MovieChat Forums > 300 (2007) Discussion > a few things i would like to talk about

a few things i would like to talk about

posted 10 years ago by no-one-really
15 replies | jump to latest

first the racism allegations, i don't think this movie really is racist against persians, because there isn't genuine hatred behind it, i highly doubt someone would deliberately voice racist beliefs through a mainstream film based on a historical war, not to mention it's also odd that an american would be racist specifically against persians. this film isn't racist, people are just too easily offended these days. Germans weren't offended by inglourious basterds, at least none that i know of.

the historical inaccuracies, imagine traveling back in time to ancient Sparta, just before the 300 set out to fight, you explain to them what a film is and that one day, their story will be turned into a film, you then show them 300 the movie on a portable DVD player you brought with you, I think the spartans would be pretty pleased with it.

Is Xerxes gay? i've heard people bring Xerxes sexuality into question and suggest the character is offensive because he seems gay while also being the main villain, and apparently that's unacceptable, i suppose in the movie he does look a little camp, with those sharp eyebrows etc, but they were going for the look in the graphic novel, and in the graphic novel he looks the same but seems more like a god king covered in his riches because of the style of the drawing, so maybe he didn't look as good in the movie as he did in the graphic novel but he still looked like a rich conquerer, so no, i don't find the character offensive just because he has sharp eyebrows and at one point put his hands on Leonidas' shoulders.

serious question, anyone know where the rumours about the actors' abs being CGI started? people who still believe that irritate me.

do you agree with anything i have said, if not then GOOD, comment away and explain what you think instead, i'm curious as to what people think about these certain subjects.

300 is one of my 30 favourites, and i loooooove talking about it :)

[–] vojkan087 10 years ago

first the racism allegations...

I don't think criticism is (all) about open hatred. More about demonization and disrespect.

Persian empire was a vast and powerfull empire in the mid 1 century BC. At the time, era of Achaemenid Empire, it was all but inferior to Greek civilization.

Portraying Persians as twisted, deformed monsters is ignorant and disrespectful to a magnificient ancient culture.

That wasn't done even 2500 years ago by Greeks who actually suffered from those Persians - why should it be done by ignorant and disinformed artists and money hungry movie industry. It is pointless, and stupid, not to mention offensive.

not to mention it's also odd that an american would be racist specifically against persians

Elementary school history (not sure about the US though) teaches us that Persian historical and somewhat cultural heritage can be claimed in most of the modern Middle East, especially in territories of Iraq and Iran, also in Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, parts of Turkey etc.

By the 1998, when 300 comic was published, US had recently waged wars in Persian gulf, Kuwait and Iraq, and those people - Arabs, were already labeled as ''enemies'' in collective US mind. Same as Russians in the 1980's.

So it is not odd, at all.

the historical inaccuracies...I think the spartans would be pretty pleased with it

You base that on...what?

Do you even know how inaccurate 300 is? I recently named (somewhere on this board) few dozen mistakes (without nitpicking), and I could name them years after I watched 300.

It is so twisted that if you take away the names and dates, I bet no classical student would be able to say what the movie is about or where it is placed, let alone theoretical ancient Greek person.

Is Xerxes gay?...but they were going for the look in the graphic novel

Criticizing 300 the movie is criticizing 300 comic book as well. No one was obliged by law to do a story about Thermopylae based on a comic book of a delusional artist.

So ,,going for the look in the graphic novel'' is one of the problems of this movie.

However, I seriously doubt all that censorship in Holywood would ever allow rich conqueror Bill Clinton or rich conqueror George W. Bush to be depicted as very feminine men of at least debatable sexual orientation and even more dubious sex.

I really don't see what part of this movie appeals to people.

Carnage - there's better.
Corny one liners - there are better.
Slowmo - better turn to Bollywood.
Sex - there is much better.
Theme - really?!And you turned to this?!

[–] no-one-really 10 years ago

i never really felt that the movie was trying to say the persians were the twisted monsters, just that in this world of historical fiction, they had monsters at their disposal, obviously not in real life, just to match the over the top style.

yes i know the film isn't very close to history but i think there's a difference between getting it wrong and deliberate historical fiction, just like Amadeus.

i think the spartans would be pleased with it based on the fact that, knowing what spartans were really like back then (because of documentaries i watched and various reading sources, not because of what the movie said) i think they wouldn't care about historical inaccuracies just as long as they looked cool.

i'm a fan of the graphic novel so i was happy that they went with the same visual style.

another reason i don't think xerxes is truly effeminate is because of his deep as hell voice, if he spoke like in a camp voice then yes i would see it as offensive, but he talks with a deep menacing voice, so i think the effeminate look was accidental.

[–] vojkan087 10 years ago

i never really felt that the movie was trying to say the persians were the twisted monsters, just that in this world of historical fiction, they had monsters at their disposal, obviously not in real life, just to match the over the top style.

I get the over the top style, but whatever the hell it tried to do, for us in the real world, it showed Persians as:

- Clueless punch bags (despite Greek historians repeatedly stating how great warriors they are, how equal in skill to Spartans etc...For example, if real Greeks killed Persians at a rate they killed them in this movie, ENTIRE Persian invading army would be wiped out).

- Horrendous, demonic (if it is due to ''over the top style'', why none of the Greeks/Spartans has any of those ''over the top'' elements. They are all English speaking humans, pretty fit ones for that matter).

- Outrageously decadent and sexually versatile (armless whores, bestiality, orgies etc...Now the very existence of orgies or concubines is not at question here, but the context of the scenes in this movie, where they are shown only as a contrast to ''enlightened'' Greece).

- Sadistic, psychopathic, cultureless predators (While Persians were very imperialistic, the valour and chivalry of Persian noblemen is often stated by Greek authors, and even the act of decapitating Leonidas after the battle is clearly said to have been without precedent, atypical for Persian rulers).

With such one sided approach, you can't blame people for being appalled by its bias.

NOTHING in this world is so naive, and every historical movie bears the burden of influence it has on future picture or stereotype we as audience make.

When you make a movie about one of the most important events in the history of civilized World, and especially East/West relationship, in time when the only available dramatisation of the events dates to half of the last century, you can't just play with monsters and alternative universes where ancestors of your modern enemies just happen to be psychopathic, sadistic, transgendered zoophiles..and then shrug off the rage of the whole educated, 17+ y.o. world.

they wouldn't care about historical inaccuracies just as long as they looked cool

I don't want to be rude or too harsh here, but this is very childish notion of Spartans, Greeks, or history altogether.

You have to stop and think of Spartan warriors as grown ups, having a real city, real government, real families and real lives. They aren't comic book or cartoon heroes.

another reason i don't think xerxes is truly effeminate is because of his deep as hell voice

So, his moves, jewelry, wax job or extensive make up doesn't make him sexually ambiguous?

yes i know the film isn't very close to history but i think there's a difference between getting it wrong and deliberate historical fiction

The problem is, the movie got it wrong even in those few elements it wanted to ''get right'' in order for its ''deliberate historical fiction'' to actually work or have sense.

[–] no-one-really 10 years ago

i don't think the film is inaccurate when it comes to the kill count, there is the documentary that states the Spartans may have killed hundreds for everyone of theirs lost.

i don't remember seeing any bestiality, but the reason those girls in Xerxes tent were deformed was because they were slaves and maybe some time in the past they were punished for something.

yes they are shown as sadistic in the movie but i don't think that's meant to be offensive because back then, they really did own slaves and i highly doubt they treated them kindly.

Xerxes - no, i don't think that stuff makes him sexually ambiguous because he doesn't move effeminately, he doesn't talk effeminately and his tent was full of women.

everything else you say i agree with however.

[–] vojkan087 10 years ago

i don't think the film is inaccurate when it comes to the kill count, there is the documentary that states the Spartans may have killed hundreds for everyone of theirs lost.

According to Herodotus (ancient Greek historian, born around the time of the battle) cca 6000 Greeks (of which 300 Spartans were just a part of, a leading part that is)killed cca 20.000 Medes (Persians and their numerous allies, including some Greeks). So, on average, every Greek warrior killed around 3 Persians (and they did all fight, taking turns...)

In this movie, 5 characters kill more than 100 Persians, on screen. That is 20 Persians in average,on screen, which is 6-7 times more than in reality.(and the movie doesn't even recognize dozens of different Greek states in the anti Persian alliance, nor Spartan helots, only 300 Spartans).

Even if we try to justify 300 body count by claming only few main characters killed so many, it still looks like a turkey shoot, pretty much like a video game...You ask yourself how did they manage to loose the battle...

PS: What kind of a documentary was that?! That can not be a serious scholary study...

i don't remember seeing any bestiality, but the reason those girls in Xerxes tent were deformed was because they were slaves and maybe some time in the past they were punished for something.

Oh, come on...That sensual concubine stroking gently that human like ram who plays some instrument isn't bestiality?

For slaves see below...

Anyhow, this is why I am against 300, it made you have yet another false picture of an ancient culture, this time Persian.

Your explanation for punished whore might have been true for Islamic Iran, but is completely false for Persian court.

But point is, when seeing Persians, we see only the worst of the worst human and almost human behavior...Some of which is anachronistic or completely impossible in ancient Persia. But as long as it is what bad guys usually do - throw it in, right?!

yes they are shown as sadistic in the movie but i don't think that's meant to be offensive because back then, they really did own slaves and i highly doubt they treated them kindly

THIS is the very problem I have with 300, and 300 fans. You learn history, you make oppinions and get to conclusions, from this pile of garbage...

Persians, unlike Greeks or Egyptians, didn't have slaves, their religion banned slavery, they even freed Jews at Babylon and had to pay for workers...

That is exactly what is wrong with this movie...Not the costumes or the accents, but the very context of events, very essence of cultures and nations (all that we don't instantly reject as fiction, as we do costumes) is twisted and deformed beyond recognition,so that average viewer without enough knowledge would arrive at conclusions you did - Spartans were narcissistic douchebags, Persians were sadistic,mysogenic slave drivers etc...

And that is most damaging to both European and Middle Eastern heritage, and we all have the right to be pissed off at such obnoxious ignorance.

[–] no-one-really 10 years ago

i do agree with a lot of what you say, but as far as the movie goes, it didn't bother me in the slightest, i despise racism, i do usually hate film that are blatantly historically inaccurate but i love 300 because at the end of the day it's just a movie. and in my personal opinion, this film isn't racist because no one involved has said something like "yeah we showed everyone what Persians were really like back then" or "we showed those spartans as cool heroes because we hate those Persians", there's nothing like that any where, and it is forever burned into my brain that a lot of criticism against this movie comes from the fact that people are looking too deeply in all the wrong places. there is such a thing as historical fiction, and that's what i label this movie as.

and no i don't think that counted as bestiality because that was a goat-man, not a regular goat.

[–] vojkan087 10 years ago

I would love to live in your world. Your approach might even be better than mine, since you seem to look stuff on a positive side, relentlessly...

However, reality isn't that bright.

For closure, I will give you an example of how the Hollywood movie industry works. This is 21st century, and you will never see such open display of racial hatred or xenophobia. It doesn't mean they exist no more. In the era of political corectness, everything is much more subtle, hidden, implied in between the lines.

Don't think nobody saw how this movie portrays the ancestors of present ''Western enemies'' and gave it a thumbs up. Everybody knows 90% of the public won't bother with research after seeing the movie, but will develop an oppinion about ancient culture - as you yourself did with all those harsh treatment of slaves in Persia (ones that never existed in history).

However, the example is, when you want to make a history or war movie in Hollywood,or any movie that mentions US military, government etc...it has to go through Pentagon's Entertainment Media officials. It decides wherther the movie is acceptable (and provide the assistance in military equipment and personell), or not (and denies any cooperation, which can be a death sentence for such movie). Gray area between the two, are the movies that Pentagon would accept only if they censored it, literaly changing sentences, even only parts of them to fit the image they want to display to the world. They call it ''damage control''. To quote '''The Hurt Locker' was problematic for us because it departed from what we thought was the real military ethos.''.

Why I said all this...so that you have an idea of what actually happens before a movie is out. And how subtle it all is. You won't see open display of racial hatred in 21st century, but there is someone that alters every sentence, every scene, so that it fits the wanted picture and produces the wanted effect (Pentagon's censorship is just one example).

looking too deeply in all the wrong places

Too deeply? Are you suggesting we should all just sit in front of a screen and drool over slowmo ubercool mayhem - without asking ANY question, since we don't need to be aware of anything except the blood and overdramatic dialogue.

Looking too deeply would be asking what was Gorgo, a woman, doing in Spartan assembly, and how could Persian king call himself the son of God?!?

Asking why the hell are they called Greeks when there is nothing Greek about them, or why are those Persians when they have nothing Persian about them, isn't too deep imo.

Are names and events there just to draw people in and make money. Probably so.

[–] no-one-really 10 years ago

i didn't assume that the persians had slaves because the movie said so, i'm going by other things i read.

and no i'm not suggesting we sit and drool over it, but some movies are meant to be deconstructed and others aren't. despite having politics in the movie, it isn't a political film in terms of message, for some reason a lot of people assume every film has a hidden agenda when they don't. and when a film changes history they call it propaganda and if it presents the battle has though it were very black and white to make it work as a story they call it racist.

i'm not living in my own little world here, that's just how i perceive it, it isn't propaganda or racist because it doesn't try to trick anyone into thinking it actually happened like this. you've only got to look at the giant elephants and otherworldly monster to know this film isn't taking itself seriously at all.

[–] janne-nordstrom 10 years ago

i never really felt that the movie was trying to say the persians were the twisted monsters, just that in this world of historical fiction, they had monsters at their disposal, obviously not in real life, just to match the over the top style.

This is exactly what the storyteller in the movie was saying. The movie is a pastiche of propaganda where:

You demonize the enemy. They are hideous and monster-like, their women are depraved, their customs and ways are evil and satanic. Ephialtes, who joins the other side, is shown selling his soul to literal devil. The "old men" who forbid going to war are shown as creepy and corrupt. Greeks on the other hand are handsome, physically imposing and in the case of women very beautiful.

You make him look monstrous and strong, but weak and less than you at the same time. He must be threatening to overwhelm you to galvanize people into action, but beatable at the same time so as not to demoralize your own people. Thus the army that threatens to overwhelm the known world, but at the same time "those at the back cry 'Forward'; those at front cry 'Back!'

You exaggerate their atrocities and downplay or downright glorify yours. Remember how the movie starts? What happens to babies who are not physically perfect? Greeks take no prisoners and show no mercy, while Persians try to show mercy up until the end. Violence for the purpose of violence is shown as a virtue.

Note that the storyteller never saw Xerxes in person, so he looks (is described as) nothing like he really looked like. He also didn't see the final showdown, so he has to make it all up.

Of course, it's up to the viewer to get the point. If you take it at face value of course it is racist and nothing like the truth. That's how propaganda works. Compare to Spaceship Troopers for another movie which taken without media literacy is fascist.

[–] chrislwmn3 10 years ago

Thank you! I was about to post this. Did everyone forget that the story is being told by the only surviving Spartan from the battle? Could it be possible that he is trying to build moral with the troops by saying the few spartans were able to overcome all manner of hideous creatures and ridiculous numbers?

How that escaped the "enlightened" on this board I haven't figured out.

To answer a few of the questions briefly:

no, it is not racist. Only those who are annoyingly PC would see it as such.

Xerxes was not gay. Strange looking but not gay.

The Spartans did have slaves who tended their farms and such. These slaves couldn't move to a higher station. Persians, on the other hand, conquered people in the same sense that Alexander and other great conquerors did. They conquered and incorporated the people groups into their armies, learned from them, and shared their culture with them. Take the immortals for example: there couldn't have been 10,000 nobles from the Persian capital alone. These nobles had to have come from all over the empire. When you enslave people you do not let them gain prestigious ranks such as those in the immortals.

I'm not of the same belief that this movie has been so detrimental to society as some other posting here. Clearly the movie was not meant to be taken seriously or they would have just adapted Herodotus. Saying it does is like saying people believe what happened in Inglorious Bastards (as the other poster mentioned).

[–] vojkan087 10 years ago

Your interpretation of the ''demonizing the enemy'' is quite interesting, however, two things bother me about it.

There was propaganda in real life. But propaganda if you will, of Herodotus, obviously telling the Greek side of the story (though not as nearly as bias as modern media would be), is displayed in very different way. Greeks don't ''demonize'' Persians. They don't refrain even from praising those ''barbarians'' for either being honorable, handsome or valiant fighters. The kind of extreme polarization, and demonization of the enemy in a way you described just isn't Greek, nor would be applicable to ancient Greek customs or ethos of that era.

For people who actually enjoyed a good ''contest'' (synonimous for war in Greek) with valiant, honorable enemy - the kind of approach 300 took, if you are indeed right, is even more wrong and more damaging, than the nightmarish fantasy look it has to it.

What you explained is the mentality of the 20th century rather than ancinet Greece, which would be on the complete opposite side of that spectrum.
http://sydwalker.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Destroy_this_mad_brute_WWI_propaganda_poster_US_version.jpg

Secondly, movie demonizes not only the enemy but the ''allies'' as well. Sparta is being falsely represented as the extremely opressive, abusive, mysogonistic, basically rotten fascist society, with very questionable set of values we are suppose to relate to and root for.

Not only are the relations in Sparta itself utterly absurd but their relations to other Greeks (as the ''what is you profession'' scene shows) are purely Frank Miller invention, made even cheesier by the Snyder's movie. Other Greeks are incompetent ''potters''. Which is a nonsence.

It paints completely different picture of the entire Greek speaking world at the time, even if you are ready to accept the visually ''highly stylized'' approach of the 300 franchize.

In other words, socio-political picture of ancient cultures the movie paints is not one of those things in 300 that people just write off as the over the top style of the movie, but actually accept as ''rare historical facts'' 300 used as a foundation. Opening of the movie is another example...(what is worse, that one even has a base in historical source, though a disproven one).

So, with all those elements detached from actual history that much, my question is, why not just go for pure fantasy, why using (some) actual names, places and historical context, if you use almost nothing else that belongs to that place and time? Why reshaping it completely for a WWI or II propaganda movie feel to it but still holding on to the characters and dates? For the publicity? Money? Not something I can support, ever.

[–] janne-nordstrom 10 years ago

There was propaganda in real life. But propaganda if you will, of Herodotus, obviously telling the Greek side of the story (though not as nearly as bias as modern media would be), is displayed in very different way.

True but irrelevant. Miller chose to write this in a modern way. That's why we have a movie with fascist Greeks.

why not just go for pure fantasy, why using (some) actual names, places and historical context, if you use almost nothing else that belongs to that place and time?

Truth is stranger than fiction. If you wrote a fantasy story where a handful of warriors held back a horde one million strong, people would pan it for being cookie cutter, full of Mary Sues. But when you frame it around Thermopylae it is much more palatable even when it is basically a fantasy movie. Blame the paying audience.

[–] yusef-ghanima 9 years ago

i don't know if you are really that naive or pretend to, this movie isn't about racism against persians specifically, it's against islam. although the greek really represent palestinians and arabs historically, but the aryan nazi west like to lie about it, and persians should really be more representative of aryan nazi west.

i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

[–] no-one-really 9 years ago

why would someone pretend to be naive?

is there ever any mention of Islam in the film? did Zack say in interviews haha i showed everyone what they were like? ok he's american but there's nothing against islam in this film, not even against persians really, i mean yes they're the bad guys but is every ww2 film racist against germans for making them the bad guys?

unless there's genuine hatred behind a work of art i don't think it's really appropriate to accuse it of racism in any way.

[–] vojkan087 9 years ago

East vs West polarization is something that can obviously be paralleled with today's political climate. Especially since 300 came out after no few English and US scholars, some of them among top authors on the subject, insisted on 'Western Ways of War' and parallels between Thermopylae and 9/11 (?!) in various books and TV program.

300 is undeniably ideological as it clearly follows original sources in some parts, but strays from the historical path and into fantasy in exactly those places that would make East vs West point more apparent.

Isn't there a genuine hatred between Miller's work? He obviously read Herodotus..why did he choose not to portray the admiration and respect Greeks had for their enemies, and vice versa, but construct the 'evil monsters come from East' premise.

You can't expect the entire audience be willing or able to go past all this subtle artistic liberties, and escape the minefield of ideological mumbo jumbo so it could grasp the true history distorted beyond recognition.