comment #1

count.olaf says ...

Setting aside ridiculous characters in a movie, it is doubtful that most in the US know where the Persian Empire was, much less equate it with modern-day Iran....

comment #2

Joshua Mooney says ...

It's my understanding that acts of "foolhardy courage" are regularly required to distribute films in Iran.

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

What a bunch of sore winners. Can you imagine how ticked off they'd be if they'd actually LOST the Battle of Thermopylae? (On a related note, I hear the people of Mexico still have a bone to pick with Fess Parker and Buddy Ebsen.)

comment #4

Walter Sobchak says ...

I drove by the Chinese Theater last Saturday. (throngs across China shake with fury and outrage over having a theater in Hollywood named after them, especially one that showed "Norbit") As I looked at the people standing in line to see "300", I realized one thing. Those tubby, bespectacled, comic book-clutching fan-boy nerds were thinking only of how best to invade Iran.

comment #5

AH says ...

The Time correspondent brings up something that is not easily understood in our country, which is that people in the Middle East believe that every form of media everywhere is controlled by the government.

We know that "300" was not made by the government but if you were brought up in a country where the government controls all forms of public expression, then convincing you of this fact would be quite a challenge.

As someone who has traveled and spoken to people who believe that all television, radio, cinema, internet, etc. is controlled by the government, I can attest to how difficult it is to shake that belief that people in, usually, autocratic countries hold.

comment #6

Joshua Mooney says ...

Pssst! Hey Walter:

"Those tubby, bespectacled, comic book-clutching fan-boy nerds" are our secret weapon! Special Forces? That's 20th-century-think.

P.S.: Don't blow their cover, man!

comment #7

Walter Sobchak says ...

Also....... I am so fucking tired of that part of the world. Give me a moderately sized break, already. It makes me ill that people (like D.Z.) will read that article and the first thing that will cross their mind is, "hmm we shouldn't have made a movie like that...we should have known that they would be offended...we should show them our peaceful intentions and pull "300" from our theaters at once..."

Fuck 'em. It's a comic book movie, for chrissakes. Go poll people coming out of the theater. I guarantee that if asked, at least 70% of them will say that it's "a really cool action movie about gladiator guys that takes place in olden times." I doubt too many of them will see it as a diss on modern-day Iranians and / or a call to arms for the invasion of Tehran.

I DO NOT want to see the U.S. involved in a war against Iran. However, I'm a little tired of being expected to give a squat every time radical Islamists get offended over something. These are people that burn cars, trample each other and generally have a shit storm because someone told them that some cartoonist in Denmark might have drawn a doodle of Mohammed.

comment #8

Joshua Mooney says ...

Well said, AH.

Iranian filmmakers such as Tamineh Milani and Jafar Panahi (and plenty of others) risk everything, quite literally, to do what they do. I try to support them, in my fucking lazy-ass, comfortable American way.

comment #9

crabbie says ...

Persians are hot. I'm moving to Iran!

comment #10

Hallick says ...

The only government involved in manipulating its people to fear and loathe a foreign nation with "The 300" is Iran's.

For chrissakes, to the kinds of Americans the Iranian "street" appears to be fretting over, for all they know Persians make rugs and cats! I don't think our general populace would be educated enough to GET the message even if the movie were totally made for anti-Iran propaganda.

comment #11

Joshua Mooney says ...

Indeed. "Wild Hogs" is clearly some sort of anti-Muslim screed.

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

Please note that just because the fundamentalist wackos are in charge of Iran, there are still plenty of non-crazies in that country who are justifiably afraid of being invaded and would have no trouble being freaked out by this movie.

Also, you people seem to forget how 'propaganda' works. If it's obvious, it fails. The best propaganda is something that doesn't even know that it's propaganda, like an action movie that reduces the 'enemy' to a bunch of faceless brown guys in the name of escapist thrills.

comment #13

DarthCorleone says ...

count.olaf, my sentiments exactly. While I can sympathize with AH's discussion of governmental control of the media, how much of that $70 million worth of American audiences have any inclination or even knowledge to draw a parallel between the Persian empire and a modern-day invasion of Iraq? The masses got their bloodlust satisfied by slow-motion, CGI decapitations in the theaters, and they are appeased. This is a non-issue.

comment #14

DarthCorleone says ...

Addendum: that is, I think it's a non-issue in terms of 300 actually being a viable cause for an invasion of Iran. As far as sensitivity issues go for the Iranians, obviously it's an issue, since their concerns have been expressed. I just don't think they have anything to worry about.

comment #15

jeffmcm says ...

They have plenty to worry about, just not specifically from this one movie.

comment #16

AH says ...

Just to clarify, I didn't say that we shouldn't enjoy movies like 300. Just that in addition to enjoying movies like 300, we should also understand why people in the Middle East think the way they do. I am pretty confident that we can do both.

comment #17

ratskiwatski says ...

jeffmcm - You are absolutely right. It's not propaganda. Though if it were, I think Snyder would come at it a little more squarely - "And Introducing...Jeff Gannon as Leonidas!"

comment #18

Josh Massey says ...

Iran has 70 million people. 300 made $70 million in its opening weekend. It IS a conspiracy!

comment #19

jeffmcm says ...

Ratsi, I'm saying that it _is_ a form of propaganda, but that Snyder et al. weren't doing it consciously.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Not really surprised about the Iranians being pissed, what with "300" being Hollywood's answer to "The Triumph of The Will". But I'll see it, anyway, just because the price of the original book's a rip-off, and the G.I. Joe movie is still years away. I also thought Full Metal Jacket was skewed slightly towards propaganda, in the, "We could have won Vietnam" sort of way, since there is no mention of a draft or any scenes where the soldiers fight in jungles, and the soldiers walk home without being crippled or poisoned with Agent Orange.

Walter: I've got no problem with 300 being made, but let's be honest. The studio is clearly exploiting the tension between Iran and the U.S. for profit. Also, why is it ok for some Denmark cartoonist to trash Muslims, but it's not ok for one of John Edwards bloggers to trash Catholics?

comment #21

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you're right on so many things, but crazy on so many others. Full Metal Jacket a propaganda movie? From Stanley Kubrick? What in that movie states anything other than the idea that war is a dehumanizing, brutal state of existence that requires people to shut off their brains and moral consciousness?

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "What in that movie states anything other than the idea that war is a dehumanizing, brutal state of existence that requires people to shut off their brains and moral consciousness?"

I dunno. The lack of civilians getting killed, the fact that the U.S. fights "fair", while the Cong doesn't, and the fact that the locals seem to "welcome" the troops comes to mind.

comment #23

ratskiwatski says ...

jeffmcm - totally no ill intent meant - just using your comment as a platform for 300-as-homoimperialist jokes... I'm such a user...

DZ - wow... maybe Kubrick was having it both ways, getting off on the dick-swinging 'tude, but, hmm... about as close a reading of "Full Metal Jacket" as I made of mcm's post...

comment #24

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, all of your points are irrelevant to what Full Metal Jacket is about. You don't need to see civilians getting killed to understand that war is a bad idea, the Americans do not 'fight fair', and the only locals I recall in the movie are prostitutes.

Wrong again.

comment #25

jeffmcm says ...

It's like arguing that the movie is pro-puppy murder because nobody in it ever condemns the killing of puppies.

comment #26

Walter Sobchak says ...

D.Z. - Allow me to quote Ranier Wolfcastle: "Now you talking crazy."
It's REALLY thin to believe that the studio is exploiting tension between Iran and the U.S. for profit. First of all, most people outside of Beverly Hills, (especially the teenage boys lining up to see this particular movie), don't even realize that Persia and Iran are/were the same place. Frankly, I'd be suprised if a lot of audience members are even that familiar with our current conflicts with Iran. ("I though we were already fightin' them... oh wait...that's Iraq, right?... fuck it, whatever... wasn't it dope when that dude got his face sliced in half and he was still able to scream with half a face?!")

A Danish cartoonist did an EDITORIAL cartoon featuring an image of Mohammed. It was not to "trash" Islam. The point of the cartoon was to illustrate how some elements of radical Islam are obsessed with violence. These apparently irony-free elements reacted to the cartoon with several weeks of violence.

Catholics upset by John Edward's blogger reacted by calling into the Rush Limbaugh show, boycotting John Edward's website and writing strong letters to Bill O'Reilly to voice their displeasure. I don't recall any of them turning themselves into a human torch or declaring fatwahs on the blogosphere.

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "You don't need to see civilians getting killed to understand that war is a bad idea,"

Yeah, people will always turn against war, even when they aren't presented with information about casualties. I'm so glad FOX News failed to help win Bush a second term. Oh, wait!

"the Americans do not 'fight fair',"

There's no mention of the Mai Lai Massacre or carpet bombings in the film, so I'm not sure how you can support your argument.

"and the only locals I recall in the movie are prostitutes."

Exactly. There's no mention of peasants being uprooted from their homes.The country's "peaceful" with us there.

Walter: "It's REALLY thin to believe that the studio is exploiting tension between Iran and the U.S. for profit."

Yeah, and Cannon films made Delta Force for the art.

"First of all, most people outside of Beverly Hills, (especially the teenage boys lining up to see this particular movie), don't even realize that Persia and Iran are/were the same place."

True, but the "freedom" propaganda angle would probably ring true for them today.

comment #28

count.olaf says ...

wait..wait...wait...

You mean a Brazilian bit player on Lost is the 8ft tall, digitally altered voiced, homoerotic god-king of Persia? and his executioner had blades for arms? How convenient!


I see where we're going now. I decoded the message mssrs Miller & Snyder...thank you for exploiting the iran us conflict for profit and NOT exploiting the current CGI'd-graphic-novel phase in moviemaking

comment #29

Walter Sobchak says ...

D.Z. - Perhaps you should fashion a hat out of aluminum foil to keep the government (Fox News) from reading your thoughts.

Because they are, you know.

And of course Stanley Kubrick was known for his hawkish, extreme, neo-con world view.

(trying to remember the scene in Platoon were they mentioned Mai Lai, agent orange or peasant up-rooting....... I knew it, Oliver Stone's a tool of the military-industrial complex, too!)

comment #30

jeffmcm says ...

Apparently I was prescient in writing my puppy-murder post earlier.

DZ, every point you made in response to my post is utterly absurd.

It also helps that FMJ isn't really a movie about Vietnam (thus the 'why no jungle?' angle) but a more abstracted movie about war in general that just happens to be set in Vietnam.

Please stop. I'm a liberal and you're making us look bad.

comment #31

nemo says ...

"And Introducing...Jeff Gannon as Leonidas!"

Look at the picture -- Jeff Gannon is clearly playing Xerxes, the king of the Persians.

comment #32

ratskiwatski says ...

nice catch, nemo...

comment #33

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "It also helps that FMJ isn't really a movie about Vietnam (thus the 'why no jungle?' angle) but a more abstracted movie about war in general that just happens to be set in Vietnam."

It's more like a cash-in on Rambo, but without the added feeling of guilt you get from enjoying the gratuitous violence meant to sell tickets.

Walter: "(trying to remember the scene in Platoon were they mentioned Mai Lai,"

It's clearly implied though.

comment #34

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you're obtuse. Do you even watch these movies or are you just a machine to see if things conform to your ideological checklist? (Or more likely, are you an undergrad at a liberal arts college who is just learning all of this stuff?)

You walk out of Rambo going "yeah, he kicked their asses!". You walk out of FMJ feeling queasy and a unsettled. I wouldn't be surprised if Kubrick pitched the Rambo angle to the studio but that's not what they got.

By the way, since your last post didn't condemn the My Lai massacre, it implicitly supported it.

comment #35

meh101 says ...

D.Z. "The lack of civilians getting killed, the fact that the U.S. fights "fair", while the Cong doesn't"
Hmm..thats interesting, but I clearly remember a scene from Full Metal Jacket where a Helicopter Gunman is shooting down civilians in the rice patties. He even admits to shooting women and children. When asked how, he responds, "Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much!" But I guess he was fighting "fair".

comment #36

D.Z. says ...

meh: But you don't actually see the civilians' bodies, and the fact that their murders are downplayed obviously tells the viewer tha the war "wasn't that bad".

comment #37

Walter Sobchak says ...

You are just fucking with us, right D.Z.? (say yes)
Tell us at length about "Paths of Glory". There, you can tell just by the title. The word "glory" is in it. Obviously Kubrick is delivering a bloodthirsty little film that sends home a solidly pro World War One message. (nary a single mention of mustard gas in the entire affair! ...not to mention civilians being bombed by Zeppelins!)

comment #38

jeffmcm says ...

Yeah, after that last comment there's little doubt that DZ is having a subtle joke. Thanks for wasting my time, buddy.

comment #39

MovieBob says ...

Ironically, the reporting on anger on from Iran will be the FIRST TIME a good majority of Americans are made aware AT ALL that "Persia" and "Iran" are the same place :)

This is a perfect illustration of the kind of insane disconnect from reality (a trait shared by most "religious" societies, really) that we have to contend with in the Muslim World. No one is riled-up about Iran because of "300," what's riling people up about Iran is that they are out to score nukes and are governed by leaders who oughtn't be considered stable enough to be trusted with a firecracker.

comment #40

D.Z. says ...

MovieBob: "No one is riled-up about Iran because of "300," what's riling people up about Iran is that they are out to score nukes"

They have the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes under the treaty they signed.

"and are governed by leaders who oughtn't be considered stable enough to be trusted with a firecracker."

Yeah, man! Those rag-heads can never beat our army run by a guy who shoots one of his colleagues in the face.

comment #41

Walter Sobchak says ...

Come on, Zelter (D.Z.)..... I know it's very hip to hang out at your university's coffee shop and prattle on about the viability of Marxist theory and what-not but puh-leeze. Do you ever take America's side on anything? Thinking that occasionally this country gets it right, (i.e. wanting to keep Iran from obtaining nukes) does not make you a yee-haw, pick-up driving, Sean Hannity-listenin', Amurica-love-it-or-leave-it rube.

For example.... do you think it was wrong for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor?

a simple "yes" will do..... a "no" will require explaination which I'm sure you're formulating right now.

comment #42

jeffmcm says ...

"They have the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes under the treaty they signed."

And NOBODY thinks that's what they're doing. Come on, wake up. Like I said, I'm a liberal: and I believe that one of the worst results from Bushco's invasion of Iraq is that it has crippled our country from effectively dealing with Iran, the true problem country in the region, militarily (we're bogged down) or diplomatically (we have no credibility in that realm).

comment #43

jeffmcm says ...

Walter, you just know that in a few short hours there'll be a posting regarding FDR's knowledge of the bombing before it happened; American sanctions on raw materials; our own imperial Pacific Island territories; and so on.

Does this kind of crap get you laid, DZ? I was in the wrong racket when I was in college.

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

Walter: "I know it's very hip to hang out at your university's coffee shop"

I don't go to school or drink coffee.

"and prattle on about the viability of Marxist theory"

Nah, I'm still waiting to see anyone prove the viability of capitalism.

"Thinking that occasionally this country gets it right, (i.e. wanting to keep Iran from obtaining nukes)"

The only thing the U.S. wants from Iran is its oil.

"For example.... do you think it was wrong for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor?"

It was wrong for FDR to let Japan attack Pearl Harbor. (Not to mention rape and pillage SE Asia...) Still, Japan wasn't much different from the West at the time(see how the Brits treated the people of India or how we screwed up the Philippines before the Japanese), so I don't think they're any more "wrong" than we were at the time, just more obvious about it.

jeff: "And NOBODY thinks that's what they're doing."

Nobody who wants to start war with them thinks that way. There's as much proof that Iran has WMDs as there was for Iraq.

"Come on, wake up. Like I said, I'm a liberal"

No, you're a centrist calling yourself a liberal.

"and I believe that one of the worst results from Bushco's invasion of Iraq is that it has crippled our country from effectively dealing with Iran, the true problem country in the region,"

The true problem country in that region is us. Even a panel consisting of hawks agreed with the semi-doves that Iran's the key to stabilization in Iraq.

"Walter, you just know that in a few short hours there'll be a posting regarding FDR's knowledge of the bombing before it happened; American sanctions on raw materials; our own imperial Pacific Island territories; and so on."

I threw in one you missed.

"Does this kind of crap get you laid, DZ?"

Nah, I'm one of those poor victims of the system depicted in Strapped. http://www.amazon.com/Strapped-Americas-30-Somethings-Cant-Ahead/dp/1400079977/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2042031-3244069?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173948005&sr=1-1
I can't even afford rent on my own in L.A., let alone a date.

comment #45

Halogen says ...

I am sorry, I live in Tehran, and 90% of people don't even know about the movie.
The "all Tehran" Mrs. Moaveni talks about are her friends, people going to the same shop and families. Meaning a peculiar social class.
I don't care about that movie like most.
I like Azadeh's reports usually, but I don't know why she fails to sensationalism this time.
No Azadeh. 70millions is a wrong number!

comment #46

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Since most people in this country have no real idea where Persia was or who Xerxes was, and since Rodrigo Santoro's effeminate giant is miles away from our current image of "Islamic terrorists," I doubt that 300 is whipping anyone into a "let's invade Iran" frenzy.

It is also the type of movie that would get limited play in Teheran multiplexes anyway, even if the "enemy" came from Antarctica.

This "controversy," like much of the "controversy" concerning the government of Kazakhstan's reaction to Borat, seems just more P.R. from the studio with a government going along because it suits their purposes, not because there is any real deep affront.

comment #47

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you are painfully irony-deprived. Go away, stop making us sensible progressives embarrassed to have you in our camp with your selfish, self-aggrandizing pomposity and your arrogance that you possess all wisdom.

Or better, go spend your time arguing with the conservative trolls that are your mirror image.

comment #48

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "stop making us sensible progressives embarassed"

You mean you're one of these?
http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2004/07/19/tomo/index.html

comment #49

jeffmcm says ...

No. I opposed the Iraq war and think Bush should be impeached (although only as a matter of principle - practically I know there would be no point).

You're an idiot.

comment #50

D.Z. says ...

I'd say holding Shrub accountable and booting him out of office before he nukes Iran and/or Syria is very practical.

comment #51

jeffmcm says ...

It's impractical because it could never happen. I know that it's bullshit that you can impeach one guy for a blowjob and not impeach another guy for lying to the country to start a war, but it's a politically unviable option unless someone turns up a tape recorded with Bush/Cheney chuckling over how easily the evidence was to fabricate.

Get over it. Move On indeed.

comment #52

D.Z. says ...

jeff: Um, the fact that Valerie Plame got outed after Joseph Wilson proved Bush lied about the Saddam/Niger connection, and the fact that British
memos showed that Blair was working with Bush to "sex up" the war isn't enough proof for you, buddy?

comment #53

jeffmcm says ...

I don't and never needed convincing: it was obvious from late 2002 that the administration was bluffing it's way into the war.

But we're not talking about me (remember, I'm the liberal) but rather about the millions of Republicans out there who remain unconvinced.

PLEASE get over yourself and your superiority complex.

comment #54

Walter Sobchak says ...

La la la.... Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob...la la la.. Bush lied to get us into a war... la la la.... everyone on the planet knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, including the Democrats, but Bush lied and said there were even though he knew there wasn't... la la la..... no Democrats, especially Hillary, voted for the Iraq war, and even if they did it was only because Bush lied to them... la la la la la la...

(none of the above is particularly true but it feels good to say and hey, who knows? perhaps if we just keep saying it, it will eventually become fact!.. or at least believed to be)

comment #55

jeffmcm says ...

Uh, everything you said _is_ true.
Can you prove otherwise?

comment #56

Walter Sobchak says ...

Please..... Just because Bill Maher says it doesn't make it true.

comment #57

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "I don't and never needed convincing: it was obvious from late 2002 that the administration was bluffing it's way into the war."

But you clearly don't feel that way about Iran, even though you should know better by now.

comment #58

jeffmcm says ...

That is correct. Because Saddam Hussein had been successfully contained, but the Iranians have not and are clearly actively seeking a nuclear weapons program - and you would too, if you were them and had seen Americans invade two countries on opposite sides of you. A nuclear bomb at this point is Iran's only way to prevent from being invaded - that's just common sense.

comment #59

D.Z. says ...

"Because Saddam Hussein had been successfully contained, but the Iranians have not and are clearly actively seeking a nuclear weapons program"

Sorry, but I don't see any evidence in either case.

comment #60

jeffmcm says ...

That's your own ignorance.

"Iran Working on Nuclear Arms Plan, France Says"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021601090.html

I would look for more but I realize that it's just a waste of my time to break through your thick skull. Please stop arguing with me and spend your time on people who don't believe in evolution and seek the Rapture.

comment #61

D.Z. says ...

Yes, and Bush said Saddam had wmds. That in itself is not proof.

comment #62

jeffmcm says ...

That is beside the point. If Bush said the sky was blue I presume you would find a way to disagree with him.

comment #63

D.Z. says ...

jeff: Hell, I'd be glad if he got it right for once, but the problem is that Bush isn't the type to want to get it right. He just exploits people for his own gain.

comment #64

D.Z. says ...

jeff: You don't seem to get that the Neo-cons always wanted to invade Iran-just like Iraq-and that they're using the nuclear plant as a pretext to accomplish that goal.

comment #65

ebayshopdesign says ...

Haha those crazy Iranians , I watched ET the other daay and instantly though lets get a Stealth Bomber and flatten Iran, Mentalists , we didnt need 300 to make us want to invade Iran , they have all that oil we can steal if we bring the country to its knees just like Iraq :D

comment #66

ebayshopdesign says ...

Invading could mean a high body count wouldnt it be much better to just gas the country ?