Tuesday, March 13, 2007

More on the Movie "300"

Dr. Hamed Vahdati Nasab
Bad history, worse timing
Warner Brothers could not have found a worse time in history to release movie like "300"

As an archaeologist and as the author of one of the petitions against the movie 300, I would like to shed some light on some of the aspects of the movie 300. At the time of this publication the petition that started on March 4th, 2007 has exceeded 38,000 signatures.

Briefly, the movie portrays the famous battle of Thermopylae between the Persians and the Greeks that occurred in 480 B.C. During that battle, the Persian Imperial army had to cross a narrow gorge in order to reach the Greek mainland. The gorge was held by almost 300 Spartans backed by 4000-7000 Greek soldiers, and they managed to hold Persian army for few days.

Although there have been claims that the Persian soldiers numbered more than1 million, in actuality the correct number would have been somewhere around 200,000 since at that time, it would have been logistically impossible to mobilize 1 million army.

The movie demonstrates both Persians and Spartans on the eve of the battle. Interestingly enough, the way the film depicts the Spartans is more or less historically accurate, especially when it comes to their clothing, attitude, and internal historical political issues. However, when it comes to the Persian side, the film portrays an army of beasts, monsters and demons whose leader is a naked gender-confused King wearing a ridiculous number of piercing and chains!

There have been numerous claims pointing out that this movie is in a science fiction genre; therefore, these petitions are too passionate and needlessly serious. Science fiction by definition means “a genre (of literature, film, etc.) in which the setting differs from our own world (e.g. by the invention of new technology, through contact with aliens, by having a different history, etc.)”(Prucher, 2006).

According to this definition one might ask, how can we call the movie a fiction while it shows the actual events, places, and characters with their real names? And why is this so-called fiction only applied to demonize the Persian side? Everybody agrees that the battle of Thermopylae did happen, Leonidas was the name of the Spartan king, and Xerxes was indeed the Persian king. In the movie Persians were called by their actual names, and the only fictional part is to show the Persians as monstrous savages!

For these reasons, I am hesitant to call the movie 300, just a fictional movie. Insulting Persians by twisting the historical facts is as unjust as making a movie about Dr. Martin Luther King, picturing him as something different and calling it just “science fiction!”

Calling Persians barbarians and slave drivers is another unethical aspect of the movie 300. It is a proven scholarly fact that the Persian Empire in 480 B.C was the most magnificent and civilized empire. Persia was established by the Cyrus the Great, the author of the first human rights declaration. By pursuing a policy of generosity instead of repression, and by favoring local religions, the Persian Empire was able to inspire its newly conquered subjects to become enthusiastic supporters.

Frankly, it is fair to say that given the historical evidence, Persians were among the few nations who did not have slaves especially when it came to building their magnificent palaces. Clay tablets discovered by University of Chicago scholars in 1947 demonstrate that these royal palaces were built by workers who compensated based on their skills. This was in contrast to Egyptian and Roman architecture built on the backs of thousands of slaves.

While I’m certainly not a conspiracy theorist, I must say that Warner Brothers could not have found a worse time in history to release movie like 300. Given the conflict going on between Iran and some western countries, this could be translated as more support for inaccurate generalizations about Iran, and anything but a message of love between the West and Iran.

Dr. Hamed Vahdati Nasab is an Archaeologist at the Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Georgia, USA.

I must add that the outfits and headgear of the Persian infantry lend themselves more to the stereotypical garments of medieval Arabian and Islamic attire than to the ancient garb of the Persian army, while the elite Immortals have been given an East Asian guise. Whatever happened to the research department? Islam as a religion and culture did not even exist in that era. Christianity and Islam were hundreds and hundreds of years away. Does Frank Miller think the Persian Empire was an Islamic Empire?? It sure looks that way. Maybe we need to send him a few copies of Encyclopedia Iranica…

There are many anti-IR, anti-Islam Iranian groups and resistance movements working actively against further Islamization and Arabization of Iran and the Mullahs. This movie sends a very wrong message and has already resulted in not only getting these resistance movements somewhat offside, but also given reason to the Mullahs to take advantage of the movie and further claim the Persian civilization and Islam as one and the same while they are feverishly trying to destroy anything pre-Islamic in Iran (Sivand dam fiasco,e.g.). It is akin to I claiming that Greeks & Macedonians were Christians during Alexander’s time, it would make me an ignorant person and right off the bat I will be discredited and not taken seriously.

Next thing we know the mullahs will claim that Cyrus and Darius were really Muslims in disguise! Therefore, the makers of the movie are reinforcing the Mullahs’ stance, even if they don’t realize it. Kudos to Frank Miller for providing more materials for the Islamist’s propaganda machinary; those whom we are supposedly in an ideological war with.

h/t to Iranian plateau

3 comments:

Unknown said...

I think you're assigning a gravity to this movie that simply doesn't exist. In countless interviews with Zack Snyder, the director, and Frank Miller, upon whose graphic novel the movie is based, we see no intent to use the movie as a polemic. (See Slate or the thousand gamer websites out there.)

Plain and simple: this is a stereotypical American action/sci-fi movie. Americans love action (violence) and the underdog (fighting against all odds). Add in some posturing about freedom and you've got a guaranteed hit.

It's a story of the underdog. It's packed with over-the-top violence. It has a clearly-defined Bad Guy. It has lots of blood. And.That's.It.

Academics aren't going to see this movie. This movie is marketed to one type of person only: the videogame-playing, bloodlusting teenage boy or young man. These guys don't care if it's Greeks, Persians, accurate, or inaccurate. They go to see the slow-motion, ballet-like spear thrusts and accompanying paint-spray of blood across the screen. Witness the multiple beheadings. The ten-minute sequences where scores of people die. Even the gratuitous nudity proves the director knows, and is catering to, his audience: hormone-soaked guys looking for creative new death scenes and some T&A.

This movie legitimately could have been the story of 300 New Yorkers fighting an army of guys from Jersey over the L-train. Or the Crips vs. the Bloods for control of South Central LA. The point of the movie has nothing to do with depictions of Persians, nor Greeks. It was all about the underdog. Blood. Violence. A clearly-defined Good Guy vs. a clearly-defined Bad Guy. Nothing more.

That many people have discussed the movie, its depiction of Persians, inaccuracies, etc. is a positive sign to me. It shows me there are a lot more thinking people than I had previously assumed. It shows they are not taking this movie as historical fact. It shows this science-fiction/action film is being treated as such: fiction.

Finally, I went to the film. Mostly guys. Mostly teens and early-twenties. Post-film, I heard nothing about bigotry, anti-Islam, historical inaccuracy, or any other heady topic. I did, however, hear a thousand versions of this: “Did you see it when that dude’s spear went through the other guy’s chest? Did you see the blood actually fly off the spear and spatter ON THE SCREEN?! That was wild!”

Anonymous said...

I think you're assigning a gravity to this movie that simply doesn't exist. In countless interviews with Zack Snyder, the director, and Frank Miller, upon whose graphic novel the movie is based, we see no intent to use the movie as a polemic. (See Slate or the thousand gamer websites out there.)

Plain and simple: this is a stereotypical American action/sci-fi movie. Americans love action (violence) and the underdog (fighting against all odds). Add in some posturing about freedom and you've got a guaranteed hit.

It's a story of the underdog. It's packed with over-the-top violence. It has a clearly-defined Bad Guy. It has lots of blood. And.That's.It.

Academics aren't going to see this movie. This movie is marketed to one type of person only: the videogame-playing, bloodlusting teenage boy or young man. These guys don't care if it's Greeks, Persians, accurate, or inaccurate. They go to see the slow-motion, ballet-like spear thrusts and accompanying paint-spray of blood across the screen. Witness the multiple beheadings. The ten-minute sequences where scores of people die. Even the gratuitous nudity proves the director knows, and is catering to, his audience: hormone-soaked guys looking for creative new death scenes and some T&A.

This movie legitimately could have been the story of 300 New Yorkers fighting an army of guys from Jersey over the L-train. Or the Crips vs. the Bloods for control of South Central LA. The point of the movie has nothing to do with depictions of Persians, nor Greeks. It was all about the underdog. Blood. Violence. A clearly-defined Good Guy vs. a clearly-defined Bad Guy. Nothing more.

That many people have discussed the movie, its depiction of Persians, inaccuracies, etc. is a positive sign to me. It shows me there are a lot more thinking people than I had previously assumed. It shows they are not taking this movie as historical fact. It shows this science-fiction/action film is being treated as such: fiction.

Finally, I went to the film. Mostly guys. Mostly teens and early-twenties. Post-film, I heard nothing about bigotry, anti-Islam, historical inaccuracy, or any other heady topic. I did, however, hear a thousand versions of this: “Did you see it when that dude’s spear went through the other guy’s chest? Did you see the blood actually fly off the spear and spatter ON THE SCREEN?! That was wild!”

SERENDIP said...

Academics aren't going to see this movie. This movie is marketed to one type of person only: the videogame-playing, bloodlusting teenage boy or young man. These guys don't care if it's Greeks, Persians, accurate, or inaccurate.

There lies the problem. These are the type of guys who will probably will have to go to Iran and fight the evil mullahs and their minions.


Dear Kayle: Initially I felt exactly the same way. I even commented on a few blogs that it's the same thing as the Italian-American's objection to the TV series, "The Sopranos" when it first came out...however as you mentioned in your comment and as I read the Yahoo's forum where Frank Miller himself is asking the question" what have you learned from this movie?" and after sifting through more than 40,000 responses, I realized that the public perception is being shaped in a very negative way and that's what compelled me to write this piece. Thank you for stopping by. Look forward to future visits and inputs.