Yesterday, I had the dishonor of watching the film 300. Needless to say, it had the most glorified violence I've ever seen (I'm still deciding on whether or not this is an exaggeration). As you can probably tell, I am not a big fan of blood, chopping off one's limbs, or stabbing someone with spears..etc. So really, I should of known better than to agree to see a film like this one. But in all seriousness, I didn't have as much of a problem with the bloodiness as I had a problem with the general tone of the film - which is based on a comic and was created by the same people who did the film Sin City.
The general plot of the film include a Spartan general, who goes to war with Persians with only 300 soldiers against an entire army of Persians dominated by Xerxes, played by Brazilian actor Rodrigo Santoro. While I understand that the film was based on a comic book, I found the portrayals of Persians (played by people of all backgrounds) disturbing. Without throwing a fit about orientalist ideas of the Near East, let me list some problems I personally had with the film (with a queer, feminist and woman of color perspective of course):
1. Most of the "Persians" were not played by actual Persians. The casting consist of people with heavy make up, stereotypically dressed. It offers a racialized depiction of Persians as exotic and barbarous monsters without any accurate or authentic representations of Persia or its people.
2. Let's just get it over with. This movie promotes war and honor. The Spartan king actually really reminded me of our very own George W. Bush, who stubbornly decides to go into war without diplomacy or democracy. Instead, he (the Spartan king, I really can't keep up with names) kills the messenger who asks for "land and water."
3. The victims are of course the Spartans. The movie paints a very grim picture of the Persian empire. The Spartans were depicted as muscular men who are fighting for honor and "freedom." They are in some sort of leather underwear. Their numbers are small, and they have to fight the "evil and cunning" Persians, who are greedy in their conquest. The Spartans are heroic while the Persians (most of them without a face because they are all either wearing masks or turbans that cover their entire faces) are their greedy, not-as-powerful (physically) enemies. This is actually really interesting because although the Spartans are the so-called victims, they killed way more people than the people who died in their own army.
4. Xerxes is demasculinized with painted eyebrows and wears heavy lipstick. If this is not orientalism, then I don't know what is. The great commander is painted as feminine and the movie suggests that he's sexually ambiguous, both in the way he looks and the way he acts - leading to a generalization of an exotic culture. I'm not sure if the film makers were trying to equate sexual ambiguity/feminine characteristic with weakness on purpose, but that's what I got from the film.
More about 300 and heterosexuality here: "Why I have problems with Frank Miller's stories"
5. Women are powerless. In the film, the Spartan queen can only offer her body for another man's use in her desperation to help her husband. The use of her sexuality symbolizes her powerlessness as all women in the film are projected. The men in the movie suggests that women do not have political power. Women are highly objectified and the Spartan queen symbolize many forms of submission in different scenes. Women of color in the film are portrayed as exotic and enticing slaves that are at the hand of Xerxes, the Persian commander, for his use and for the pleasure of men.
6. Persia is full of mythical creatures and Xerxes will do anything to win this war. This all goes back to the orientalist idea of Asia as exotic and mysterious, where the Persians use mystical magic and animals and plays dirty, while the good old Spartans just use their bodies and spears.
7. How can 300 Spartans kick THAT much ass? I don't understand. The highlight of the Spartans was really their racial and cultural superiority. In this Spartan/Persian dichotomy, the Persians are the weak and the Spartans are the strong and brave. But seriously, I don't understand how in the name of science that these frickin' Spartans can kill all those people with hardly a scar. The fictional defeat of tens of thousands of Persians by the 300 Spartans really projects and re-enforces a white supremacist idea of white heroism.
8. I find it disturbing that this film probably made the majority of the audience forget about the empire-building, colonization and imperialism that Greece (and Europe) itself is guilty of.
9. Finally, without writing a term paper, I really just forgot to bring a barf bag.
Please feel free to add your own list in the comments section.
Sorry for the rant, but I have to say it.
You can read more about the offensive nature and the colonized mindset behind the film here:
"Iran outraged by Hollywood war epic"
300 the movie
Monday, March 12, 2007
300
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
haha well said. My review will most likely look similar.
N
What a thoughtful perspective QJ. I'm glad you spoke your mind, like you I wish there were more bloggers out there who are doing meaningful blogging as opposed to superficially updating their pointless Xanga/myspace websites.
About the style of your writing, I think it's fabulous that you are gutsy with the whole cynical tone. But often times when I convey my criticism and cynicism, people react negatively to me. And that's not the reaction I want especially when I'm making a persuasive argument. How do I persuade people if they dismiss my criticism as pessimism? It's great that I know there are people who understand where my criticism are coming from, but I don't want to preach to the choir so to speak... how do I make others who don't share my perspective be open to my criticism? I don't know if you've wondered about that at all...
Yes, you brought up a great point jiani. Although I could be overly critical at times, I take the tone of cynicism lightly. Somethings are just meant to be said. If I suger-coat everything I say, then I'll probably be pulling my hair out right now. It's more of a personal statement to speak in the way that I do because not many queer feminist women of color are given a voice.
I am clearly not out to offend anyone. The way in which I am speaking is to encourage others to think in critical terms. It does not matter if my audience agrees or disagrees with me. I am merely projecting voices that in the real world have been marginalized and unheard.
But yes, thank you again for your thought. My point here is not to be pessimistic (as many people probably might label it as such), but it is to be real. And I wouldn't be the real me without the cynical anti-orientalist.
i agree with a lot of what you said, but as far as the persians not being played by actual persian people: the soldiers were slaves from all the places that the persian army had conquered. that's why there were africans, east asians, etc. of course in today's context, it's a definite reference to iran.
i thought it was interesting that, even though the spartans were the victims, they were portrayed as the heroes. this is the typical american propaganda spin.
also i link to some other discussions of the movie on my blog if you're interested in reading them.
Yes, thank you Nadia for your comment. Regarding the Persians not playing Persians, I was mostly referring to Xerxes, who was played by Brazilian actor Rodrigo Santoro. And also, there seems to be some confusion in the movie about who was actually suppose to be Persian and who were the slaves and whether or not they were played by people of those backgrounds.
yeah, it seems that when the spartans were talking about the persian army, they called them all persians and didn't distinguish between persian and non-persian slave.
it's kind of funny, because i wouldn't object to a latino actor playing a persian (or an arab), in a positive or at least nuanced role, but when the role is negative it becomes something different.
Well written. I wasn't able to enoy the movie fully for it's face value. It had me pointing out the race-ism and historical
inconsistencies. With that said I thought movie was good for it's face value. And it also allows for dialogue about race portrayal and war propaganda.
One thing I didn't realize was the way the women were portrayed in the movie. Thanks for pointing that out.
In addition, I wanted to point out the scare tactics used by the Persian Army, the Spartans, and our acceptance.
Imagery sticks. The tree of the dead and it's gloomy setting used to ward off the Greeks reinforced the inhumanity of the faceless or masked Persians.
While the Spartans killing off the injured and limped were greeted with laughs.
Death was also greeted with different reactions. Such as the Spartan father crying over his son. They also welcomed death in the battlefield(which was true). While the Persian armies not only feared death by also fell like thugs in a Double Dragon game without anyone mourning.
As if, one could say, a white's life is more important than a person of color. And that the East are filled with effiminate men.
Also, they made references to distinguish the Greeks. They were made up of several separate groups with different cultures, such as the reference to Athenians as "boy lovers" and the other ones as "non-soldiers". Also they acknowledged ethnic conflict between Sparta and Athens.
While the Persians Army were all the nations of Asia combined into a collective called Asia with hardly any details to the differences of the cultures they encompass.
By historical accounts they numbered the Persian dead realistically near 10,000. The Spartans had about 300 plus I think somewhere between 1000 Greek allies. The movie with all the current events in it could have tried to challenge the military's "don't tell, don't ask" policy since most of Sparta's Male population was gay.
All said, I did enjoy the movie. And luckly we didn't have to watch gunja dinn, a person of color, save the spartan from an arrow.
Let's just hope hollywood doesn't attempt to make a movie with the mongols invading eastern europe.
Unfortunately I completely disagree... I'm a woman of color. The story is an epic. Have you read any of the Greek epics? How are they portrayed? How are their "enemies" portrayed? It's not Hollywood. Unless we do not want to see movies set in a time way before racism was acknowledged, then we have to realize that these stories really are about heroism and honor and love...
Have you read "things fall apart"? It's African. How are women portrayed?
My lesson from the movie was... "In the me against the world battle, I could kick some major ass" so to speak... Also... the love between a man and a woman ( a couple in general) is sacred or should be... And that's what sustains both.
And... yes, the persians were obviously not played by persians... and they were all referred to as persians because as Xerxes conquered nations, they pretty much became persians and fought for him...
I think they just wanted to make a movie about a story that we know about but hasn't been made before. Not all movies are political. Not all movies should be. An epic is just one of them. It is what it is, and we need to see them. Just like Shakespear's, there are old lessons that these are supposed to teach. And we should take them for what they are... I guess the most important thing is that we know the greeks are also known for telling great tales... This movie was a perfect example... It was told by a Greek (the narrator) and the purpose of him telling it was to glorify the 300!
Sorry this got way longer than i hoped... but lastly, I enjoy story telling and this as one of the few mvies that did a good job. I'm Nigerian, and grew up there and one of the things we did growing up was tell stories after dinner.... So I love a nicely told story... of glory, and honor, and love, and cunning, and wickedness.... LOL.
If it was a modern story then I'll agree with you, I did see a lot of the things you talked about but I just dont think they're in context...
But thnx for writing and sharing...
Thank you anonymous for your thoughts. I am glad that I am getting different perspectives on this post.
I just wanted to address some of the things that you have mentioned from my own perspective. Of course I first would like to acknowledge that although we are both women of color, our stories are probably very different, as women of color lead different lives. So therefore, I would never argue that all women of color share the same thoughts :)
Second, yes, I completely understand that 300 among with other epics are not as historically accurate or non-western as we'd like them to be. And they are indeed bias to some degree. To answer your question about reading "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe, yes I had read that. And also I have read Greek epics such as the Odyssey. I was simply pointing out that unfortunately, everything in the media is extremely Euro-centric. And personally, as an Asian American woman of color, I refuse to identify with Eurocentric views of people of color and the non-western world. 300 is a great example of Eurocentric thought about domination and honor. I was pointing out that although it might not seem directly relevant to our lives today, there's an interesting connection between that movie and how people of color are portrayed in the Western world - as the "Other" and as the weak, powerless, cunning...etc. So in that case, I feel that it is very relevant to our lives.
Thanks for responding... I'm glad you aren't one to get defensive, but stay objective. You made really good points and I guess I wont say they are out of context, more like looking from a different angle... a.k.a criticism.
Anyway, keep up the good writing... it's nice to have young people passionate about things... I'm more of a medic/scientist so a lot of sociology leaves me frustrated. Like... why can't 1 + 1 just equal 2 with not buts :)
I watched the seventies version over the weekend (it's called "the 300 spartans" to differentiate it) and I have to say that at least the new version (very probably) does not have everybody speaking in British accents.
While many of your points have merit, I have to disagree with your approach to the movie. I read the comic before I went to see the movie and, for the most part, it was true to the comic (minus all the sex and the whole subplot with the queen).
While I see where some of your points are coming from, I don't believe you are taking the movie for what it's worth. I mean, it's a movie with the goal to entertain a certain audience, not a documentary or historically accurate depiction of ancient Greece/Persia. Sure it is not the most intellectual of movies, but not all movies are meant to be. If you went into the theater with the idea that it would be thought provoking and have an accurate depiction of the two regions without all the violence/sex/(drugs weren't in this one) then I'm not sure what preview you saw of the movie.
Anonymous,
In the comments section of this post, you can find my addressing some of the issues that you bring up. And as an audience member, I COULD NOT be entertained by the portrayals of Persians. Am I supposed to be entertained by Orientalist portrayals of a group of people at their expense? Am I suppose to laugh it off like a joke? Am I suppose to ignore all the negative reaction from the Iranian community just so I can be "entertained"? I don't really understand why people like you are telling ME whether I SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be offended. And for the record, I am.
Cynical,
I said that this movie was "meant to entertain a certain audience." I did not say it included you.
I am in no way telling you whether to be offended or not. I just offered my opinion that it seemed excessive to me taking a movie - based off of a comic book - based off of an epic tale, and turn it into a race issue.
It seems you're looking for truth and realism from a piece of fiction based on a piece of fiction based on a tall tale. I'm sure this is not the first Hollywood movie you've seen. What did you expect?
Hi Anon,
It doesn't seem like you have read my responses or have a clear understanding of where I am coming from. May I suggest that you familiar yourself with the definition and issues of race and its impact on society before you make a statement like "I just offered my opinion that it seemed excessive to me taking a movie - based off of a comic book - based off of an epic tale, and turn it into a race issue."
Like I mentioned in my post, I understand what this movie is based out of - a comic. But sorry to break it to you, *I* did not turn it into a race issue. It WAS a race issue when it was released. It is STILL a race issue when people do not acknowledge the orientalism behind the movie. It is also a race issue that this movie perpetuates stereotypes of people that is not true and it can impact them on their daily lives. Popular culture plays off of stereotypes of people and racialized identities. There is no such thing as "turning it into a race issue." Because in the United States, race (although socially-constructed) plays a major role in politics, socialization, and the economy... not to mention all the other countless places. Race pops its head everywhere.
You stated, "I'm sure this is not the first Hollywood movie you've seen. What did you expect?" You're right, I didn't really expect anything other than what I critiqued. But I think these issues need to be discussed and that we need to have a critical eye when it comes to popular culture. It isn't simply a movie. It has a negative impact on groups of people. Just because Hollywood is fucked up doesn't mean we should left its critiques unsaid.
I would suggest that you read the articles I have left at the end of my post.
I agree with Cynical.
But for the moment I'd like to comment on the entertainment aspect that so many of you have touched upon. I think that there is something to be said about entertainment value of a movie. In this case there are particular marketing sellpoints that enhance the viewing experience yet take away from the truth or historical reality.
Now I agree that not every movie should be a documentary, but I think what so many people have alluded to on this blog is the power of misrepresentation in the media. The point is not that we are making it a "race" issue...it is a race issue. Yet this may not be as clear to some.
There is something called the Thomas Theorem. And to spare you all the sociological mumbo-jumbo it essentially theorizes that issues whether or not they are real are real in their consequences. Really what it means is that the false representations of particular types of people (stereotypes) racial, gendered, sexual orientation, etc may not have any particular validity...in fact they may solely be baseless interpretations...but the fact is that by reproducing these skewed media interpretations it masks the truth, and perpetuates not only false information but reproduces a cycle of misinformed knowledge and stereotypical portrayals.
I think we can all agree that what we see on tv isn't necessarily true by any means. Similar to how reality tv is not necessarily "reality" but is edited to be a sellable or consumable product. We can all agree that the media can misrepresent issues and of course certain types of people. 300's orientalist line of thought is not as clear to many people which demonstrates the power that these baseless characterizations have in misleading people into thinking that they are harmless and for entertainment value only. Entertainment is one thing, but reproducing biased, and racialized perspectives is another. Edward Said's epistemological dilemma in his book "Orientalism" is that the image of the "Orient" or to be more politically correct "Asia" is constructed in the eyes of non-Asians. These perspectives are analyzed in a way that devalues Asians in order to elevate Western society's cultural superiority. These false epistemological constructions become the foundation for institutionalized racism as they are fed through institutions such as the mass media.
Although I haven't seen the movie, I feel like your critique of it is fair. We shouldn't justify racist or eurocentric ideas in the media, just because the intention was to entertain people. Film is one of the most powerful tools that perpetuate stereotypes, racism, and oppression on so many levels.
One of the most classic and earliest examples of this could be the film "Birth of a Nation" which at the time, and arguably even today, it was hailed as an groundbreaking and historical achievement in the history of film, yet it was a movie that glorified the Ku Klux Klan
qj good job of pointing out the amero-centrism in the movie. i appreciated teh artful display of washboard abs, throbbing thighs, and testosterone fueled men running around 90% naked. I ended up laughing almost throughout the film.
YOU! what is your profession?
i'm uh blacksmith.
YOU! what is your profession?
I'm uh constructor.
SPARTANS!!!
WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?
HUR!! HUR!! HUR!!
i thought that was freakin hillarious.
(not trying to take away from the seriousness of this post, just pointing out idiotic humor in the movie)
Thank you for sharing your opinion, youg lady. Forgive me for missing your name. I picked your review first, for something (can't tell you what now, to save my life!)caught my eye.
I did see your ehtnicity, and the other labels you mentioned. I suppose we all bring with us a sense of pride (or shame, sometimes) when it comes to creating an unbiased review. I guess most people would like to know before they read, about the author, for that can even influence one's opinion of the review. Two-way street, huh?
I do agree with you regarding the portrayal of the spartan "look" vs. the persian grotesqueness. That's kinda hard to miss! I do agree that as far as femininity, the spartan men are definitely not in touch with their feminine sides. The movie makes it quite clear what spartan men are born and bred to do. Xerxes is portrayed as persian men typically were...Cleopatra did not have a monopoly on kohl eyeliner...the men wore it also. I think they simply found it attrative against their caramel skin...it's a kick ass look. Not necessarliy feminine, any more than you would say Mick Jagger is for wearing eye liner. That was their style, sister.
As for how the 300 were able to do so well...they had help. And they did lose. They killed more because they were brutal, "kill by any means", types of dudes. Again, the movie made that quite clear...many spartan youth did not survive their rite of passage...this was simply the culling of the herd. They were a figting culture. We've only just now allowed women to fight in battles, so it's not a huge stretch to think that if a society is based on fighting, women would take a backseat. I'm sure behind every great spartan leader in bed, there was a woman whispering strategic plans...perhaps even sharing ideas. They weren't just breeders...but you are right, they didn't have near the power that roman women would have, much later.
Thanks again for your input.
www.myspace.com/shamrockrchick
Post a Comment