Oh, I see how it works. So if you say something has an agenda, or another meaning, then it does? You can just decide something has a meaning, and it is true? I know a President who uses that tactic. Let me try it.
The following statement is PRO-DEMOCRACY: "Let's convert muslims to Christianity at gunpoint."
This statement has a PRO-FAMILY agenda: "Let's make it against the Constitution for gays to get married."
These words actually mean I AM COMPETENT AND QUALIFIED: "I'm the President. I serve by a mandate of the people."
So because 300 "is a call for war" it must be bad. No need to see the movie, and judge it like a movie, you must judge it based on it's secondary meaning. Oh, wait, you invented that meaning. I guess my above examples don't work. Someone else has to label your words as having a secondary meaning. Maybe that's why Bush has his little hard-core group of otaku.
Look. It's a movie. I don't care about its message. I think Iranians are being foolish for thinking it's a call to war. I really, really, do NOT want the U.S. to go to war with Iran. I don't think it would make us more manly as a people. I don't think it's right in the long or short term.
And yet...even if every single member of the cast and crew of 300 signed an affidavit stating "the entire, sole purpose we made the movie was to convince the American people to go to war with Iran", I wouldn't care at all, not even a little bit, neither one nor two shits.
Why? Because I don't care why a movie was made. All movies are made for one reason: to make money. Star Wars? Money. The Matrix? Money. Casablanca? Money. Artists were involved, sure. They wanted their art to exist. But ultimately, it's about money. And how does that help us? It doesn't. We lose money, they gain it. And yet, we don't think all movies suck because they're all about taking our money away.
Americans act like movie makers owe them the sun and the moon for $7. We get vibrantly angry when someone makes a movie that we didn't like, especially if they "make" us pay seven whole fucking dollars. When we can't articulate why someone shouldn't like a movie (because, as I've previously stated, there can be no reason to tell someone what their opinion should be based on your own), we start blaming everything from political agendas to artistic integrity to design by committee to solar flares.
There are much easier, much less time-consuming, and much cheaper ways to spread a political message, take a jab and lefties, and spread your values. Get a blog! Write a book! Run for political office! Even that last one is easier than making a modern, major blockbuster movie.
Everyone has opinions, and they will seep through to their finished work. Thus, what you're saying is that only people who agree with your opinions should be making movies. Or, that people with opinions different from yours should be required to use your values, not their own, when making a movie. Even if you aren't saying that, you are saying that nobody should watch the movies because you didn't like them.
Diversity means allowing and considering all opinions, even those you don't like, without prejudice. Telling people not to like something is attempting to give them a prejudice. How can that be right?
Really, I just wanted to make a super-short post right after Kenjura's doctorate thesis up there, simply for the humor of it... Good times. I always love reading Kenjura's posts because he's not at all wishy-washy about his feelings. He says what he means, and provides evidence.
While I agree with you Ken, I think we're really more debating the meaning of the movie here. Of course we realize that movie makers can try to say whatever they want, and all that really matters is how the audience takes it. The discussion here is just exactly how we took it, what that means to us, and what that means in a larger context.
I personally think it's ridiculous that the Iranians are angry that this movie was made; it's one thing to dislike a movie for some reasons, but it's another matter entirely to become outraged that a movie you dislike was made. The world does not revolve around one person's individual opinions. When Muslim nations cried out in protest because of the infamous Mohammed cartoon recently, I had a similar reaction; you don't have a right to not be offended, and the world doesn't revolve around your specific beliefs, so shut up and deal with it. Really, that applies to all religions; it just so happens that Muslims are a hot-button issue these days. Chrisitans are often just as bad.
Really, while I disliked some aspects of the film, I found some of it to be very refreshing. In particular, the film seemed to have an overall anti-religious bend; it wasn't about religious superiority (i.e. Spartan religion vs. Persian religion), but rather about dismissing mysticism in its entirety. Not only did Leonidus have disdain for Persian mysticism, he had disdain for his own people's mysticism.
The good aspect of the film, and actually of the graphic novel from which it came, is that it's a call for people to remember a time when we weren't so pussified. These days, we have people screaming about protecting our children from the evils of - *gasp* - nipples, or Prince playing his goddamn guitar, or video games, countered by people scared shitless about a bunch of religious wackjobs who live in mud huts. This nation has collectively flipped its shit, and 300 is a reminder that we used to have balls. The film is marred by its call to present-day jingoism, and its homophobia, but its good message is also quite clear and deserves to be remarked upon.
Uglyfred: I agree with you about 99%, but I have to comment on the portrayal of the women of Sparta. I think the portrayl of the women was more simply inconsistent rather than simply weak; do remember that Gorgo did stab that one guy, demostrating that real Spartans, even the women, are people of action. The real attitude of the Spartans towards their women wasn't that they were strong per se; they said of Sparta that even their women were strong. While Spartan women were strong, they were still second-class citizens. The nation is still mysoginistic, so they say that all Spartans, even the women, are stronger than everyone else. It's like me saying that Americans are so tough, even our toddlers can kick your ass. So, I don't think the film intended to show Spartan women as being strong in the same way that Beatrix Kiddo from Kill Bill or Zoe from Firefly are strong; rather, it wanted to show that strength and nationalistic pride runs through all Spartans, regardless of their standing in society.
The following statement is PRO-DEMOCRACY: "Let's convert muslims to Christianity at gunpoint."
How is that pro-democracy? It's not even pro-christian as a follower converted at gun point is only reliable as long as the gun remains pointed at their head. If anything this line would be anti-muslim.
This statement has a PRO-FAMILY agenda: "Let's make it against the Constitution for gays to get married."
This line is not pro-family it is anti-gay.
These words actually mean I AM COMPETENT AND QUALIFIED: "I'm the President. I serve by a mandate of the people."
Since when has the president been the most competent and qualified person to run the country?
Saying that you serve by the mandate of the people has nothing to do with your competency, it just means you got enough people to pick you over the other guy. Same goes for the Democrats in the legislature right now. They ran on the "we're not the Republicans" platform and now they are going around saying they have a mandate!
A one seat majority in the Senate does not a mandate make. (For those who can count, the Senate is actually split 49-49-2 with the two independents caucusing with the Democrats.)
I think 300 would have been fine if it came out in 1999. People will draw parallels to today's politics because they're there. Even if they were intended, I doubt they were the inspiration for the comic; instead, it's likely they influenced the comic merely by their presence. And who can blame the writers? Don't we all hear about politics every single god-damn day?
The point of the movie was "these guys are (quote)real men(unquote) who get things done...we should remember their example". It doesn't have to be about war. It's about a stereotypically masculine trait that can be very useful, if properly moderated by other traits, such as wisdom.
But as it applies to the war? Perhaps there are lessons to be learned:
The movie was clearly as dismissive of Spartan as Persian mysticism. I say, damn right! We should completely dismiss Islam. Any religion that incorporates brutal misogyny, advocates violence, and demands to be the most important religion in the world is automatically invalid. The existence of kinder, gentler Muslims in other countries and parts of the world is irrelevant; fervent belief in Islam leads to an unjust society with no respect for human rights. And if the solution is to be less extreme...well, if being *less* like the ultimate version of a thing makes you better, then being *not at all* like it would be best, no? And of course, I stand by this assertion for Christianity. I think the time of the old religions has come and gone, and they do far more harm than good.
As has been pointed out, it's a great allegory for a lot of difficult real-life problems. There was a nifty article linked on Digg (shouldn't be hard to find) that likened the Battle of Thermopylae to starting your own business. Very good points were made. Choose your battleground, ignore the soothsayers, stand by your idea and your team, be prepared to adapt to many dangers, and don't be afraid of the big, untouchable god.
I'm sure there are many equally-appropriate metaphors for how one should approach life and its problems, but this was a good one.
I think I'll go watch TMNT, another movie lambasted by ignorant sheep, and see if I can't find yet another diamond in the rough.
Am I the only one who finds it passing strange that all these supposed parallels between 300 and the modern world (whether they be drawn by the viewer or put there by the creator) ignore the fact that the Persians of that time weren't Muslims, but Zoroastrians? It's an entirely different culture from that of the Islamic peoples that would rule the region much later.
Perhaps no one pays attention to such things because they just complicate that whole nice, dramatic, East-vs-West thing with actual history.
Am I the only one who finds it passing strange that all these supposed parallels between300and the modern world (whether they be drawn by the viewer or put there by the creator) ignore the fact that the Persians of that time weren't Muslims, but Zoroastrians? It's an entirely different culture from that of the Islamic peoples that would rule the region much later.
Was there anything in the movie that suggested that the Persians were Muslim?
I have no idea, I haven't seen it. I'm more talking about the parallels people - in this thread and elsewhere - are drawing between Thermopylae (at least, that fictionalized version of it) and the "War on Terror". That the Spartans are somehow the USA and the Persians somehow modern Iran.
In the end, I suppose my point is that it's an utterly nonsensical comparison for any number of reasons.
Or the fact that Sparta has nothing whatsoever to do with America? Yeah, I noticed that too. Without the "freedom" line and other blemishes, only the true nuts (Iranians) would think it was a parallel. As it is...apparently everyone does.
Well, it's only natural to apply any artistic work to modern-day events in an attempt to draw lessons from it; that's one of the points of doing anything artistic in the first place.
The extreme backlash to 300 really is mostly unwarranted and the issues people have with it are grossly exaggerated. You CAN draw parallels between the ultranationalist Spartans and the mindset of many neocons, so it's natural for some people to brand this a jingoistic movie. As Ken pointed out, there are a few blemishes on the film, and the problem is that those blemishes combined with the rest of the character of the film lend themselves towards such an interpretation. Indeed, if the "freedom" crap weren't in there, I think only true wackjobs would be yelling and screaming. I just choose to ignore those blemishes and enjoy the testosterone-filled goodness.
On a bit of an interesting note, my little brother had a bit of a different interpretation of the film. He saw the Spartans as being more akin to suicide bombers, and the army of Xerxes being more akin to the US military. Xerxes had a huge army with wonders unseen by anyone else, and yet couldn't manage to bring all this prowess to bear. He was arrogant and thought his way was the greatest. The Spartans had nothing and saw Xerxes as a threat to their way of life, and a handful willingly sacrificed themselves in order to strike a blow against the great behemoth.
So, as is true of any work of art, you can spin this all sorts of ways. The real problem are those few blemishes in the film; people latched onto those and then extrapolated them out to the rest of the film. It's not terribly surprising, really.
Alex: There was actually no particular mention of the religion of the Persians at all, just that their beliefs were non-Spartan, mystical, and decidedly heathen. The lack of definite identification allows people to draw whatever parallel they damn well please, which is what's going on here. The movie is quite interesting and fun; you should give it a watch.
Comments
The following statement is PRO-DEMOCRACY:
"Let's convert muslims to Christianity at gunpoint."
This statement has a PRO-FAMILY agenda:
"Let's make it against the Constitution for gays to get married."
These words actually mean I AM COMPETENT AND QUALIFIED:
"I'm the President. I serve by a mandate of the people."
So because 300 "is a call for war" it must be bad. No need to see the movie, and judge it like a movie, you must judge it based on it's secondary meaning. Oh, wait, you invented that meaning. I guess my above examples don't work. Someone else has to label your words as having a secondary meaning. Maybe that's why Bush has his little hard-core group of otaku.
Look. It's a movie. I don't care about its message. I think Iranians are being foolish for thinking it's a call to war. I really, really, do NOT want the U.S. to go to war with Iran. I don't think it would make us more manly as a people. I don't think it's right in the long or short term.
And yet...even if every single member of the cast and crew of 300 signed an affidavit stating "the entire, sole purpose we made the movie was to convince the American people to go to war with Iran", I wouldn't care at all, not even a little bit, neither one nor two shits.
Why? Because I don't care why a movie was made. All movies are made for one reason: to make money. Star Wars? Money. The Matrix? Money. Casablanca? Money. Artists were involved, sure. They wanted their art to exist. But ultimately, it's about money. And how does that help us? It doesn't. We lose money, they gain it. And yet, we don't think all movies suck because they're all about taking our money away.
Americans act like movie makers owe them the sun and the moon for $7. We get vibrantly angry when someone makes a movie that we didn't like, especially if they "make" us pay seven whole fucking dollars. When we can't articulate why someone shouldn't like a movie (because, as I've previously stated, there can be no reason to tell someone what their opinion should be based on your own), we start blaming everything from political agendas to artistic integrity to design by committee to solar flares.
There are much easier, much less time-consuming, and much cheaper ways to spread a political message, take a jab and lefties, and spread your values. Get a blog! Write a book! Run for political office! Even that last one is easier than making a modern, major blockbuster movie.
Everyone has opinions, and they will seep through to their finished work. Thus, what you're saying is that only people who agree with your opinions should be making movies. Or, that people with opinions different from yours should be required to use your values, not their own, when making a movie. Even if you aren't saying that, you are saying that nobody should watch the movies because you didn't like them.
Diversity means allowing and considering all opinions, even those you don't like, without prejudice. Telling people not to like something is attempting to give them a prejudice. How can that be right?
I personally think it's ridiculous that the Iranians are angry that this movie was made; it's one thing to dislike a movie for some reasons, but it's another matter entirely to become outraged that a movie you dislike was made. The world does not revolve around one person's individual opinions. When Muslim nations cried out in protest because of the infamous Mohammed cartoon recently, I had a similar reaction; you don't have a right to not be offended, and the world doesn't revolve around your specific beliefs, so shut up and deal with it. Really, that applies to all religions; it just so happens that Muslims are a hot-button issue these days. Chrisitans are often just as bad.
Really, while I disliked some aspects of the film, I found some of it to be very refreshing. In particular, the film seemed to have an overall anti-religious bend; it wasn't about religious superiority (i.e. Spartan religion vs. Persian religion), but rather about dismissing mysticism in its entirety. Not only did Leonidus have disdain for Persian mysticism, he had disdain for his own people's mysticism.
The good aspect of the film, and actually of the graphic novel from which it came, is that it's a call for people to remember a time when we weren't so pussified. These days, we have people screaming about protecting our children from the evils of - *gasp* - nipples, or Prince playing his goddamn guitar, or video games, countered by people scared shitless about a bunch of religious wackjobs who live in mud huts. This nation has collectively flipped its shit, and 300 is a reminder that we used to have balls. The film is marred by its call to present-day jingoism, and its homophobia, but its good message is also quite clear and deserves to be remarked upon.
Uglyfred: I agree with you about 99%, but I have to comment on the portrayal of the women of Sparta. I think the portrayl of the women was more simply inconsistent rather than simply weak; do remember that Gorgo did stab that one guy, demostrating that real Spartans, even the women, are people of action. The real attitude of the Spartans towards their women wasn't that they were strong per se; they said of Sparta that even their women were strong. While Spartan women were strong, they were still second-class citizens. The nation is still mysoginistic, so they say that all Spartans, even the women, are stronger than everyone else. It's like me saying that Americans are so tough, even our toddlers can kick your ass. So, I don't think the film intended to show Spartan women as being strong in the same way that Beatrix Kiddo from Kill Bill or Zoe from Firefly are strong; rather, it wanted to show that strength and nationalistic pride runs through all Spartans, regardless of their standing in society.
Saying that you serve by the mandate of the people has nothing to do with your competency, it just means you got enough people to pick you over the other guy. Same goes for the Democrats in the legislature right now. They ran on the "we're not the Republicans" platform and now they are going around saying they have a mandate!
A one seat majority in the Senate does not a mandate make. (For those who can count, the Senate is actually split 49-49-2 with the two independents caucusing with the Democrats.)
I think 300 would have been fine if it came out in 1999. People will draw parallels to today's politics because they're there. Even if they were intended, I doubt they were the inspiration for the comic; instead, it's likely they influenced the comic merely by their presence. And who can blame the writers? Don't we all hear about politics every single god-damn day?
The point of the movie was "these guys are (quote)real men(unquote) who get things done...we should remember their example". It doesn't have to be about war. It's about a stereotypically masculine trait that can be very useful, if properly moderated by other traits, such as wisdom.
But as it applies to the war? Perhaps there are lessons to be learned:
The movie was clearly as dismissive of Spartan as Persian mysticism. I say, damn right! We should completely dismiss Islam. Any religion that incorporates brutal misogyny, advocates violence, and demands to be the most important religion in the world is automatically invalid. The existence of kinder, gentler Muslims in other countries and parts of the world is irrelevant; fervent belief in Islam leads to an unjust society with no respect for human rights. And if the solution is to be less extreme...well, if being *less* like the ultimate version of a thing makes you better, then being *not at all* like it would be best, no? And of course, I stand by this assertion for Christianity. I think the time of the old religions has come and gone, and they do far more harm than good.
As has been pointed out, it's a great allegory for a lot of difficult real-life problems. There was a nifty article linked on Digg (shouldn't be hard to find) that likened the Battle of Thermopylae to starting your own business. Very good points were made. Choose your battleground, ignore the soothsayers, stand by your idea and your team, be prepared to adapt to many dangers, and don't be afraid of the big, untouchable god.
I'm sure there are many equally-appropriate metaphors for how one should approach life and its problems, but this was a good one.
I think I'll go watch TMNT, another movie lambasted by ignorant sheep, and see if I can't find yet another diamond in the rough.
Perhaps no one pays attention to such things because they just complicate that whole nice, dramatic, East-vs-West thing with actual history.
In the end, I suppose my point is that it's an utterly nonsensical comparison for any number of reasons.
The extreme backlash to 300 really is mostly unwarranted and the issues people have with it are grossly exaggerated. You CAN draw parallels between the ultranationalist Spartans and the mindset of many neocons, so it's natural for some people to brand this a jingoistic movie. As Ken pointed out, there are a few blemishes on the film, and the problem is that those blemishes combined with the rest of the character of the film lend themselves towards such an interpretation. Indeed, if the "freedom" crap weren't in there, I think only true wackjobs would be yelling and screaming. I just choose to ignore those blemishes and enjoy the testosterone-filled goodness.
On a bit of an interesting note, my little brother had a bit of a different interpretation of the film. He saw the Spartans as being more akin to suicide bombers, and the army of Xerxes being more akin to the US military. Xerxes had a huge army with wonders unseen by anyone else, and yet couldn't manage to bring all this prowess to bear. He was arrogant and thought his way was the greatest. The Spartans had nothing and saw Xerxes as a threat to their way of life, and a handful willingly sacrificed themselves in order to strike a blow against the great behemoth.
So, as is true of any work of art, you can spin this all sorts of ways. The real problem are those few blemishes in the film; people latched onto those and then extrapolated them out to the rest of the film. It's not terribly surprising, really.
Alex: There was actually no particular mention of the religion of the Persians at all, just that their beliefs were non-Spartan, mystical, and decidedly heathen. The lack of definite identification allows people to draw whatever parallel they damn well please, which is what's going on here. The movie is quite interesting and fun; you should give it a watch.