300: The Public has spoken

The movie did something right:

Earlyshowings for "300" film draw sell-out crowds

and

Here Come The Spartans! R-Rated '300' Stampeding Towards $60 Mil Weekend; Record For Biggest March Opening Ever

Also, a breath of fresh air and some reasoned wisdom from writer Hesiod, on the liberal Daily Kos (Clearly a real fan):

"300" is Not About Iraq, Iran or George Bush

He writes:

Some people are just stupid.

and

The criticism of the movie, however, is ludicrous. It pretty faithfully tracks the dialogue and plot of Miller's graphic novel, which was published in 1998! One clue that, for certain, it is not intended to be an anti-Bush movie is that noted Neocon Victor Davis Hanson is an historical consultant for the project.

and

There is no way that it intentionally or implicltly supports Bush or opposes Bush. It is depicting an historic event of antiquity, in a highly stylized, mythologized manner.

I can certainly understand why the director of the movie, Zack Snyder, is winkingabout its meaning. Anything that gets people talking about his movie is good publicity and will generate box office.

If I were him, I wouldn't discourage this kind of speculation either. But, I think any resonance to our current times is due entirely to the universal themes and timelessness of the story itself, and has nothing to do with the intentions of the movie's creative team.

But a commenter on Kos notes:

it grinds on me, nevertheless, because I just know how popular culture will interpret what is put to screen. No helping it, but...eh.

This is exactly what I said yesterday. The fear from the left is a vindication for the right and the glorification of noble, valiant reasons to go to war: preserving freedom.

Another deranged commenter on Kos says:

The clips used the same kind of "we'll do what's necessary" rhetoric that Bushniks are so fond of. The way neocon creeps love twisting metaphors, it looked highly probable that the movie would deliver some thinly-veiled messaging in support of pooring more lives into the quagmire of Bush's world historic blunder.

To return to some of Dana Stevens' criticism in Slate:

Here are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with the "bad" (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown people. Disfigured people. Gay men (not gay in the buff, homoerotic Spartan fashion, but in the effeminate Persian style). Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians. Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws. Elephants and rhinos (filthy creatures both). The Persian commander, the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is a towering, bald club fag with facial piercings, kohl-rimmed eyes, and a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him.

What of Lord of the Rings? Didn't the noble and white band of white men(led by Viggo Mortensen, an outspoken war critic, ironically) march in opposition of tyranny that took the shape of a "dark" evil lord who created evil "black" orcs and monsters? Was Tolkien a racist?

What of Star Wars? The youthful, angelic Luke Skywalker combats the "dark lords" Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine. Is George Lucas (a flaming liberal) racist?

What of Alexander? Oliver Stone created a (crappy) epic of Alexander the Great's exploits in Persia. Is Stone a racist?

The bottom line: Quit the hyperbole, the liberal antiwar hysteria. Critics are only making themselves look stupid, and conflating what should be a non-issue.

And as for Miller, the film's creator, here is an interview he did on NPR.

NPR: [...] Frank, what’s the state of the union?

FM: Well, I don’t really find myself worrying about the state of the union as I do the state of the home-front. It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants ... and we’re behaving like a collapsing empire. Mighty cultures are almost never conquered, they crumble from within. And frankly, I think that a lot of Americans are acting like spoiled brats because of everything that isn’t working out perfectly every time.

...NPR: A lot of people would say what America has done abroad has led to the doubts and even the hatred of its own citizens.

And speaking of the "grotesque" Persian that "300" depicts:

FM: Well, okay, then let’s finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.

...NPR: And as you talk to people in the streets, the people you meet at work, socially, how do you explain this to them?

FM: Mainly in historical terms, mainly saying that the country that fought Okinawa and Iwo Jima is now spilling precious blood, but so little by comparison, it’s almost ridiculous. And the stakes are as high as they were then. Mostly I hear people say, ‘Why did we attack Iraq?’ for instance. Well, we’re taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, we’re doing the same thing now.

Lastly, this just brings a smile to my face. The writer often makes absolutely no sense, but it's interesting to read nonetheless.

Make a fuss

We need to be offended when an offense is targeted at us.

As you may know, there is a petition drafted against a movie called “300”. Actually, a short clip of the movie made me laugh rather than offend me. The freaky monster that the supposed “Persian Immortals” let out to smash up the Spartans is priceless.

Anyway, after watching the clip of the movie and reading the petition, which is a bit too hyper-Persian for my taste, I decided to put my name on it for a simple reason. We need it. Let me elaborate. We, as in Iranians, need to stand up more, especially with the current political climate. We need to be sticklers about little things so as to insure that we don’t lose on the big things. It’s true that the Persian Empire did not expand “organically”. But, considering the standards of that era, the Persian Army was a love-machine! And, we need to say that as loud as we can.

This movie is not meant as a historical movie, neither is the original book by Frank Miller. Zack Snyder has created a fun-flick. Watch it, eat your popcorn, and try not to have sweaty palms when holding your date’s hand. But, there are too many of these movies that don’t necessarily make Iran/Persia look bad, but they don’t make non-Iranian all that comfortable about our culture either.

In and of itself, “300” would not merit a second of attention from us, because there is so much more to the history and culture of Iran/Persia. But in the Western vacuum that exists about our culture and history, films like “300” amplify the negative perceptions created about Iran and Iranians. Zach Snyder may not have intended to add a political angle to his fun-flick, but John McCain’s election chances ride on exactly such political angles.

The movie critics have made a big deal of it, as a result, bloggers such as myself are making a big deal out of it to counter many statements that have been inaccurate and often out of line.

I recommend this movie if you like war films. It will certainly deliver.