Tonight we went to see the movie "300", and what we found instead was a polemic in support of Bush's policies, both domestic (the Patriot Act) and foreign (war campaigns on any country in the Middle East not named Israel).

In the movie, the Persian king Xerxes sends an emissary to the Spartan king, Leonides, instructing him to submit to the rule of Xerxes. Leonides responds by violating the age-old rule and having the messenger killed.

What ensues is the historically based tale of Leonides and 300 Spartan warriors momentarily holding off thousands of hordes of Persian soldiers in the narrow mountain pass leading to Sparta before finally succombing to the exotic, demonic, decadent, freakish and effeminate Persian hordes.

The cheerleading for the Patriot Act and war powers of the president starts early, with the king facing the prospect of war during the holy festival of Carneius; by Spartan law, it is forbidden to wage war in this month. In Frank Miller's take on Shakespearean dialogue, the king wonders "how the very laws I have sworn to protect now keep me from protecting them". The point is driven home when the queen is asked what she would tell the council while her husband wages war in violation of the law. "I'd tell them that the very freedom that they live by must come at the cost of blood."

When the queen voices her intentions to the treacherous and conniving councilmember Theron, he reminds her that the king's war is illegal, and tells her that the council will never approve the troop mobilization, declaring, "I own that council!" His duplicitous argument that the war is illegal proves to be a mere cover for the fact that he'd been paid off by Xerxes. How quaint and coincidental that a high-ranking Pentagon member recently questioned where various high profile law firms are obtaining their funding to defend the accused who sit in Guantanamo Bay. Nancy Pelosi would do well to check for the imprint of Xerxes on her gold coins.

But the movie addresses more than just the Patriot Act or war powers. It also goes out of its way to depict a battle that would allow Samuel Huntington to die a happy man. The Greeks all appear as western Europeans, whereas the Persians are represented by Africans, Arabs, Indians and even Chinese.

Like Braveheart, the movie presents a number of ancient and unschooled soldiers delivering stirring speeches about "our freedom", "our democracy" and even, centuries before the birth of the nation-state, references to "our country". These characterizations are juxtaposed to the despotic slavery of the Persian Empire. The Spartans may have simply forgotten that the Greek empire used extensive slave labor, and that voting was limited to males of the patrician class. And since they were after all austere soldiers, they may well not have known that some historians identify the very Persian Persepolis as the world's first democracy.

But throughout this pro-democracy blood orgy, there can be little doubt that the makers of 300 saved their most scathing words for the broadside against the modern middle east. One of the last lines in the movie features an exhortation to save our lands from "the tyranny and mysticism" of the attackers.

But like the bigots who killed Sikhs after 9/11 and the politicians who pandered to them by advocating and passing the Patriot Act before anyone had read it, the movie doesn't do subtlety, or at least, does not do it well.

The movie's initial sequence describes the Spartan process of inspecting newborns for physical imperfections, which if found, resulted in the heaving of the newborn off of a cliff. Since these same Spartans are the white and conservative good guys, it's anyone's best guess as to who protests for the rights of these killed newborns.

Nor does the irony end there. The movie's goal seems simple enough: dehumanize and denigrate the peoples, civilizations and political systems of the Middle East. How ironic that the chosen literary vehicle for this was a suicide mission of a few stout believers. Perhaps the Spartans, much like Fox News, bring more credibility to the people they cast as enemies.

Andrea -

Thank you for your feedback and sharing your thoughts.

The Iranian reaction has its own propaganda value, and it's a whole different topic of discussion.

Hollywood indeed does create films that may anger "some" folks in the government, but overall Hollywood would not even dare to cross its political limits. Remember the McCarthy era?
Remember what happened to Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles?
Entertainers know very well what they can and can not say, and if they don't, they will learn it the hard way: Dixy Chicks an example.
I did not see "V", so I cannot comment.

As for Kingdom of Heaven, I think that you are confusing the Knights with Crusaders. But then again, we're not discussing that film.

To conclude, half the cup is empty, and the other half that is full...is poisoned :)

I agree with Wes. And to be more clear. Its because we lack the ability to develop such media ourselves that we're excessively threatened by it. I read comic books myself. I don't define my ideology by it. Its a means of expression. If you alter the public perception .. the expression will change. Criticise the medium when we should be challenging the ideas it expresses.

Ghulam and Wes -

I respect your opinions. But strongly disagree.
When I first read this comic (a few years ago), I pointed out its propaganda values to my "Media Literacy" class at the university that I teach, and we (the class) had an assignment on it.
The movie takes this comic into another step.

It is not paranoia to point out propaganda messages in movies (such as anti-communist propaganda in "The Ten Commandments" and so on). It is called "Media Literacy".

Furthermore, Ghulam's statements are severely premature. First of all, "the medium is the message". Second, Iran has a rich Film production culture and does not lack presence in the Film medium to be threatened by these messages.

Perhaps Iran will do this:
It will produce a film that will depict Abraham Lincoln as a savage man. And then they'll say: "relax! just based on some comic we got here". Then let's see what you would have to say about the Iranian films and film making.

Bush and Patriot Act support clash of cultures. So do this comic and its film.

Salam,

I think movies are an important part of contemporary culture and I love cinema for that. I would accept, because of the author's astute observations, that the movie *is* at least a commentary on current affairs. Or, at least, the producers thought they could make a box office hit with a commentary on current affair, which they did ($70 million on opening!).

However, linking it with the Bush (mis)Administration is perhaps too much. And, I am skeptical as to the mentioning of Persepolis as the first democracy. While we're at it, why not adopt Zoroaster and his 5 daily prayers as an Islamic prophet? Truth be told, modern democracy, while inspired by ancient greece, is a product of the Italian Rennaissance and developed by thinkers in the Enlightenment.

>>since we conquered Byzantine Empire and starting going into Europe (Spain/France)

Who is "we"? Just because you claim the same Islam as the Arab armies and may even be descended remotely from them, you were not there, so there is no 'we' who conquered the Byzantines. And, what kind of conquest was it when recent scholarship has begun to call the Umayyads as a Neo-Byzantine empire because of all the culture it borrowed from the Byzantines?? The Muslim inherited from the Byzantines and Persians, so while there was military conquest, it was actually Islamicized (thinly or otherwise) Byzantine and Persian cultures which eventually prevailed.

Oh, and just because me and Iranians are muslims doesn't mean I have to automatically care about how "hurt" they are over our films. Maybe they should shore up thier image by electing a Democratic-majority Congress; oppps they can't!

>Maybe they should shore up thier image by electing a Democratic-majority Congress; oppps they can't!<

You mean a Democratic Congress which would take Bush to task for his war crimes, and not take its orders from AIPAC?
How much of a consolation it must have been to Leonidas and his men, as they awaited certain death, that they were ensuring the future existence of Starbucks.
If they hadn't died, Americans now might be drinking decent coffee.

Uh, BTWFMetc., your negativity wears thin. Too much to ask for some comments that might reveal some thought as to what alternative reality you find attractive, and how to get there? I am sincere, I really would like something more useful than cynicism and pessimism to help me understand what's going on with Islam in the contemporary world, which is why I'm at this blog.

You're one to talk of alternative realities, emjayinc. Judging my your ignorant comments in the other post, its sadly obvious you are firmly situated in a fool's paradise of your own making.
“Thank Thermopylae for your Starbucks,” said the director of 300, Zack Snyder. Although criticising the historical skills of a Hollywood director is like shooting fish in a barrel, its worth remembering that coffee drinking originated in the Muslim world, and reached Europe following trade between North Africa and Italy.
That being said, I'm not here to hold your hand and "educate" you on Islam in the contemporary world.

Have fun reading this:

http://www.picklednews.com/spartanjihadists.html

BTWFetc, not my hand, but my attention that. was offered. Since you want neither, you can kiss my...oh,never mind. Carry on, good luck to you. I admit, however, underestimating the size of the audience who would pay to be titillated by the 300, and the uproar that would result. Alternative realities obviously a booming market.

Tough break emjay.
Far more worthy of a film is the repeated revolts of the Helots - the slaves whom worked the fields of the Spartan 'free men' - and which culminated in the first recorded successfull slave revolt in history, centuries before Spartacus and Toussaint L'Ouverture. Not surprising that the helots don't get a mention in '300' while Miller waxes indignant about Persian slavery.

>> It will produce a film that will depict Abraham Lincoln as a savage man. And then they'll say: "relax! just based on some comic we got here".

Obvioulsy its forms part of some cross cultural message. There are always good guys and bad guys. We are the good guys, they are the bad guys. This is the nature of entertainment. Its the nature of propoganda too, muslim or non-muslim. But people don't want to be politicized by movies. They are politicised by politics. American soldiers go to war listening to anti establishment metal ... ironic but true. The only way we can engage is by enhancing the public perception. These days, the button down christian good guys are blacks in movies. Ten years ago .. if you were non-white in a horror movie .. you got ten minutes of movie fame.

>> Then let's see what you would have to say about the Iranian films and film making.

Iranians make incredible non-english movies that nobody wants to see (a generalisation but not a very big one). I bought a few dvds .. non-pirate ones no less.

>> http://www.picklednews.com/spartanjihadists.html
brilliant !!

Who let the dogs out? LOL