From The [Chicago] Daily Herald, March 25:
Critics may be divided, but the government of Iran is clear: The movie “300” has no redeeming social value.
The movie, which depicts the brave stand of 300 Spartans against a marauding army of hundreds of thousands of Persians at Thermopylae in 480 B.C., is a “visually enthralling hack fest,” Daily Herald movie critic Dann Gire wrote. “After the initial rush of artfully executed executions, however, there’s not much more to experience except more of the same.”
And New York Times critic A. O. Scott wrote, that the movie “is about as violent as ‘Apocalypto’ and twice as stupid.”
Iranian officials were even more offended.
The movie is aimed at “humiliating” Iranians, who are descendants of the ancient Persians, said Javad Shamghardi, cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The movie is “part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological warfare aimed at Iranian culture,” Shamghardi said.
“Hollywood declares war on Iranians” was the headline in the Ayan Ho newspaper, while state-run television ran several commentaries calling the film insulting.
3 Comments
I saw that movie last week and was unimpressed.
1. The Spartans didn’t wear armor. No greaves, no breastplate. Suicide on a battlefield.
2. Spartan society, from what I understand of it at least, was vastly different than that shown in this movie. No helots shown. Rather more heterosexual than Sparta actually was. The Ephors weren’t nearly as remote or alien, and were actually elected officials. One king and not two. That sort of thing.
3. It varied radically from the actual history of the battle. No Athenian fleet anywhere in sight. Minimal showing of allies.
That said, Iranian opposition to the film does illustrate a difference. The western model is to allow art and creative expression pretty full rein (in Athens, if not in Sparta!). Draw one cartoon of Prophet Mohammed……Or consider that the Matrix and Schindler’s List are banned in Egypt. Or that little Salman Rushdie thing.
The cultural fault line is deliniated clearly by us permitting artistic expression (however awful) and them not.
I guess that makes the modern west more Athenian than Spartan.
I am amazed just how many people have missed the point of this film. It is based on Frank Miller’s ‘300’ comic book series. Miller hit the headlines with the adaptation of his comic Sin City, which is also a film obsessed with violence. However, to understand 300 you must look at the original story. It is split in five short comic books and tells the story of the battle. However, from reading the comics it is clear that the battle is a backdrop to a deeper examination of the meaning of honour, trust, courage and nationality. Thoroughly modern and ancient concepts. In fact the first three books are called Honor, Duty and Glory.
As for the lack of historical accuracy – so what!
This is an artistic examination, not a history book. Miller never claims to be historically accurate – he is telling a story, which goes beyond the visual imagery.
It should be remembered that Miller made little attempt to create a historically accurate work. His aim was to re-create the impact that the 1962 film The 300 Spartans had on him as a kid.
For a comic book adaptation of a classic subject that makes an effort at historical accuracy, I urge you to seek out Eric Shanower’s chronicle of the Trojan War, Age of Bronze.