Outstanding exaggeration there, Megatherion, and would you like to show us the list you have of the "thousands of intellectuals all over the world" that are promoting such nonsense?
First of all, they do not promote; they make observations and draw to similar conclusions.
Second of all I never knew intelligent numeric deduction, derived from a vast number of Greek intellectuals, including historians and film critics but an even greater number of Iranian colleagues (Who would most write in their own language) constituted as "exaggeration"; your choice of words is interesting and implies that the range is more modest.
I will therefore abstain from your useless challenge on such premises. Hire a secretary if you want a list. Preferably one with better reading skills than yours.
Sorry, Megatherion, but the FACT is the film was BANNED in Iran and so the "common Iranian man" is not permitted to see it by his government.
And sorry, asshat,
fact is that the film was
massively bootlegged in Iran which subsequently led to
higher traffic in Iranian blogging channels where blogging is a huge part of Iranian Internet-journalism. You clearly have no idea how copyright laws work in Iran, do you.
The fact that the film was "banned", has no practical bearing on anything in Iranian society. Especially its thriving, independent youth culture. People still drink alcohol, party to rock music and have pre-marital sex. All you can think of is theocracy, mullahs and political Islam. Sorry for bursting your bubble, Mr. Neo-con, but Iran is nothing like your fantasies.
This means that most "common people" in Iran can't make up their own mind about it and are just TOLD what to think of it. That is a fact.
Not true at all.
You have no facts to back you up.
I will not reiterate the fact that I have done this before and have presented a vast resource of scholars collectively deriding this film. That the film is massively pirated in Iran for its proper abuse is common knowledge.
But, I will go along with this silly challenge of yours. I feel you must be dealt with in an extremely harsh manner. First, I present two links regarding bootlegging of the film in Iran.
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/944.htmhttp://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/17599641/ns/today-entertainment/t/iranians-outraged-over-hit-movie/#.Tq7W0nJ-I9UAnd now, as for a prelude on Iranian statistics of the film, I will refer to Legofish's Google-bomb:
http://300themovie.info/300-links.htmlAnd look at the date: "23:45 March 27, 2006"
And therefore the actual number, reported by this website:
2,720 links; except
even that number is deprecated since technorati has stopped updating the statistics for that website as of the
21st February 2009 00:16.
Therefore
thousands. And now, if you could write in both Cyrillic and in the Persian script and make basic Google searches you'd get
thousands more. This is not to mention scholarly resources, such as a campus press or local editorial work printed on paper. This is what intelligent estimation and deduction means.
For what it is worth I have many Iranian friends.
"I HAVE MANY BLACK/JEWISH/GAY/MIDDLE-EASTERN FRIENDS BUT I AM STILL A BIGOT NONETHELESS"-argument upcoming. Nice try.
Some are artists, some professors, a beautiful woman that is a trained classical pianist and doctor...basically people that would be considered intellectuals there and their opinions of President Ahmadinejad and the theocracy there is that they are an embarrassment to Iran on the world stage
Irrelevant. Everyone knows the President of Iran isn't running the show. Furthermore it is interesting to note that the popular support for the domestic nuclear energy programme is huge. It is just as irrelevant and shows the uselessness (And indeed the audacity) of even referring to Iranian acquaintances to justify your favourable preference for this film.
that they stifle free thought and education, and that through their propaganda and desire to preserve the status quo they have prevented Iran from advancing and evolving with the rest of the world.
Snore. I'm not even going to bother presenting statistics for Iran's staggering growth in both GNP per capita, CINC and HDI. Iran is changing with or without you, so spill your lies elsewhere please. Go on and show your sympathy to your fictional friends' "cause" by watching this film.
Hey, maybe then you'll reach the conclusion that the only way to "help them" is to advocate for an invasion of Iran and turning them into an American client state. What better ideal than to acquire the perfect scenario to gorge on Middle-Eastern petroleum out of fomenting anti-Iranian sentiment, to then tout themselves as liberators who bring "free thought" and "free press" when men like Bradley Manning still sit in jail and have been denied a proper court.
It's easy to point a finger at a developing country in the Third World for having lacking human rights; it's easier to castigate a superpower with the dubious merit of having the greatest stockpile of WMDs in the world (Which they actually used
twice and pursued to develop nuclear artillery to be used against Soviet personnel) for being
hypocrites.
In other words they keep their people in the dark and promote a narrow theocratic agenda which is out of step with the modern world. Persians are an amazing and fantastic people that do in fact have a wonderful and rich history but it is unfortunate that in Iran the form of government they labor under is a backwards theocracy.
Save your crocodile's tears. Those who are enlightened never become so by chance. In 1971 the Shah of Iran arranged a grand parade, presenting Iranian history in ways that are still to this day unparalleled. It cost 22 million dollars to make in 1971 American dollars, funded by private institutions; the bulk of that money went to open thousands of schools and hospitals in the rural areas of the country and gave Iran a huge publicity boost.
Yet critics all the world over would castigate the Shah for embezzling hundreds of millions of dollars from the public treasury. Lies that were later only cleared when the records were made public by the National Museum of Iran, while showcasing the authentic costumes from the parade.
This film, made 35 years later, with 70 millions of dollars, has caused such tremendous damage to the careful and meticulous work of Iranologists and portrayed Iranians as sub-human monsters. It cashed in
over half a billion dollars in profit. That you, touting yourself as a free-thinking individual, are not disgusted by this is not only bizarre but rather shows the awkward position you have put yourself into.
But hey, cat's out of the bag now, am I right? This is just "freedom of thought" and "freedom of expression". Except someone is paying the bill, ultimately history itself. Suddenly words like "responsibility", "defamation" and "libel" have ceased to apply to this film according to its fanbase. Now it is profitable to romanticize history to grotesque lengths and there is money to be had for exalting the hero as physically flawless and the enemy as sub-human and demonic.
If that is the free society with which you contrast to Iran's repressive dictatorship, I have no interest in having anything to do with you.
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
Megatherion
13 years ago
The problem is, Megatherion, you come up empty once again. It turns out you are nothing but bluster and empty insults and again a person that is not too bright.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctimoniousThe problem is you should get a clue.
On the aspect of promotion of fascism and the obviously racist portrayal of the Persians (And how this was noted by thousands of intellectuals), this is what I originally wrote:
"
...It IS racist; the fact that the Immortals, quintessentially the elite of the portrayed Persians, are wearing masks to conceal their sub-human and demonic features. This is not a subjective detail. It is portrayed right into our faces.
You have to be blind and stupid to not grasp that this is no longer a subjective feature or one that can be dismissed as "interpretation" or any other baseless apologetic excuse.
And the fact that thousands, not merely hundreds, of intellectuals all the world over have noted this and reached similar conclusions are rather fact of the film's deliberately offensive portrayal. There is not one redeeming feature amongst the Persians; the audience have no choice but to root for almost equally mis-portrayed infanticidal Nordic fascist culture masquerading as Spartans..."
Out of this,
you wrote a confused response:
"
...Outstanding exaggeration there, Megatherion, and would you like to show us the list you have of the "thousands of intellectuals all over the world" that are promoting such nonsense?"
To which, I clarified:
"
...First of all, they do not promote; they make observations and draw to similar conclusions..."
Hoping that would have put the issue to rest (Like what the hell was your point to begin with?), you then put up this garbage:
Sorry but you are incorrect. Iranian officials created a news story by banning the film and claiming it was a declaration of war on Iran. They claimed Hollywood was doing the bidding of Washington DC, all nonsense of course, but we live in times where a story such as this will be played up in the media. Particularly the American media where being politically correct and culturally sensitive is quite popular these days and the Iranian government knew this. The truth is the United States wants nothing to do with creating a war with Iran, never did, because Iran poses no threat to the United States. In fact Iran and the United States could become incredible allies and this would in fact greatly benefit both countries. Unfortunately there are many barriers to this happening. I have long been an outspoken advocate of creating a strong bond with Iran and denounced the Bush Administration's deal to sell Israel bunker buster missiles which they knew the Israelis wanted for possible use against Iran. I felt this was a horrible decision that would likely impact dealings with Iran for years.
With all that inconsequential nonsense that you wrote sidelined, I will say this much. The film is
criminal. Not only by international law. But also by American civil law. The film's portrayal of Iranians, their ancestors and their history falls perfectly within the definitions of both libel and defamation.
With this sort of vicious films green-lighted, dedicated with budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars and profiteering exponentially, it truly is no wonder why there are Iranians who chant for the death of America.
The first two links you provided in your post are ridiculous and do not even support your case as the reporter mentions Iranian officials are banning a film they have not even seen. It was obvious they were taking an opportunity to create some propaganda of their own to use against the United States at a time when our idiotic president George W. Bush had done severe damage to the image of his country on the world stage.
They do support my case; the circulation of pirated material is proof of the film's presence in Iran. As for your ridiculous statement that the censors banned a film they did not see, you have presented no evidence. To the contrary they mention that state-run television have gathered film directors to dispute the film's inaccuracies, turning your statement into a
practical impossibility.
See despite all of your childish insult hurling and empty accusations I was never a supporter of the Bush Administration or their path to war. I am not and never was a neo-con and I was a well known critic of the wars created in Iraq and Afghanistan. When terrorists attacked New York and Washington on 9/11/01 it was a clear case of blowback and a result of some rather poor foreign policy decisions and our long history of providing far too much support of Israel.
This looks more like excuses to me; you enjoy the film and still want to reassure yourself that you are not a bad person by indulging us with irrelevant details of your supposed political leanings.
Tell you what. How about I kidnap your mother, rape her, then behead her and market the final snuff-pornographic footage and send you a picture of all the money I made? There will probably be some sick kid masturbating to it, but who cares, freedom of "artistic expression" no matter the cost, am I right?
No. I still believe in a thing called
responsibility. When we take for granted the portrayal of a people as monsters, even in a medium such as film, society has gone awry. It is
not ok.
See the big problem here is I am not a fan of propaganda that creates conflict between countries and peoples. I am well aware that there is a thriving youth culture in Iran and that many of them wish to leave their country. I've dated, drank with and had premarital sex with beautiful and intelligent Iranian young woman...I know all about their love of film and the extensive bootlegging of films they are otherwise not allowed to be exposed to in their country.
If you truly denounce conflict between nations, countries and peoples, you
must denounce this film. I will say no more of this.
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
Megatherion
13 years ago
Sorry but you obviously know as little about the law as you do history.
The film falls perfectly within the frame of defamation on ethnic grounds. This is not a unique perspective I present; historians such as Jona Lendering of Leiden university has also discussed the film's criminal flaw in his scathing attack against it. So has Kaveh Farrokh who also points out how the film denies the Iranians of their humanity.
First of all the film does not portray any Iranians as the film is set before Iranians existed.
Not true. The Iranians are both in ethnic and in linguistic terms the wider group of the peoples that resided in the blanket term known as "Persia". In fact, the whole country of Iran was known as Persia to Europe until 1935. The country has never been referred to as Persia (
Ever) in local Iranian history, but always as Iran. You may refer to the Behistun inscriptions and a wide assortment of Zoroastrian religious canon on the term "Aryana-Vaeja" or its direct translation, Iran-Vizh or "Realm of the Aryans". The fact is that Strabo, the later Greek geographer during the Hellenistic era,
corrected Herodotus.
There is no possible way any sensible law-maker or lawyer would allow Herodotus' verbal slip-up on confusing the terminology (Unanimously agreed upon by the vast majority of not-so-new scholarship and historians) to be used as an exploit for justifying defamation and dehumanization of a "people that do not exist". That is only rubbish and showcases much rather the ridiculous lengths you wish to go to lull around in denial.
In other words, the only moron here is
you. The fact that you have conceded on past points I have presented in a similar fashion speaks in bounds about how this too will be conceded. Just try me, big boy.
It does portray Persians as seen through the eyes of the narrator Dilios and as he wants to portray them to the soldiers he is telling the story to.
No. It doesn't. The film presents critical narrative flaws that negates this perspective altogether. He can have possibly no idea what happens in Sparta, he can possibly have no idea of what happens in Xerxes' tent and he can have no possible idea of how the last "Spartans" perish. There is no way you can blame the fact that the "Immortals" are wearing masks to hide their disfigured, sub-human faces to be in any way subject to interpretation. It defies logic.
An absolutely laughable argument if you think it negates omnipresent laws on ethnic defamation. The fact that Dilios is fictional speaks against this defense, therefore the point of view of the Persians being sub-human monsters belong to no one else but to those who made the film. It has no other precursor and it is to them the charge is levied, not a fictional character with no basis in any existence.
Why do you deny that the film is racist?
The evidence is in your link the reporter in the video on that page nearly busts out laughing when he mentions the fact they are banning a film that most of them have not seen.
No, it isn't. Show it to me verbatim.
Didn't take too long for you to reveal what kind of guy you are did it now? Fine, make that film, I assume you meant a fictional portrayal of those events...ha...we'll see how well you do with that.
Not really. It shows your sensitivity to approaching the heart of controversial matters, especially when brought up in such personal and frank terms. It takes a rather headstrong person with clarity to present the ethical predicament in a comparable scenario. The analogy makes perfect sense, mostly in that you have failed to address it in any way whatsoever. But above all, the example shows its illegal posture.
Kleenex much?
reply
share