300 Ban?

[Steezie]

I was watching 300 the other day (My favorite movie of all-freakin-time) and talking in EVE local while mining, I mentioned that I was watching 300 but one woman in particular expressed disdain. Her response was "I just...I HATE that movie, its disgusting and it offends me to the very core my beliefs." She wouldnt really elaborate further and Im confused.

I've seen a lot of flak targeted at 300 for it being offensive. I see usual justifications like violence, sex, nudity etc etc but some people insist its deeper than that. What is so offensive about the ideas presented in the movie?

 

[cantata]

I've seen a lot of flak targeted at 300 for it being offensive. I see usual justifications like violence, sex, nudity etc etc but some people insist its deeper than that. What is so offensive about the ideas presented in the movie?

Some people think the film polarises the conflict between 'East' and 'West' and that it is inflammatory in today's political climate. In particular, some viewers were offended by the portrayal of the ancient Persians, particularly, unsurprisingly, the Iranians.

I haven't seen it, so I'm loath to pass judgement. The controversy was not particularly to do with the explicit content, but the alleged political ideology.

 

[Futuwwa]

As one commentator said, the depiction of the Persians in 300 is so outrageously silly that I doubt there's much risk that anyone would take it seriously. Anyone who does so is probably beyond redemption anyway.

For those who have not seen the movie, this analogy should suffice: Imagine a movie made by the Third Reich Film Industry, telling the story of the 300 heroic (and tall, blonde and extremely hunky!) Nazi stormtroopers who stood against the million-big horde of Commie Mutant Russkies who came howling for their blood, supported by lightning-spitting Siberian polar bears, all led by Comrade Stalin the transsexual drag-queen

 

[Hnefi]

The Persians in the movie have been mythologized, just like the wolf, the rhino and the elephants. It's actually very well done; the movie is, after all, narrated by someone who had never seen those creatures or that people before; what was shown on the screen looked very much like someone would describe those things after having seen them for the first time in those conditions.

If people are offended by 300, they need to get a sense of perspective and some self-distance.

 

[jwu]

Is Hollywood's writers' guild still on strike? You could make some money there...

 

[selfinflikted]

Excellent movie, although I'm not too sure what it was about. I was too busy being distracted by the scantily-clad gorgeous hunks, and the overall homoerocity (is that even a word?) of the film. *drool*

 

[Athene]

I was watching 300 the other day (My favorite movie of all-freakin-time) and talking in EVE local while mining, I mentioned that I was watching 300 but one woman in particular expressed disdain. Her response was "I just...I HATE that movie, its disgusting and it offends me to the very core my beliefs." She wouldnt really elaborate further and Im confused.

I've seen a lot of flak targeted at 300 for it being offensive. I see usual justifications like violence, sex, nudity etc etc but some people insist its deeper than that. What is so offensive about the ideas presented in the movie?

After a quick google search, it seems that some people thought it was racist. *shrugs*

 

[PetersKeys]

Some people think the film polarises the conflict between 'East' and 'West' and that it is inflammatory in today's political climate. In particular, some viewers were offended by the portrayal of the ancient Persians, particularly, unsurprisingly, the Iranians.

I haven't seen it, so I'm loath to pass judgement. The controversy was not particularly to do with the explicit content, but the alleged political ideology.

yea lotsa Iranians HATE that movie because it portrays them as evil and bad.

 

[keith99]

As one commentator said, the depiction of the Persians in 300 is so outrageously silly that I doubt there's much risk that anyone would take it seriously. Anyone who does so is probably beyond redemption anyway.

For those who have not seen the movie, this analogy should suffice: Imagine a movie made by the Third Reich Film Industry, telling the story of the 300 heroic (and tall, blonde and extremely hunky!) Nazi stormtroopers who stood against the million-big horde of Commie Mutant Russkies who came howling for their blood, supported by lightning-spitting Siberian polar bears, all led by Comrade Stalin the transsexual drag-queen

I have not seen the film. But your description fits with where I think I might have an objection. Those who died at Thermopolie were real men. The vast majority of the Greeks who did die were 'The 300', Spartans who remained with their King and Thebans who also refused to retreat. Brave men, men who stayed knowing they would die since their retreat would be cut off. Men who died so their civilization (which is generally thought to be the roots of modern western democracy) could live. If this film does in fact reduce them to comic book characters then yes I find it offensive. BUT all that said if the film is worse in that respect than I can picture the reputation of those men can survive th insult.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

It was offensive. That movie was so abhorantly bad it made a mockery of actually good films. And THAT is very offensive. Of course I'm kidding. It was terrible as a movie because it was basically just a dramatic MySpace-esque opportunity for the actors to get a bunch of ladies in theatres swooning at them. To be fair though, Meet the Spartans was far worse, as are most parody movies nowadays.

People find everything offensive. It's why I'll probably never get my novel published.

 

[Steezie]

I have not seen the film. But your description fits with where I think I might have an objection. Those who died at Thermopolie were real men. The vast majority of the Greeks who did die were 'The 300', Spartans who remained with their King and Thebans who also refused to retreat. Brave men, men who stayed knowing they would die since their retreat would be cut off. Men who died so their civilization (which is generally thought to be the roots of modern western democracy) could live. If this film does in fact reduce them to comic book characters then yes I find it offensive. BUT all that said if the film is worse in that respect than I can picture the reputation of those men can survive th insult.

It actually greatly glorifies the 300 and while it does downplay somewhat the role of the Thespians, its still something I think Leonidas would have been proud of

 

[Futuwwa]

Glorifies, perhaps, but hardly portrays them like they would have wanted. There is a reason for why "Laconian" has come to mean dour, short-spoken and generally no-nonsense. I think few real Spartan hoplites would have identified with the testosterone-dripping hoo-ah and macho BS the movie was about.

 

[Verv]

I was watching 300 the other day (My favorite movie of all-freakin-time) and talking in EVE local while mining, I mentioned that I was watching 300 but one woman in particular expressed disdain. Her response was "I just...I HATE that movie, its disgusting and it offends me to the very core my beliefs." She wouldnt really elaborate further and Im confused.

I've seen a lot of flak targeted at 300 for it being offensive. I see usual justifications like violence, sex, nudity etc etc but some people insist its deeper than that. What is so offensive about the ideas presented in the movie?

The writer and the director are both Conservatives and one of them said that even though the original intention of it was not to draw parallels between the US and their struggle against terrorism, they are still happy that the Leftists are taking the movie poorly.

It is about America the Great vanquishing the Islamist barbarians who live without any freedom and as the Persians to Xerxes, slaves to Mohammed. Both are irrational men who thought themselves great for their conquests and exploits and did not leave Holy lives. Both promised physical pleausres to those who fight for them.

 

[keith99]

It actually greatly glorifies the 300 and while it does downplay somewhat the role of the Thespians, its still something I think Leonidas would have been proud of

I don't think the Spartans would have been to thrilled to fight beside actors.

 

[TheManeki]

The writer and the director are both Conservatives and one of them said that even though the original intention of it was not to draw parallels between the US and their struggle against terrorism, they are still happy that the Leftists are taking the movie poorly.

It is about America the Great vanquishing the Islamist barbarians who live without any freedom and as the Persians to Xerxes, slaves to Mohammed. Both are irrational men who thought themselves great for their conquests and exploits and did not leave Holy lives. Both promised physical pleausres to those who fight for them.

The writer? You mean Frank Miller? The same one who pilloried Reagan and cold war politics in Batman: The Dark Night Returns?

 

[Baggins]

I would have thought that Miller would have been better characterised as a libertarian rather than as a Conservative.

I could be wrong

 

[WatersMoon110]

I don't find it offensive, just not very historically accurate. It does amuse me that the Spartans were portrayed as freemen and the Persians used slave, when in reality the Spartans were slaves and the Persians had a free army. At least, I think so.

 

[DaisyRose]

All I can say is that I absolutely love this film; sometimes I think people read to much into things and try to draw parallels with other things so that they are then 'offended' by something. 300 is a great film; cleverly computerised, great acting, a film that is able to tell the story of a race of people that were prepared to die for a cause that meant alot to them (obviously I am not at all condoniing this in all cases ) and overall, what a film is supposed to be: ENTERTAINING.

Just sit back and enjoy rather than searching for hidden meaning and things that might offend you (not directed at anyone in particular and no offence meant)....ohh and by the way, the reason that it may seem bias is because everything always is; films/books/plays are more often than not told from one perspective. If you think about it, they have to be. This allows an audience a sense of camoradery (sp?) with certain characters enabling them to feel involved in the story and overall a sense of justice when the film ends and their 'heroes' win, effectively. Obviously the audience's 'heroes' are inflicted upon us as the writer's/director's opinions are effectively our own after watching the film; again, bias.

But this is just how films are usually made and audiences are usually satisfied with this method as it is done relatively subconciously (obviously i have picked this up but I am a film student so I find it hard not too hehe. Again, though, films' main purposes are to entertain, usually not to offend otherwise they woould never make any profit or have an audience following.

Anyway, after the essay, lets just get back to watching films for the entertainment value, as that is all they are really made for (obviously this doesn't apply too all films because it is a sweeping generalisation but i feel that it does apply to 300 and many others)

300 is an excellent movie!!!

Love DaisyRose

 

[Futuwwa]

I don't find it offensive, just not very historically accurate. It does amuse me that the Spartans were portrayed as freemen and the Persians used slave, when in reality the Spartans were slaves and the Persians had a free army. At least, I think so.

Actually, pretty much every civilization practiced slavery at the time, Spartans and Persians included. The difference you are referring to is probably that the Persians did not use slaves in their army, while the Spartans used slaves as light infantry to support the phalanx of citizens.

 

[Futuwwa]

It is about America the Great vanquishing the Islamist barbarians who live without any freedom and as the Persians to Xerxes, slaves to Mohammed. Both are irrational men who thought themselves great for their conquests and exploits and did not leave Holy lives. Both promised physical pleausres to those who fight for them.

Does that mean that Leonidas is really an allegory for Bush?

THIS IS FREEEDOOOOOOOM!

Oh, wait, that was Mel Gibson.