bit.

Let's remember we are discussing a movie, and that no one has yet claimed it is completely accurate (or even fair) in its depictions.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov