So, just got back from seeing 300 with Grace. Damn good film... so long as you only watch the scenes that appeared in the book and run like hell to get out of the theater when they roll out the 'don't pull out of iraq' propoganda. I did quite like the 'Molon Lave' scene though, but I wish the Phantom had shouted it in greek.
I didn't really see Iraq war propaganda in the film, or view it as an attack on certain nationalities, I just kind of took it as a dumb action film. Once it was pointed out to me afterwards though I did see how it could be seen that way and I undertstand why the Iranian government apparently protested. They should start calling themselves Persia again anyway. People associate Iran with nuclear research and torturers called Sayeed lost on mysterious islands, whereas people associate Persia with pretty rugs. Anyway, propaganda or not, I thought the film was poo.
Oh yeah, was sure I'd seen it written as Sayeed somewhere, probably a common error. But more importantly, if Iraq have Sayid as you point out, what do Iran have going for them? Excuse me while I google for Iranian celebrities...
I remember walking out of the theater and hearing some guy tell his friends that the movie made him sick with all of it's "pro-war atmosphere." Well yeah, it's pro-war. The Spartans were pretty pro-all-things-death weren't they? We're talking about one of the most martial cultures the world has seen what did you expect? That being said the "freedom isn't free" line was a bit forced... Also, I know it's not new, but I love this video: YouTube - Black20 Trailer Park: 300 - PG Version
There was propaganda in that film ?:shock: Didn't see it (the propaganda), enjoyed the film, don't care.
OK, what about the insertion of a character whose sole job was to be a metaphor for the UN? He was the politician who did the speech about how Leonidas shouldn't have broken the rules by going to war. He basically presented a (slightly distorted) summary of the UN view on the Iraq war, then proceeded to rape the Queen. Then there was the insertion of the scene where the Queen has to go before Congress - oh, sorry, the Spartan Council - to present the case for keeping troops in the war zone and sending a new wave to help them. Perhaps if you've read Frank Miller's comic, the insertions are more obvious, and the ideology they're pushing is therefore easier to identify. But the insidious identification of the UN or anti-war voices with a treacherous character who accepts bribes, rapes women, betrays his country, tells lies and is willing to accept slavery for his people, was both flagrant and morally reprehensible, in my opinion. It's not that the Spartans were pro-war. It's that the edits to this story were pro-Iraq-war, and, specifically, pro- Bush/Republican strategies. There were also the repeated reminders that the Greeks (who, we were reminded, represent 'Europa') were facing a great army of darkness, all the armies of the East, all the armies of Asia. That in itself is fair enough - I don't have a problem with history, or with a slightly dramatised version of history. But the idea that the forces of the East - all black or Arabic looking - are a real threat, an unstoppable tide of immorality, bringing slavery, forced religious change and subjugation of women, is far more heavily stated and reinforced than in the comic, which is another point towards pushing an agenda of racism and fear, along with the notion that destruction by these forces is inevitable if a war is not started against them Basically, this film inserted into the story an equation of war (specifically, war against numberless, faceless, Arabic forces) representing freedom, individuality and equality between the sexes, and the case against the Iraq war (specifically, not the case for pacifism generally, but the actual case made against invading Iraq) representing slavery, rape, treachery, greed, sexual deviancy and questionable religious practices. Before I had seen the film, I heard about the protests against it, and thought they were ridiculous. Having read the comic, and knowing the story of the Spartans at Thermopylae, I thought they were making a fuss about nothing. Now that I've seen the film, I know exactly what they were talking about. The bits that are based on the actual story are good on their own - but coupled with the rest, this is the most flagrant piece of propaganda produced in my life time that I have ever seen. I am disappointed that a good film was ruined, and dismayed that so many people who I would expect to have been trained in analysis of literature and media seem to have swallowed the whole thing without question.
Now you spell it out (I haven't read the comics), yeah, I guess there must have been something there that shouldn't have been, but honestly, 300 wasn't the kind of film I would spontaneously bother to analyse, I didn't go to see it to think about hidden agendas or propaganda or the iraqui war(s), I went to see a bunch of guys in skirts fight other guys in skirts... I have learned to analyse things at school, and still do, but there are quite a few things I wouldn't waste brain-minutes on unless specifically told to, 300 is one of those films. I wouldn't even bother picking about historical bloopers unless they were particularly blatent. It's Hollywood talking about Ancient Greece, what else needs to be said ? And no way would a film like that have a small ice sculpture's chance in midsummer hell of making me change my mind about something as important as that, so as far as I'm concerned, if there is voluntary propaganda there, it's not working all that well, and if there are people dumb enough to change their minds based on something like that, then they probably didn't wait to see the film, any evening news bulletin would do.
Saw the film, enjoyed the pretty visuals, thoroughly shut off my brain in order to spare it from the encroaching silliness... but the silliness made it through, and it HURT. My suggestion - watch it on the DVD with the sound muted .
I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the description here it sounds just as politicized as V for Vendetta was. Though in that case, the propaganda was for the opposite side. The government's faked terrorist attack suddenly became so main a feature that it nearly overshadowed the entire movie plot, the way the dictatorship was, oh-so-very surprisingly, that of religious intolerant people who hate homosexuals, another aspect of the story that one has to wonder why it was brought so... violently... to the fore of the movie. There were a few other questionable scenes in the movie that I remember, mainly anti-Republican stereotypes. But oh well, I only really watched the movie for the cliche sentences and the slow-motion knife battles. Good enough for me.
Historical (and possibly incorrect) nitpick here... I've been told by my philosophy teacher, who is a sort of fountain of all knowledge when it comes to thinks Greek and ancient, that while the real Spartans were extremely militant and disciplined, they actually tried to avoid getting involved in war if they could. This isn't exactly pro-all-things-death. I've only seen the trailer for 300, but this is a bit different to the let's-all-kick-each-other's-arses fest that came across in that. Of course, a trailer for an action film of this type isn't really going to be filled with much else, but from what I've heard, the film itself doesn't really have a great deal more plot.
Very good point. Chris, your teacher knows more about it than me I'm sure. I'm exagerrating a bit with the all death thing, the point I just wanted to make was that I find it a bit funny that people were complaining about a movie based on one of the greatest battles of all time was too martial in nature. All in all I really liked the movie for its mindless violent entertainment and the perrdy visuals.
That's the reason I wanted to see it - I like a good popcorn film. Still, if you sense that the filmmakers are hamfistedly trying to direct their political views towards you--in a film that's supposed to be just some mindless violence and pretty graphics--well, it'd annoy me. From what I gather, it's not the fact the story or the fights or whatever were 'too martial' in themselves, but that the filmmakers were trying to use them in a propaganda-ish way. But again, I haven't seen this film yet. I feel less inclined to than I did, but I would like to see for myself (and enjoy a good, mindless film).
I went to see the film because it's an amazing story, the visuals are heavily based on Miller's book (which is amazing) and because there were going to be men in skirts fighting other men in skirts. Nester, you are mistaken if you think I have a problem with the film being martial or being about a martial people (though CJ makes an excellent point about Spartan culture). I have a problem with a political viewpoint being thrust down my throat and, with it, fucking up what was otherwise a perfectly good historical action film. Edit to add: Katcal, I think it's probably not as evident if you haven't read the comic and aren't aware what's been inserted, but I didn't think the agenda was exactly "hidden".
I didn't mean to say that you had a problem with the martial nature, I was just commenting on a conversation I overheard as I left the theater. And your reaction to this one was basically my reaction to V for Vendetta. So hey, Hollywood evens out. I may not agree with the message entirely, but it was still an enjoyable movie.
I haven't seen V for Vendetta, but I didn't dislike the propaganda in 300 because it was pro-Republican (though that did mean I disagreed with the thrust of it), I disliked it because it was blatant propaganda in a film that was not a party political broadcast. I would also dislike it in V for Vendetta, or any other film, whichever side it's promoting. This thread is not about "Republicans are bad", it's about "political propaganda in Hollywood is bad".
Um, Grace? I don't think anyone here implied that you disliked the movie because you didn't agree with the propaganda.
Haven't seen 300, and don't intend to, but I loved my friend's boyfriend's impression of it (I think he was trying to persuade one of our gay friends to go with them and watch it again: "Well, let me put it this way: *I* came away with a great appreciation for the male form."
I think Nester did. Which is partly based on assumptions that draw on conversations we've had in the past, and partly based on things he's said in this thread that would otherwise be complete non sequiturs. I could be completely wrong, of course.
i was reading this the other day: "...if the mind is computational, if our emotions, ideas, expressions are the sum, at an absolute base level, of chemical interactions, then literature is a kind of programming; it's a means of manipulating the native code of the brain and forcing it to compile images and experiences that it would otherwise not experience." (from here) extending the concept to film and i guess every other sort of media: where do we draw the line between an expression or message that isn't propoganda and one that is? everything we see and experience influences us... so when exactly does that influence become unwelcome or overbearing? is there a line we can draw?
Any writer, artist, etc is going to at least subconsciously reflect themselves and their outlooks in their work. The difference is, I think, between asking open questions and offering your own outlook as opposed to closed questions and seeking to answer them for the reader/audience in a very conscious effort to get them to see it your way (e.g. propaganda, allegory).
Sorry, I guess in my absence I became a bit touchy. Plus I just re-zoned the entire Current Events section in the book store and that's enough to make anyone go insane. "Your side is dumb!" "Well your side smells funny" etc etc... I still think it was a good movie just as I still think Vendetta was a good movie. Both were dragged down and made a little worse, but on the whole I still think they were both entertaining. Just sit down, turn the brain off for a while and watch the bad guys die. Greatly enjoyable.
Heh. I'll tell you what, if you can ignore the crap, I found the rest of 300 greatly enjoyable. It certainly looks as good as the comic.
Lots of Hollywood films shove certain views at the viewer. Watch a Spike Lee "joint". 300 was a bit over the top though. I didn't feel it so much as pro Iraq war though, as pro "lets go get those Iranians". And why did Xerxes look and sound like Goa'uld, and where did he get so many African generals from? Oh, and for the free and noble Spartans, no mention of the Helots. Overall, decent movie, if you know what you are getting. I much prefer the original film.
Please all note that although I totally agree with this and wondered the same thing myself, Brad was the one to bring it up, so he's the Stargate geek, not me :biggrin:
I thought I should have known that name, i'm no fanatric but if i find it I watch it. Especially for RDA.
