Ten Years Later, Zack Snyder’s ‘300’ is Uglier Than Ever
- Thread starter Kimura
- Start date
THANK YOU. I swear I felt like I was going crazy seeing people come into this thread and casually dropping lines like this type of criticism of 300 is new and extreme.
Here's another OUTRAGEOUS article about 300, that also highlights that 2007 wasn't some bygone, simpler time, and that stunningly, people thought the movie was problematic even 11 years ago.
https://film.avclub.com/zack-snyder-s-300-presaged-the-howling-fascism-of-the-a-1798265082
Are you really at this point were we treat a movie from 12 years ago like a movie under the Mussolini regime?
"They had different morals back than!"
This was almost certainly the intention all along. The movie is explicitly framed as a story narrated by Dilios, who is just about the farthest thing from an impartial observer.
What are your arguments for how the film is not ableist, homophobic, xenophobic or doesn't have toxic masculinity? Spartans were not fans of democracy, they loved dictatorships and slaves. Greek towns in the Persian empire had democracy in 493, thirteen years before Xerxes invaded Greece. Miller/Snyder describe the Near East as lacking the rationality and passion for liberty that Greeks had. That the Near East was a sea of mysticism, even though Persians were fans of the scientific method (Chaldaeans, Taxila where Panini wrote the first scientific book of grammar) and religion.
And then depicting Persians as this massive evil force who need to be defeated so that democracy can happen. Yet quite a few Greek states were siding with the Persians and life under the Persian empire was kind of alright (little to no slavery) compared to Athenian rule (slaves and women were not treated well). After the Persian wars, the Peloponnesian wars between Athenians and Spartans didn't make life or striving for democracy any easier.
Spartans are depicted as white people, while Persians are dark skinned in the film. The Persian Immortals look like orcs in the movie, with soulless black eyes, mutilated faces/hands with long fingernails, and black garb (even though they were quite colourful in reality), so in the film it literally looks like a black and white fight. Persians are afforded no humanity.
Xerxes being depicted as this extravagant, effeminate king who flirts with our very straight protagonist in a land of Spartans that all seem to be very straight, uh huh yeah. Even though Spartans had a culture where men and youths had physical relations until adulthood and wives had to look like men at honeymoon to help Spartans transition from homosexual to heterosexual love. Ephialtes being depicted as some severely deformed traitor is a bit weird to add. He's a traitor but Frank Miller/Zack Snyder gotta add that he's a hunchback, so it makes it easier to hate him or something?
So for whom is the historical revisionism appealing? Hmm, maybe far right people like Hitler, Anders Breivik, or Golden Dawn who see the battle of Thermopylae as the founding of western civilisation, love Spartans, and that multi-ethnic foreigners need to be kicked out of Europe at any cost. So of course this would extend to neo-Nazis and anti-immigration folks.
Correct, and that's fine from a narrative perspective, but it doesn't excuse the film as an end product, and definitely not the graphic novel.
What are your arguments for how the film is not ableist, homophobic, xenophobic or doesn't have toxic masculinity? Spartans were not fans of democracy, they loved dictatorships and slaves. Greek towns in the Persian empire had democracy in 493, thirteen years before Xerxes invaded Greece. Miller/Snyder describe the Near East as lacking the rationality and passion for liberty that Greeks had. That the Near East was a sea of mysticism, even though Persians were fans of the scientific method (Chaldaeans, Taxila where Panini wrote the first scientific book of grammar) and religion.
And then depicting Persians as this massive evil force who need to be defeated so that democracy can happen. Yet quite a few Greek states were siding with the Persians and life under the Persian empire was kind of alright (little to no slavery) compared to Athenian rule (slaves and women were not treated well). After the Persian wars, the Peloponnesian wars between Athenians and Spartans didn't make life or striving for democracy any easier.
Spartans are depicted as white people, while Persians are dark skinned in the film. The Persian Immortals look like orcs in the movie, with soulless black eyes, mutilated faces/hands with long fingernails, and black garb (even though they were quite colourful in reality), so in the film it literally looks like a black and white fight. Persians are afforded no humanity.
Xerxes being depicted as this extravagant, effeminate king who flirts with our very straight protagonist in a land of Spartans that all seem to be very straight, uh huh yeah. Even though Spartans had a culture where men and youths had physical relations until adulthood and wives had to look like men at honeymoon to help Spartans transition from homosexual to heterosexual love. Ephialtes being depicted as some severely deformed traitor is a bit weird to add. He's a traitor but Frank Miller/Zack Snyder gotta add that he's a hunchback, so it makes it easier to hate him or something?
So for whom is the historical revisionism appealing? Hmm, maybe far right people like Hitler or Golden Dawn who see the battle of Thermopylae as the founding of western civilisation, love Spartans, and that multi-ethnic foreigners need to be kicked out of Europe at any cost. So of course this would extend to neo-Nazis and anti-immigration folks like Anders Breivik.
A story can portray heinous shit without endorsing it. The interpretation that 300 is propaganda by and for Spartans completely fits.
And that propaganda is wielded by far right extremists. That Frank Miller went on to do Holy Terror is only fitting.
Like, seriously. All of this. Where's that image of the column of Jack Kirby (or was it Stan Lee, can't remember) being baffled that people see comics as purely entertainment or think that that should be all they are that I've seen floating around, and layin' down facts that that's not what comics have ever been or what they should be. Seems very appropriate for this thread. Anyone know what I'm talking about and can help me out here?
A movie from 2007 based closely on a historically inaccurate graphic novel from 1998 is by and for Spartans....?
Unfortunate, but not the movie's problem. Those people will latch onto any narrative or symbol that suits their purposes.
And that propaganda is wielded by far right extremists. That Frank Miller went on to do Holy Terror is only fitting.
On the bright side, at least he didn't get to use Batman like he originally wanted.
What are your arguments for how the film is not ableist, homophobic, xenophobic or doesn't have toxic masculinity? Spartans were not fans of democracy, they loved dictatorships and slaves. Greek towns in the Persian empire had democracy in 493, thirteen years before Xerxes invaded Greece. Miller/Snyder describe the Near East as lacking the rationality and passion for liberty that Greeks had. That the Near East was a sea of mysticism, even though Persians were fans of the scientific method (Chaldaeans, Taxila where Panini wrote the first scientific book of grammar) and religion.
And then depicting Persians as this massive evil force who need to be defeated so that democracy can happen. Yet quite a few Greek states were siding with the Persians and life under the Persian empire was kind of alright (little to no slavery) compared to Athenian rule (slaves and women were not treated well). After the Persian wars, the Peloponnesian wars between Athenians and Spartans didn't make life or striving for democracy any easier.
Spartans are depicted as white people, while Persians are dark skinned in the film. The Persian Immortals look like orcs in the movie, with soulless black eyes, mutilated faces/hands with long fingernails, and black garb (even though they were quite colourful in reality), so in the film it literally looks like a black and white fight. Persians are afforded no humanity.
Xerxes being depicted as this extravagant, effeminate king who flirts with our very straight protagonist in a land of Spartans that all seem to be very straight, uh huh yeah. Even though Spartans had a culture where men and youths had physical relations until adulthood and wives had to look like men at honeymoon to help Spartans transition from homosexual to heterosexual love. Ephialtes being depicted as some severely deformed traitor is a bit weird to add. He's a traitor but Frank Miller/Zack Snyder gotta add that he's a hunchback, so it makes it easier to hate him or something?
So for whom is the historical revisionism appealing? Hmm, maybe far right people like Hitler, Anders Breivik, or Golden Dawn who see the battle of Thermopylae as the founding of western civilisation, love Spartans, and that multi-ethnic foreigners need to be kicked out of Europe at any cost. So of course this would extend to neo-Nazis and anti-immigration folks.
Great post. They really didn't even try to hide the shitty racist propoganda.
Are we really playing this dumb game? I'm not sure how much clearer it could be that I was referring to the narrative device within the movie. Are you seriously fucking suggesting that I was claiming the movie was made by real Spartans?
Umm?
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking of, thank you. ;)
this one
I guess when you put personal taste in the table, discution get rocky, like "this movie is so good but the actor gropes woman's ", "this thing is so amazing but the autor is a racist".
I personally really enjoyed 300, and I didn't know all the background info about the director and the novel, but i can acknowledge it.
I personally really enjoyed 300, and I didn't know all the background info about the director and the novel, but i can acknowledge it.
Nicely said. I mean, even for the people who apparently don't know how academia works and are in disbelief at how lowly popular genre things are explored in an academic setting all the time, a 5 seconds search through one of many databases brings up a bunch of results. 1, 2, 3, etc.
This is not new, or unique or irregular. People aren't only now deciding to pile up on your favorite thing by your favorite filmmaker because they don't like him or because of "outrage culture" or whatever other non-sense. This isn't "backlash". There is no reason to be so defensive about this thread, especially when the appropriate context is given, and the current political climate brings some old stuff into a new light.
The point is the story, even if propaganda in the movie or novel, was not made "for Spartans." You can't use the existence of a narrative device to deflect from criticizing the contents of the narrative itself unless it actively engages in meta-commentary, which 300 does not.
Think about it, even just a little. I loved the movie, but yeah it doesn't take much thought to see how they were pushing that racism angle. All that "Persians" shit
Thats a real shame, its the only movie of Snyders I liked. It fucking sucks having it tainted by bullshit like this. People can really be shitty.
If you want to see it as racist I am sure you can.
I always saw it through the eyes of the Spartans, that all the Persian creatures and different people seemed outlandish and "monstrous" to them at the time. Like the overly big elephants were probably normal elephants, they just seemed so outlandish to the Greeks because they never saw elephants before and were shown through the eyes of the Spartans in the movie
I always saw it through the eyes of the Spartans, that all the Persian creatures and different people seemed outlandish and "monstrous" to them at the time. Like the overly big elephants were probably normal elephants, they just seemed so outlandish to the Greeks because they never saw elephants before and were shown through the eyes of the Spartans in the movie
I still like the movie and don't really care to view something like this through the worst lens possible.
A story can portray heinous shit without endorsing it. The interpretation that Birth Of A Nation is propaganda by and for white folks completely fits. Unfortunate white supremacists love it, but not the movie's problem. Those people will latch onto any narrative or symbol that suits their purposes.
:P
Hey, travelling black face ministal shows were "just a play" why do you have to bring politics into it?
Dont know if it's been mentioned, but it's an ancient myth and the comic book reworked it a bit to fit the modern author's worldview, which is pretty bad. Snyder followed the comic book closely and because he actually seems to have poor reading comprehension, it made it to the screen.
(Snyder seems to misunderstand most of his source materials. Watchmen is good because the book is good and he unthinkingly copy/pasted it. That isn't a good movie by choice but by fluke.)
If you want to see it as racist I am sure you can.
I think you might be misremembering it. It is an incredibly fascistic story (which is also historically accurate). I remember being very uncomfortable in the cinema about the attitudes expressed towards disabled people (again, historically accurate). Also the scene with the Persian Emperor is really weird.
All of that would be fine if the film critically examined those ideas. It doesn't. The fascists are clearly framed as the heroes.
I remember watching this movie back in 2007 and being put off by the extremely heavy handed political commentary. All the bellicose posturing over FREEDOM from the barbarous Persian hordes is difficult to stomach when you have even passing knowledge of how tortorously awful the Spartan slave state was. When the Queen delivered her "freedom isn't free" line, I nearly puked in my mouth for how much it butchers the history of the era to push an American neoconservative agenda.
I find it really hard to believe that people missed these overtones, especially considering this was the twilight of the Bush era and the release of this movie coincided with the Iraq War surge. Not that I hate it or anything, it's a fun action movie, but this is like watching Avatar and not realizing it's an allegory about the dangers of colonialism. You have to have ACTUALLY turned your brain off to miss all this.
I find it really hard to believe that people missed these overtones, especially considering this was the twilight of the Bush era and the release of this movie coincided with the Iraq War surge. Not that I hate it or anything, it's a fun action movie, but this is like watching Avatar and not realizing it's an allegory about the dangers of colonialism. You have to have ACTUALLY turned your brain off to miss all this.
Movie was cool with rad fights.
Using it as a religion 10 years later likely means you are not cool if you are doing that.
Using it as a religion 10 years later likely means you are not cool if you are doing that.
300 is one of the most transparently political movies I've ever seen, and the fact that grown adults can watch it and not immediately notice its heavily telegraphed attitudes towards homosexuality, the disabled, and scary brown people is deeply depressing.
How do you look at a movie post 9/11 where a bunch of chiseled white dudes are screaming about freedom and liberty while butchering a horde of grotesquely effeminate and servile dark-skinned people bent on world-domination and not at any single moment think "hmmm, I wonder if something's going on here".
How do you look at a movie post 9/11 where a bunch of chiseled white dudes are screaming about freedom and liberty while butchering a horde of grotesquely effeminate and servile dark-skinned people bent on world-domination and not at any single moment think "hmmm, I wonder if something's going on here".
What if you put no thought behind what you're watching...
This is the best and most succinct explanation I've seen.
This thread is making me genuinely wonder how a person is capable of not thinking of about ANY of the themes and imagery of a movie whatsoever. I mean...how can a brain actually function that way?
I wonder what other things the person experiences only at face value. Are they the same type of people who struggle at understanding non-verbal cues when obtaining consent and genuinely ask when has Donald Trump ever said anything racist?
It's a movie, I don't take it as anything more than that...but we live in the day and age when everything is combed over looking for agendas and whatnot.
I feel for people can't just watch something and can't help but find faults or subtexts or hidden meanings in everything.
I feel for people can't just watch something and can't help but find faults or subtexts or hidden meanings in everything.
Like this:
etc. etc.
Just refuse to think about anything I guess. Or dismiss it as "outrage" lol.
Hey guys, it's just a movie.
You know, movies do not have story, characters, themes, nor do they endorse points of view.
It's just a roll of film in a can, with 100% no tought on what happens on it or why, or context or a vision from creative people.
You know, movies do not have story, characters, themes, nor do they endorse points of view.
It's just a roll of film in a can, with 100% no tought on what happens on it or why, or context or a vision from creative people.
Sentences like this are normally a dead giveaway that it means a lot more to you than "just a movie"
Up next it is just a book. Someone just dumped random words onto pages and called it a day.
I see where you're coming from. I just see it as being indulgent in a fantasy concept without actually being a practitioner of it.
like getting of on incest porn without actually wanting to do your own mother
Look, you can watch movies however you want, but none of this shit is hidden. Don't pretend it's hard to find the hidden meaning that the depiction of the Spartans is warped to represent American notions of freedom and liberty. Hell, the entire home front subplot that the Spartan expedition was a politically unpopular move that soft "liberal" voices in Athens and the Spartan political class opposed is COMPLETELY fictitious, and only put into the story to parallel contemporary politics. It's absurdly transparent in it's intent.
I never really thought about the movie in this way, but in retrospect the movie was pretty clearly anti-gay with it's hyper-masculine "boy-lovers" insults of the Athenians.
I don't think it's anywhere near the worst movie imaginable as this article supposes, but it's definitely problematic (it was in 2006 when it was released but especially so in 2018).
I don't think it's anywhere near the worst movie imaginable as this article supposes, but it's definitely problematic (it was in 2006 when it was released but especially so in 2018).
Naw, it's a movie....based on a comic book, based on the creators liking of an earlier film and the subject matter, it's all fiction.
But then again, back in 1962 people thought that 300 spartans had an agenda as well, so I guess sometimes shit doesn't change.