Persians in 300

[InconceivableTruth]

Jesus Christ I'm really tired of this shit: To Iranians, you are not Persian! Persia was destroyed by Alexander the Great! Then after it was reformed, it was conquered by the Ottoman Empire over 500 ears ago! You don't see Italians running around calling themselves Romans, do you? Sorry that shit just really pisses me off.

"Persia" was not destroyed after Alexander the Great. The Seleucids were overthrown by the Parthians and the Sassanids succeeded them. The Sassanids were huge enemies of the Romans by the way. "Persia" wasn't even destroyed by the Arabs because they assimilated into their culture. Look at Ferdowsi, for example. He wrote an epic based off Zoroastrianism using parsi whilst maintaining an Islamic viewpoint. I don't understand what you mean by "destroyed", and another thing:

You see, Iran was always called Iran. "The name Iran has been in use natively since the Sassanian era". This was before the 600 AD and the Arabic invasion.

Also, watch some of Reza Shah's "parties".

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Okay i know this may sound pedantic but its been annoying me a bit
The Prince of Persia review in escape to the movies finally prompted me to write this
cos of people complaining about how persians are portrayed in 300 making them look like....well idiots

According to the only history anyone bothered to remember (apparantly) they time and again assaulted a Greek formation in a narrow pass and were beaten back with tremendous casualties. Later they lost that very war in spite of allegedly having more soldiers than the city-states had citizens. Thus we have the Persians attempting to assault a position where their strength (mobility and numbers) was useless and the Greek's strengths (heavy armor, excellent close order combat ability) were amplified. I'd call that the very epitome of stupid, especially when such disasters inevitably lost a war they had no excuse to lose.

I have a persian friend who thinks its downright racist

It's the dramatization of a piece of history only known through legend. It can hardly be counted as containing more than a few grains of truth. Namely, that the Greeks fought a battle with the Persians and put up a heroic fight that they eventually lost. Later, the Persians lost the war. Since the story was written by the victors (the Greeks), I find it strange you would believe the Persians would be portrayed positively in any fashion.

but my opinion is that 300 is told from the viewpoint of the spartans and of course they would tell the story like that
Its done all the time throught history and this is the battle seen through spartan eyes
told by the persians it might show the spartans as demons with regenerative powers or something
Im sorry if someone brought this up already or if were way past this....but i had to say it
It wasnt a rubbish portrayal of persians cos it wasnt a documentary, it was the story of the battle glorified by Dilios (David Wenham)

rant over
thank you

I see absolutely no problem with the portrayal of the film. Events in recent memory demonstrate how rapidly the facts are lost and replaced with myth. This tale is well over two millenia old and the particulars are virtually impossible to verify. A battle was fought - that much is generally agreed upon but the rest, from the numbers of greeks on the field (it ranges from 300 to several thousand once you include slaves and other greek armies) to the number of persians involved (50,000 - 1,000,000+) to the actual impact of the battle (was it a delaying action intentionally or did the Greeks actually hope to win). Those depicted are so long dead that even their bones are lost to the ages. The empire that was bested by the greek rabble has all but crumbled. The culture of the time is long forgotten. The tale serves as little more than a lesson on military strategy and a compelling and reassuring legend for western civilization - to expect it to serve as social commentary is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Z(ombie)fan]

300 (comic book) wasn't supposed to historically accurate.

Therefore, 300 (movie) wasn't going to be either.

And anyone who takes the movie seriously enough to be offended by it should be slapped by every other person on the planet.

ME FIRST! I LIKE TO SLAP PEOPLE!

...

oh so THATs why...

oh well. ill say sorry later.

 

[ryuutchi]

Yeah, the movie is offensive, because it's ridiculously racist (and sexist, hello randomly raping the queen! Oh, Frank Miller, can't you write anything about women without turning it into "whoreswhoreswhores" central?)

But then I recall that it was written by Frank Miller of "I'm the goddamn Batman!" fame, who is blindingly racist and sexist, and features Gerard Butler's painted-on abs. And I just sigh.

 

[InconceivableTruth]

The movie is not racist because it's fantasy.

Now, Jarhead and Blackhawk Down are racist...

Compare them to something intelligent like Apocalypse Now and Fullmetal Jacket.

 

[Ultimatum86]

okay now weve got a whole political angle on whose persian (or not )
and more people tellling me about Thermopylae and the original comic
and now we have people saying it is actually racist

All im saying is people should stop saying this film is racist or inaccurate
its a a fictionalized retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae narrated by spartans
ofc the persians are gunna look like monsters n stuff while the spartans look like He-Man
when told from the greeks side
and does it relli matter if someone says persian or iranian? relli?

 

[WolfThomas]

even for the Spartans who (in reality) whore armor

Sorry I'm not one to correct, but whore armour makes me giggle for some reason...

 

[Eldarion]

it's a panel-by-panel adaptation of a comic book.
frank miller thought that'd be cool, don't blame the movie creators.

same for the prince of persia movie with casting a white guy.

Because the actor being well qualified and talented had nothing to do with him playing the prince. Also, he looks just like the Prince from the games anyway.

 

[Sodoff]

The movie is not racist because it's fantasy.

The one thing has nothing to do with the other. If I wrote a "fantasy" tomorrow that featured manly black men wiping the floor with the Deformed Caucasian Horde, it would be a fantasy, and it would be racist.

All im saying is people should stop saying this film is racist or inaccurate

No. There's no reason for people to stop saying it's racist or inaccurate if it is, in fact, both of those things. Which it is.

its a a fictionalized retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae narrated by spartans

You're not paying attention. The "fictionalization" shows no understanding of how the Spartans would have actually fictionalized their opponents. The Greeks never fantasized about the Persians being hordes of impotent, deformed monsters; we know this because actual Greek retellings of the war have come down to us and do no such thing. And why would they? There's no glory in bashing orcs. Glory came from fighting men, from fighting great men, and either prevailing or dying honorably. 300 is a stunted, eugenicist distortion of heroism by comparison, and has nothing at all to do with what classic Greece would have viewed as heroic.

You're making excuses for a bad movie. People should stop making excuses for this bad movie.

So.. you don't like what he posts and therefore he should stop posting it?

Im not going to counter-argue here because what I want to say has already been posted a billion times. Fantasy. Comic-book.

 

[Ultimatum86]

I reserve the right to make fun of people who feel an overwhelming need to defend this crap film.[/quote]

Whoa whoa im not defending the movie
I like it but not that much
Im just saying that it isnt racist in my opinion
and I dont think the look of the persians should be complained about cos
of the context of the film and what its portraying
It has its problems but they dont include those aspects

 

[faceless chick]

it's a panel-by-panel adaptation of a comic book.
frank miller thought that'd be cool, don't blame the movie creators.

same for the prince of persia movie with casting a white guy.

Because the actor being well qualified and talented had nothing to do with him playing the prince. Also, he looks just like the Prince from the games anyway.

that's..kinda what i said.
when they case jake as the prince they didn't do it to spite any iranians, they just picked the guy who looked most like the prince and could play the part (and make money), that's about it.

 

[Rblade]

I think it is a part of the way western stuff doesn't portray other races fairly. But in this film as basically everybody says it's part of the comicbook background. But the biggest problem is that a western movie studio has little interest in creating a movie about middle eastern people without them making an enemy. Because the largest part of their crowd couldn't relate to a complete middle eastern cultural kind of movie. I fear that for that reason (not alienating the western crowd) western studios will regularly have other races as archtypical roles

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

(** And why do we never see movies about the glory of Salamis? Thermopylae was a failure, an unequivocal victory for the Persians -- who, pace "I'm the goddamned Frank" Miller -- were not at all cowed by the kickass kickassedness of Leonidas and his suicidal band. Salamis, on the other hand, was where the war was actually won, destroying the supporting Persian fleet and making sure there was nothing but a skeletal Persian force in Greece for the Battle of Plataea. But Salamis was a victory of brain and wit, not mighty thews and steely-eyed looking-off-into-the-distance. Ergo, frustrated chairbound geeks who dream of being Conan cannot wank to it. That's my take.)

Thermopylae was not a failure as it fulfilled the objectives of a defense; it set the conditions for renewed offense. That it did that largely through inspiration of the heroic tale rather than doing any real damage to the Persian army is irrelevant.

Last stands are always tactical failures. Sometimes though they can help achieve strategic objectives that outshine that tactical failure. The Alamo is a more modern western example - that was an utter calamity for the Texans present as many would be leaders of the revolution were killed in the battle. The actual importance of the battle was not in the delay it offered for the rest of the Texas army but rather the fact that it became a symbol.

Often, all it takes in a war is for people to have an example of unimaginably stupid heroics to follow.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

Okay i know this may sound pedantic but its been annoying me a bit
The Prince of Persia review in escape to the movies finally prompted me to write this
cos of people complaining about how persians are portrayed in 300 making them look like....well idiots
I have a persian friend who thinks its downright racist

but my opinion is that 300 is told from the viewpoint of the spartans and of course they would tell the story like that
Its done all the time throught history and this is the battle seen through spartan eyes
told by the persians it might show the spartans as demons with regenerative powers or something
Im sorry if someone brought this up already or if were way past this....but i had to say it
It wasnt a rubbish portrayal of persians cos it wasnt a documentary, it was the story of the battle glorified by Dilios (David Wenham)

rant over
thank you

Yeah you're right, I had a lecture on this a few weeks ago.
There are hideous beasts and monsters and weak warriors because Greek historians were hyperbolic. The one that wrote about Thermopylae was Herodotus, and he said the Persian army was 2.5 million strong which is almost certainly not true. Besides, imagine if you saw an elephant or a rhino for the first time running at you. Of course you're gonna exaggerate.
It's historically accurate to quite a good degree to be honest, and if anyone's offended by it...then LOL that's ridiculous.
...so yeah:].