I'm not sure their complaints have anything to do with religion. From what I can tell, it's more about their historical identity.
oh, i don't care about the religion thing. i kinda sorta maybeish sympathize with their complaints ONLY because China has gotten the same treatment in some movies. Clint did Iwo Jima to show the opposing side and give it a face, so I guess the Iranians probably wonder why theere couldn't be a movie about the Persian's point of view.
For the last decades russians and other eastern european country people have had the same treatment in Movies.
Completely agree. That's really the only reason I felt 'uneasy' about this movie in the first place. Granted, I probably take history more seriously than the average Joe, so I have a hard time accepting mindless, largely fictional movies that are themed around a true historical event. Whether most people realize it or not, Hollywood movies have been used in the past -- and I would argue still are -- as mere propaganda to demonize certain cultures/ethnic groups and reinforce the government's agenda or the general perception of a particular group of people; this was not uncommon during WWII era or the Cold War, or even the countless movie roles during the 80's and early 90's that demonized Muslims in the same way Russians, Japanese, and Germans were before them. In the case of '300', the only thing deemed worthy is the mindless brave Spartan who's determined to die on what amounts to a suicide mission, while the rest of Greece is scorned for their 'philosophy' and the fact that some of them hold daytime jobs and are only warriors by night. Of course, in reality, not only were the Athenians instrumental in ultimately forcing the Persians to withdraw and accept defeat (more so than the Spartans, most would argue), but their civilization was far more 'worthy' than that of Sparta's, which besides their military accomplishments ended up contributing far less to human civilization than, say, the Athenians did, at least in terms of high culture. Even Paul Cartledge, a published Ancient Greece historian who's rather fond of the Lacedaemonians (aka Spartans), narrowed Spartan contributions to the West down to their 'competitiveness' and refusal to surrender their freedom to anyone. BTW, I recommend his book "Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World" for reading, because despite his transparent love for everything Spartan, it's an entertaining and thorough account of the events.
You know what? **** IRAN !!! I am outraged at how they are treating their own people TODAY, and over the last 20 years !! As soon as they clean up their own house, then they can b**** and moan about a FRICKEN movie based upon a graphic novel.....you know a COMIC BOOK ! PISS on the Iranian leadership !! DD
I'm not sure how many Russian or other Eastern European films you have seen, but it would be like to pot calling to kettle black to complain in this regard.
I'm not sure if you understand me. What i meant was that in the last decades in a lot of Hollywood/other movies the russians have always been the bad guys, and they have always been a stereotype.
I do understand you. What I am saying is that Russian and Eastern European films have their own stereotypes which are more excessively stereotypical than the stereotypes shown in Hollywood films.
I personally think they are ticked off because this film was made digitally and is showing in DLP projectors plus when it comes on HD DVD or BluRay, the millions of Americans with HDTVs will see the glory!! HDTV !!!! FOREVER!!!
Foreign cinema does not even come close to the influence that American cinema has. Besides, if you're an American of Iranian, Russian, whatever descent, it does suck to constantly have your people made fun of, regardless if what anti-American films are being made abroad, seeing how, most likely you're not watching those anyways.
uesday, Mar. 13, 2007 300 Versus 70 Million Iranians By Azadeh Moaveni/Tehran All of Tehran was outraged. Everywhere I went yesterday, the talk vibrated with indignation over the film 300 — a movie no one in Iran has seen but everyone seems to know about since it became a major box office surprise in the U.S. As I stood in line for a full hour to buy ajeel, a mixture of dried fruits and nuts traditional to the start of Persian new year festivities, I felt the entire queue, composed of housewives with pet dogs, teenagers, and clerks from a nearby ministry, shake with fury. I hadn't even heard of the film until that morning when a screed about it came on the radio, so I was able to nod darkly with the rest of the shoppers, savoring a moment of public accord so rare in Tehran. Everywhere else I went, from the dentist to the flower shop, Iranians buzzed with resentment at the film's depictions of Persians, adamant that the movie was secretly funded by the U.S. government to prepare Americans for going to war against Iran. "Otherwise why now, if not to turn their people against us?" demanded an elderly lady buying tuberoses. "Yes, truly it is a grave offense," I said, shaking my own bunch of irises. I returned home to discover my family in a similar state of pique. My sister-in-law sat behind her laptop, sending off an e-mail petition against the film to half of Tehran, while my husband leafed through a book on the Achaemenid Empire, noting that Herodotus had estimated the Persian army at 120,000 men, not one million as the film claimed. The morning newspaper lay on the table with the headline "300 AGAINST 70 MILLION!" (the population of the country). It was echoed by the evening news: "Hollywood has opened a new front in the war against Iran." The timing of the computer-generated film, which depicts the ancient confrontation of Sparta and the Persian empire at the Battle of Thermopylae, is certainly inauspicious. It falls on the eve of Norouz, Persian new year, a time when Iranians typically gather in proud celebration, observing rites that date back over 3,000 years, way before Islam, to the age of Zoroastrianism, when their ancient land produced the world's first monotheistic religion. It is not a particularly welcome season to be portrayed as pillaging, deranged savages. Since the entire country will be on two weeks of official holiday, there will be no shortage of time to sit about discussing the slight and what it portends for Iran's current confrontation with the United States. For a people prone to conspiracy logic, the box office success of 300, compared with the relative flop of Alexander (another spurious period epic dealing with Persians) is cause for considerable alarm, signaling ominous U.S. intentions. While the hullabaloo over 300 may dampen Iranians' holiday spirits, it offers common cause between people and their estranged government. Top officials and parliament have scorned the film as though it were a matter of state, and for the first time in a long while, taxi drivers are shaking their fists in agreement when the state news comes on. Agreeing that 300 is egregious drivel is fairly easy. I'm relatively mellow as Iranian nationalists go, and even I found myself applauding when the government spokesman described the film as fabrication and insult. Iranians view the Achaemenid empire as a particularly noble page in their history and cannot understand why it has been singled out for such shoddy cinematic treatment, as the populace here perceives it, with the Persians in rags and its Great King practically naked. The Achaemenid kings, who built their majestic capital at Persepolis, were exceptionally munificent for their time. They wrote the world's earliest recorded human rights declaration, and were opposed to slavery. Cuneiform plates show that Persepolis was built by paid staff rather than slaves And any Iranian child who has visited Persepolis can tell you that its preserved reliefs depict court dress of velvet robes, and that if anyone was wearing rags around 500 B.C., it wasn't the Persians. It is going to take an act of foolhardy courage to distribute that film in Iran. It will truly be 70 million against 300. * Find this article at: * http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1598886,00.html
agree 100% on another note what is it about countries that lose all their wars directing all their "we have a chip on our shoulder hate" at the US. ie. Iran France
Yea...I was thinking about the number of people over there and the number of times a day their chanting "Death to America". I mean...they do that a lot and daily. Somehow, I don't give a crap if their offended. I know that a lot of people over there will try to explain that phrase as really directed against the US government and not a literal interpretation meant to convey death to all Americans. But, if that's the case, then why do they say it? Say what you mean and, if that's not what you mean, then don't say it. When I hear that, I think of someone wanting to literally kill everyone in America and disintegrate the country to oblivion...not take down the government and replace it with an Iranian-friendly government. And, they get upset at a Hollywood film that is no way an interpretation or representation of anyone other than the very few people who made it. But, if we go see it, then we are going as part of an anti-Iranian campaign and that is why it is so popular...cause we want war. Believe me...Americans don't need to be stirred up against Persians. Iranians seem to be pretty good at bringing that on themselves with no help from anyone.
But how badly did the Iranian government treat their people? Did they torture and massacre people like Saddam? Based on what I read, they don't treat their people any worse than the Chinese government. They even have elections (although the candidates are hand-picked. Well but then our candidates are more or less hand-picked by the small interests).
The current secret police is as bad if not worse in terms of arbitrariness and torture as the one under the Shah. They are definately more repressive than the Chinese government as I understand it. http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran
