Both films and works of literature (as well as all other art forms) are often interpreted in light of the social, economic, and political state surrounding their production and release. A 2007 New York Times article discusses one such controversy sparked by Zack Snyder's production of 300. After reading the article, do you believe that the film should be understood in light of the US's relations with the Middle East at the time of the film's release.
It is indeed difficult to ignore the parallels between the film and then current events. Five years after 9/11, there was seemingly no end in sight to US occupations in the Middle East.
Many Americans believed that American freedoms were at stake. Unified by pride and patriotism, we sent our soldiers to fight a an inhuman enemy (terror). Similarly, the Spartans face Xerxes, the god-king, whose army is certainly portrayed in the film as a terrorist force, striking fear and threatening a democratic state with slavery or destruction. Like the Spartans, "Freedom!" was our cry as we marched off to a state of undeclared war.
Should such parallels be ignored? Are there dangers to entertaining such analyses? Are there dangers to disregarding them?
I believe that this movie has nothing to do with race or racism. This movie was set in a time that anyone could be forced into slavery. Just because the spartans were not of color, doesnt mean that the director meant anyhting by it. This is a movie that the meaning was about a city that is tough and tries to build a city of well developed people. The showed that they would sacerfice anyone that was not worthy of being a spartan. This is just a movie and I believ that there are people out there that looks for conflict in anything. This is something that is not new but will continue for forever. As long as there is something to bring debate to there will be a fight. I feel that this is a great movie that has a great meaning behind it, and in my opinion there is no hidden meaning to show racism, and everyone is intitled to their own opion wheter you think it is right or not.
ReplyDeleteI believe the movie was a very good movie I really dont think their were any signs of racism . Back in those days it was either kill or be killed only the strong survived. The spartan being the strongest were able to defeat all of their enemies and keep their kingdom free so they could live the way they wanted without being forced into slavery.
ReplyDeleteSTF was a movie that i usually don't watch ,but iwas quite surprised at how enteresting the movie was the way the movie grab your attn. and kept it through the entire movie. The chacaters were all real except for the one that was in the book the author was writing about and he turned to be real even though she didn't know he was. The movie was suppose to end very bad with the death of harold, but ended in a goodway with harold only getting hurt after trying to safe the little boy. Which let him feel good about himself, and be able to live a happy life miss Pascel.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I believe that Zack Snyder produced the movie to have some hidden meanings that related to the situation the US and the Middle East were having at the time the movie was released. As brought up in the article “That Film’s Real Message? It Could Be: ‘Buy a Ticket’” by Micheal Cieply, the Persian Emperor released his army on a small country (Cieply 1). The US released armies on the Middle East. We, however, had a better reason than enslavement for the attacks on the Middle East. The parallels between the movie and our battle with the Middle East cannot be ignored. The Spartans had the same cry as we when they were at war with the Persians. They wanted their freedom just like us. Our enemy is the same: terror. I’m not sure that there are any dangers in entertaining such analyses. The producers of the movie say they did not mean to make the movie reflect what was happening in the Middle East. This movie may help people better understand what is actually happening in the Middle East. Because there are so many parallels, people could better understand what we are fighting for and why. I do however believe that it is strange that the Persians were all either darker skin-toned people or looked different. The Spartans were all “perfect” looking humans. The Spartans were very muscular people while the Persians were thin. Many of the “immortals” wore masks that covered up their faces that look deformed. I also thought the movie should have better went along with history. In western civilization, we learned about the Spartans and their battles and such. This movie was close to how we learned it happened in western civilization but there were some farfetched theories. I understand the movie was adapted from a book but when I watch a movie about something that really happened in history I want it to be as close as possible. This movie was just not as good as it could have been in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe film 300 is a mix of war, fantasy, and adventure but most of all its action packed. The controversy over the film does not in any way surprise me. I believe it is a built-in psychological trait for a person to find a correlation between themselves and a movie or even music. People tend to believe that there is always deeper meaning. Lets say this film is in some odd way, is based partially off of the events in question. Why does it matter? The question is asked, whether George Bush is Leonidas or Xerxes. First off, why are we living in the past? Unfortunately we are still feeling the repercussions from those tragic events, but we need to live for what is in front of us not behind us. Lets just say there is and answer to this question. Even if the answer were to be clearly stated in the film, people would still raise suspicion over it. People will always challenge and argue. It is in our nature. I do see some what of a relation between the two, but of course there is going to be. Movies are trying to look and feel realistic. The war we are in is based off of a very broad subject (freedom). The audience could watch a war movie that was filmed before these events, and turn it into some kind of psychic event. I definitely believe that George Bush is very far from Leonidas in many ways, but I hope that the intentions we close to each other. In my honest opinion, when it comes down to our war, we need to focus on the people fighting for us and less on if a film correlates to it. As for the film 300, people need to critique it based on characters, colors, costumes, and backgrounds. This film is a definite attention grabber, and keeps a constant flow.
ReplyDeleteAfter interpreting the article written by The New York Times, I believe that the movie was meant to show the public the United States’s involvement in the Middle East. The United States released there armies into the Middle East after the dramatic and tragic terrorist attacks on The Twin Towers on September 11. Just like in the movie, the Persian messengers try to take away the Spartans pride and freedom by threatening them and trying to make them kneel. So the Spartans went to war to protect the way of life they knew. They did not want there women and children being slaves to the Persians, while the men were slaughtered. This was the same for the United States except they were fighting a different enemy, terrorism. The United States was not going to allow someone to come into their country, kill thousands of people, and walk away without any consequences. In my opinion, this movie represents the United States, the Spartans, against terrorism, the never ending Persian army.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the movie, there are numerous parallels that gives evidence to proof this theory. It seemed strange that everyone of the Spartans was white, muscular, and normal looking. While the Persians were seen as monsters, who wore masks and cloths to hide their faces. At the time of this movie release, I believe this movie was meant to make the war in the Middle East more popular throughout the people and to gain support. In my opinion, taking such parallels did no harm to the United States. I believe that it helped out our country by letting people see why we were are there and what we have been fighting for.
I believe that the fact that the movie 300 came to existence during a time when America was in a war with a middle east country was just a coincidence. The movie was based off a real story about a real Spartan civilization. In a sense, the story of the Spartans battling the many armies of Xerxes is similar to the war caused because of the terrorists on 9/11. However, Xerxes actually threatened the freedom of the Spartans, and it was only the lives of the Americans that were threatened, not their freedom.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think the reason the Persian army was portrayed as monsters was simply for the effects of the movie. I do not feel it was related to racism in anyway, film makers just like to make movies unrealistic and unbelievable because the viewers, for the most part, enjoy the unrealistic and unbelievable.
Because 300 was influenced by true events, although given in an overdramatic manner, I think that it had absolutely nothing to do with the current war on terrorism. The people who say that it does are quite possibly just looking for something to stir up out of boredom, or they have not yet taken a Western Civilization course.
After reading the article in the New York Times concerning the film 300, I do not believe the director Zack Snyder intended the parallels between the movie and what was actually happening in the Middle East. Although Xerxes was considered to be a terrorist force, I do not believe it is right to assume that Zack intended it to be compared to modern day warfare. With that said, I do not believe that these parallels should be ignored, I can see how the plot of the movie, the intentions of the Spartans, and the characterizations, would concern people and how others would question it, if it was related to current events (at the time of the movie). “Is George Bush Leonidas or Xerxes?” was a question asked in the article. Zack said he did not intend for any analogy to be made.
ReplyDeleteThe movie 300 was purely just the battle of Thermopylae some 2,500 years ago and the film was based off of a literary novel written by Frank Miller. It is what it is.
With any movie that is produced I believe there could be possible parallels made with the current events. Though the thought is difficult to ignore, I think many people jump to conclusions and read more into things than is intended. I think if the matter was just ignored and no interview was conducted then many people would be angry and question the movie 300 even more.
I do not believe the film director Zack Snyder intended 300 to cause such a political stir about America’s battle in Iraq. “Mr. Snyder said he was pleased about the debate, though he never meant the movie to provoke it. ‘If that’s a by-product, that’s good,’” he said. After reading the book written by Frank Miller, Mr. Snyder was probably inspired by it and thus created a film from the story. The media, new channels, magazines and most of all political groups are like a hungry pack of dogs. They never stop seeking for something to devour. Even though there was and still in controversy going on about the Middle East I do not think 300 has anything to do with it.
ReplyDeleteIn the article it mentioned, “In the era of media clutter, film marketers increasingly welcome controversy as a way to get attention for their more provocative fare.” They gave other examples that have caused uproar such as, The Passion of Christ and The Incredible. It is unclear to know if the directors and producers of these movies really intended their films to be taken the direction the media pushed them. It is obvious the Zack Snyder did not want his film to get the political publicity it received.
During 9/11 many people did believe that our “freedom” was at stake, but to compare the terrorist in Iraq to Xerxes and his army… or to compare the 300 men fighting for Sparta to American fighting for its pride and patriotism. These examples do not even compare to one another. I think that the Spartan’s knew what they wanted, who they were, and what they stood for. I do not think we can say the same for America.
As for many of the posts that i have read on this topic i would have to agree with majority, that the film was coincidental to the current events of the time. There are many sides when war is involved. Americans see our pressure in the middle east as an act of orchestrating freedom. Many of the peoples of the middle eastern world see our country as the aggressor, that we should mind our own business. That our government is as Xerxes, forcing our ways of life on their people as we try to control the oil trade. The views of others see the american militia as a means of freeing themselves. To place so much on the shoulders of a film is slightly ridiculous. If one cannot form an opinion on current events by discovering the facts and not that of a fictional movie, then this world is in a lot of trouble.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the parallels between the movie “300” and the Middle East conflicts are purely a coincidence. The movie is a mock up of what took place 2,500 years ago and the director specifically had that in mind. The make up, costumes, and fighting scenes are all a highly visual aid to help put the audiences mind at war. As a viewer, I tend to place myself in the characters shoes and make belief the events that are taking place are in front of me. If humans did not try to make correlations in movies, would we as viewers leave a movie with any emotion? How many times has a movie inspired you? Made you cry? Or left you anxious to start a new chapter in life? Making correlations is just part of the viewing experience, but to say that the movie was written for the accused purpose of “portraying Bush,” is just too far.
ReplyDeleteThe make up brought about a sense of realism which had nothing to do with the Middle East, while the costumes were to show the intimidation of the Persian and Spartan forces. The costumes were not meant to show inequality or racism in today’s times. The fighting scenes are brutal and prod at the heart of the soldiers. When the Spartan forces are asked to kneel, they neglect doing so. That drive of the Spartan army is as true in the movie as it was in Western History. Spartans were born for their city, trained to die for their city, and left to defend what they had most at stake, their city. Sure the parallels are almost all too similar but it is a movie based on real events; history is the repetition of events. Some events will change, while others remain the same.
Both films and works of literature (as well as all other art forms) are often interpreted in light of the social, economic, and political state surrounding their production and release. Why? Because whether or not we are conscious of it, these factors influence us—our language, our belief systems, even our actions. Whether or not an author or a filmmaker is aware of it, the literature or films they produce are products not only of their own imaginations but of the society in which they live. All art is a byproduct of cultural, political, and economic influences.
ReplyDeleteIn the New York Times article “That Film’s Real Message? It Could Be: ‘Buy a Ticket’” by Michael Cieply, we learn that 300 director Zack Snyder was confronted with the question “Is George Bush Leonidas or Xerxes?” Why on earth could this be important? Well, when a movie is released that depicts a terrorist army made up of dark-skinned Middle-Easterners attacking a free white society during a period of time when a free white society has sent troops to Middle Eastern countries as the result of a terrorist attack, the socio-political implications of such a parallel will not be ignored. Did Zack Snyder intend for such parallels to be drawn? He’s not. And perhaps we can believe him. Perhaps not. Although the film is an adaptation of the 1998 comic series by Frank Miller, Snyder still chose to produce this particular story at this particular time. Why? It is very likely that the current events at the time influenced that decision even if that influence took place on a subconscious level. He chose to depict the terrorist Persian army as inhuman monsters, a typical us-against-them strategy. In fact, a strategy employed in Nazi Germany when Jews were often depicted as monstrous exaggerations of human deformity.
So let’s say, we buy this line of argument, that the film 300 is meant to mirror the War on Terror. Whether or not it is actually true, it is certainly plausible. Wouldn’t all this mean that King Leonidas is, in fact, former president George W. Bush? He is, after all, the one leading an army to defend his country from the tyranny of terrorists. But there is another, less popular, theory behind the wondering of the press that confronted Synder with the question “Is George Bush Leonidas or Xerxes?” Those who believe that 9/11 was just an excuse to wage war, that our own government might have been behind it, that the War on Terror was just a means for our government to tighten its control over its own citizens by taking away freedoms in the name of homeland security…these people believe that George Bush is Xerxes in this analogy. That US military forces represent the real terrorists, murdering innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in their search for an inhuman, intangible enemy: “terror.”
Should such parallels be ignored? Many of you said no, but if you understand that art, in its many forms, has been used throughout history as a means of disseminating controversial political views, then the answer gets more complicated. Literature and now film are often used a means to present various political points of view to the public under the guise of fiction. While this practice is especially pronounced in societies where political dissent is punishable by imprisonment and even death, it is actively practiced in democratic societies as well.
On a side note—since so many of you addressed the issue of race—there are certain factors that cannot be ignored. The free (and white) society represented by the Spartans devalued all who did not live up to its standards of perfections. Infants born with the slightest deformity were considered unfit to live and were thus thrown off a cliff. While this scenario is extreme, most forms of American media (television, cinema, news, the music industry, advertising, etc.) emphasize impossible standards of beauty and perfection that influence the way we think about ourselves and others and the way we live our lives. We live in a society that judges people based on superficial criteria. Studies have produced evidence that unattractive people are less likely to be hired for jobs, as one example. We judge people based on their skin color, their age, their level of attractiveness, their weight. The list could go on and on. Most people avoid people with severe deformities and other superficial “imperfections.” People who are different are ostracized. They are labeled weird. Is this really that much less heartless than the practice of the Spartans extermination of imperfect people?
ReplyDeleteThe film does depict an historic battle. The Spartans did fight the Persians. Both armies are represented by the skin color appropriate to their geographic locations. The film does depict this historical battle from the Spartan point of view, probably because it closely mirrors the political leanings of the US. Not all historical accounts of Xerxes portray him as the monster the film depicts. Is it fair to depict the Persian army as inhuman monsters? Yes, it makes the attacking army more terrifying for the film viewers, but does it not also depict an entire race of people as monsters? Illogical as it may seem, many people come to believe the stereotypes they witness in the media. It is why blondes and jocks are believed to be stupid, it is why people who live in small towns are believed to be rednecks or hicks, it why people from “Joisey” (New Jersey) are all believed to sound like the Italian mobsters we watch in movies.