fasting, day eight
I am so amused. So utterly amused.
I am amused by the fact that there is a petition protesting the "irresponsible, unethical and unscientific actions" of Warner Bros. Corporation. The gist of the protest is that the film "300" unjustly and wrongfully portrays Persians as barbarians. Of course, we are not talking about modern-day Persians. We are talking about Persians from about 500 BC. As we all know, there were no Persian barbarians at that time in history. Right? Pobrecitos - none of them are around any more to do their own protesting! Of course, according to the film, if they were, they'd simply obliterate the execs at Warner Bros.
The petition goes on to say that the film creates "an atmosphere of public mistrust in its content, and hurt[s] the national pride of the millions of Persians while doing so. While announcing our disgust at such a heresy, we demand an immediate historical review and quick apology from the responsible people."
Heresy?!?? Wow. Harsh words. And while I have no doubt that the pride of some Persians has been hurt, let's think about this for a moment. Do we actually believe that a civilization could create an empire that spanned 7.5 million square kilometers WITHOUT having been forceful at some point? Without totally conquering the civilizations it incorporated into its own? I don't think you can show up for empire-building negotiations and just sit down for some tea to discuss who is going to conquer whom. Nope. I'm fairly sure some blood has to be spilled in order for empires that cover 7.5 million square kilometers to be built.
And for you non-Persian heathens who don't know the metric system, let me translate - 7.5 million square kilometers is roughly 4.65 million square miles. To give you a sense of scale, the subcontinent of India is about 3.3 million square miles. Gah! 4.65 million is not a small number!
So, let's indulge the petitioners and do an immediate historical review – albeit an abbreviated one.
The film highlights the Battle of Thermopylae which was part of the Greco-Persian Wars around 480 BC and which was (by the way) won by the Persians. Oh! Wait… there were *gasp* WARS?!?? Yeah… there wouldn't be any violence or barbarism during a war. Nope. But let's continue with our historical review, shall we?
According to Wikipedia, the wars occurred during the Achaemenid Persian Empire which, by the 5th century BC, covered territories roughly encompassing today's Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Bulgaria, eastern parts of Greece, Egypt, Syria, much of what is now Pakistan, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Caucasia, Central Asia, Libya, and northern parts of Arabia. Again, roughly 4.65 million square miles. The empire eventually became the largest empire of the ancient world.
And here's an interesting little fact about the Achaemenid Empire:
"It was the general policy of the Achaemenids to continue the Assyrian and Babylonian policy of transferring large populations between areas, in effect mixing disparate groups together and diluting any nationalism they may otherwise have had—intended as a calming measure, and resulting in the Achaemenid era being known as a relatively peaceful period in Middle Eastern history."
Well! No wonder the petitioners are all up in arms!! Relatively peaceful periods in Middle Eastern history ought to be celebrated, and barbarians ought never be spoken of again.
Setting aside the facts of history, let's chat for a moment about the fact that the film actually highlights and celebrates the brutality and savage nature of the Spartans (the mascot of my junior high school, by the way), not the Persians. And… let's not forget… IT'S A FRIGGIN' FILM!!! It's a STORY much the way Homer's The Odyssey was, and although the story is based on history, it's dramatized, exaggerated (as most comic books and graphic novels are by definition) and purposely made to be larger than life. Gah!
Well. 'Nuff said. Time to break fast and eat some homemade pizza!!
Comments
oops, i meant "captured and consumed by communism." not pod people.
Posted by: kari | March 12, 2007 12:14 PM
i do find it interesting that the film industry so often chooses to tell stories that parallel major current events and popular political thought processes. and in those cases the political subtexts are hard to ignore or at least it's hard not to say, "hmmm... i wonder if there's any coincidence with the timing of this movie?"
maybe it's film school talking... but when all of america was afraid of communists, movies like "invasion of the body snatchers" were rampant. looking back they appear to be just good, fun and even silly movies about humans being captured and consumed by pod people. but, stories like that were analogies for and preyed on the fears of the day, namely the fear that ordinary, unsuspecting americans could be captured and consumed by pod people. they promoted political agendas.
so, i guess during my viewing of 300 i just kept thinking... is it any more than a coincidence that in the minds of the largely-american audience who will see this, that persians are still considered part of the axis of evil? or at least in the mind of our government.
but i also am quite intrigued by the constant flow of war movies these days. maybe the flow has never really stopped. but, i'm stunned by how thinly veiled (or not at all veiled) the messages in some of them are. many of them showing white men triumphing over the evil brewed by people of darker complexion, while some of them have a decidedly anti-war message. i can't believe that it's just coicidence these are being produced during a controversial wartime.
i think the first movie that tipped me off was "first daughter." who would expect that a movie starring katie holmes would be anything but innocuous, but the whole time the audience is inundated with "sometimes we have to sacrifice our own freedoms to be secure" rhetoric. very patriot-act.
Posted by: kari | March 12, 2007 12:11 PM
Pierre, I think the same question could be asked of a lot of graphic novels. What's the point? I think there are few different points offhand--to tell it from one particular person's point of view and to take a factual piece of history that gets two sentences in a history book and make it into something someone can care about. I mean, this also applies in the fiction world. Comic book writers have been so creative with traditional comic book characters like superman/batman/wonderwoman that to write something beautiful about something that ACTUALLY HAPPENED? Well, that would just be cool.
They had to make the movie artful or it would have seemed completely pointless. Why not just go read wikipedia or the graphic novel, right?
Posted by: lacey | March 12, 2007 11:39 AM
I saw the movie and I liked it. The only thing that I questioned was what to make of the movie?
Was it supposed to be more realistic as was portrayed by the spartans or more fiction/fantasy as was portrayed by the persians?
I don't know, maybe it was just me...
Anyway, I still enjoyed it and I recommend it...
Posted by: Pierre | March 11, 2007 11:21 PM
awesome comment, lacey. :) yeah... i think i would like to go see it. i think i can handle the violence when it is so stylized and artsy. and i may just have to step out for some more popcorn during the boob shots. i have nothing against boobs, just not in the mood these days. and yeah... ancient persians really looked very little like those you see today. they looked more like the way we envision greeks and romans. very interesting...
Posted by: delara | March 11, 2007 01:48 PM
Myk and I just saw this movie a couple of hours ago. All talk of Persians aside, it's a beautifully artful movie. Yes, it's really violent. But I will tell you that I'm relatively sensitive to violence in movies, but this is so artistic that it hardly feels like you're watching anything more than a glorified historical alteration. Again, that's aside from the actual story behind the story. I'm sure it was all very bloody and terrible, but this is Frank Miller, people. He all about blood and boobs. You gotta expect that going into the movie.
I liked it and would definitely recommend it. And for the record, only one of the Persians in the movie actually looked like a modern-day Persian man, which I thought was interesting. Xerxes' army was pretty diverse looking, actually, but that makes sense given that he controlled so much territory. I digress. Anyways....
Posted by: lacey | March 11, 2007 02:49 AM
hahaha, moj! that's awesome. yeah... you would have liked the pizza too! my half had goat cheese, mushrooms and turkey pepperoni. YUM!!
and steve, very insightful observation. very compassionate perspective. i'd expect nothing less. :)
Posted by: delara | March 11, 2007 12:25 AM
Well, I'm fasting too, so... Pretty much nothing sunk in from this post except "homemade pizza."
Posted by: +mojan. | March 11, 2007 12:18 AM
Well, I wanna see this movie for sure.
And I agree - it's somewhat silly when people get all up in arms about these kinds of things.
But on the other hand, there are times when people who are in some way discriminated against - or oppressed in some way - use something as a catalyst to make their voice heard. Often, the catalyst has little to do with what is going on at present, but it's utilized just the same.
Perhaps that is what is going on here. Or perhaps it's more about a group of people with feelings that they don't know how to express in a healthy way.
I know lots of those people.
:)
Posted by: Steve | March 10, 2007 06:10 PM
um... yeaaaah. glad you liked it, glenn! i'd like to see it, maybe this weekend. maybe not. we shall see. i'm not in a hurry... while i'm curious and am a fan of stylistic movies, especially those based on graphic novels and comic books, the violence gets to me. i'll have to take it slow...
and if you see it, p-air, let me know if you like it! ;) oh wait - don't go see it!! haha.
Posted by: delara | March 10, 2007 05:57 PM
What kills me is the more people protest a movie by saying "don't see it!!" the more people are going to see it because people are crazy like that...
Uh oh, it starts at 6:30 so I better get going...
HAHAHAHHA
Posted by: Pierre | March 10, 2007 05:29 PM
Not only is it a film, but a good one at that. Saw it last night. Loved all but the approximately ten minutes of the film they spent showing women with erect nipples enjoying or not enjoying the company of the men touching them.
I guess they weren't certain the graphic decapitations and other limb severances were enough to guarantee the R-Rating.
I liked the movie, nonetheless.
Posted by: glenn | March 10, 2007 12:54 PM