300 is Not American Propaganda

Posted on March 18, 2007
Filed Under /dev/null/ | 1,213 views |

I really liked 300. Thought it was beautifully shot, well-acted and more than anything else, captivated my attention and thoroughly entertained me for two hours.

As such I was prepared to completely ignore the rising swell of “300 is American propaganda” rhetoric until people I like started saying so too and then I thought “alrighty, time for an economics/cinema lesson.”

The common criticism, levelled by Iranians and non- alike, is that 300 is an allegory for America in Iraq: a small force of soldiers battling a great middle-eastern evil hell-bent on ruining their way of life, opposed by imbeciles who refuse to see the “true” course ahead. This perspective seems to be seeing increased popularity with the radical left as well, as the sentiment percolates through the blogosphere.

Bollocks, all of it, and here’s just a few simple reasons why in an order that loosely covey’s a chain of relationships.

• The 300 graphic novel was published by Dark Horse Comics in 1998, a full five years before the current war in Iraq started and over two years before 9/11 happened. The movie is almost scene-for-scene true to my copy of the graphic novel (an original, it’ll be on eBay as soon as Miller concedes my requests for an autograph…). The movie is not a re-interpretation to fit the times, the movie is the book, written over nine years ago.
• Filming on 300 started in 2005 while Sin City was raking in the profits at the box office. I suspect Occam’s razor applies here: the simplest explanation is not that 300 is propaganda, but rather that the movie studios realized getting Miller properties into theatres as fast as possible to capitalize on the popularity makes good business sense. Note that Sin City 2 will be coming out just in time to ride the end of the 300 juggernaut.
• Miller makes no bones about basing his graphic novel on The 300 Spartans, filmed in 1692. In 1962 the US had yet to enter Vietnam, much less have a reason to libel Persians in the theatres
• 300 cost $65 million to create. Why spend $65 million shooting a movie when Fox news will happily shill propaganda for advertising revenue and one-on-one access for Wolf Blitzer? Again, Occam’s razor.

A few points about the film’s plot-line itself:

• Miller and the film never claim to be historically accurate, or based on true events, or depicted as depicted by an unbiased third party. Quite the contrary, 300, both graphic novel and movie, are specifically told from the perspective of a Spartan story-teller telling Spartans about the deeds of Spartans in order to get more Spartans riled up enough to also march off to their deaths. Of course biases are in effect. That is the stuff of mythology, the very reason Leonides is super-man and not simply man, the very reason the enemy is both effeminate (”we Spartans laugh at them!”) and monstrous (”they aren’t even human, giant axes for arms!”) at the same time. Do we really want to hear from a factual story-teller (”…and their Immortals fought like madman, vicious to a one!… And their leader, so massive and scary I nearly shat my leather thong!”)? I think perhaps not. Conversely, had Miller decided to tell the story through a narrator with another perspective undoubtedly the baby-eating, pants-wetting, half-dog, allied-with-hellspawn Spartans would have been depicted somewhat differently.
• Speaking of depictions, of course it’s depicted unrealistically. The myth, the graphic novel, the movie all would be boring as hell otherwise. Would you go see a movie about 20,000 well-trained soldiers bravely and valiantly kicking the snot out of 300 semi-clothed losers? Me neither.
• Finally, and maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t think the Spartans were portrayed in a particularly favourable light either. In the first thirty minutes of the movie we see Spartan child abuse, eugenics, implied rape and publicly-sanctioned murder. Not exactly a utopian paradise, Sparta. Hardly as cut-and-dried as one would make it were one hoping for favourable unconscious comparisons against one’s country.

I’d conjecture one more point as well: nowhere in 300 are the Persians referred to as Iranian. I suspect that had Iran not gotten wild and crazy upset about it all, 90% of the viewing public would not have made the congnitive leap to connect the two, esp. in the United States. I don’t mean to be rude but in a country where 11% of the teenage populace can’t locate their own country on a map, there’s not much chance of them figuring out the geo-political ramifications of a Hollywood film set 2480 years ago amongst societies whose names are now only mentioned in the history books and more familiarly as the names of high-school sports teams and sweet desserts.

Quite frankly, saying 300 is a propagandist tool gives too much credit to Hollywood and the United States propaganda machine. When they want to create military propaganda movies subtlty is usually the first casualty. They create Blackhawk Down, they unapologetically rewrite history in Pearl Harbour, the put The Unit on television. The heroes are clear, the bad guys nameless, faceless, easily-digestible stereotypes. (Is it a coincidence both Blackhawk Down and Pearl Harbour came out quickly in 2001?) Just as they do when they want to create anti-war films. Witness Platoon, A Few Good Men, and M*A*S*H on television.

I end this article with a challenge to those who still think 300 is purposeful propaganda: find a military battle, any military battle, that I cannot re-interpret in some way as pro-American sentiment that would fit your theory. I bet you can’t find a one (allow me to start by knocking one down: Perseus vs. Medusa. The severing of the gorgon head and it being placed into Perseus’ bag retold as Americans toppling Saddam Hussein, covering the head of his statue with their flag before toppling said statue in the centre of Baghdad). Your turn.

Update: Some examples of the “300 is propaganda” argument:

• 300: Racist War Propaganda with Septic Timing: “It is a brand of propaganda I had imagined was a thing of the past. 300 would make Leni Riefenstahl blush.”
• “300″ - Blatant Propaganda Movie: “300 will likely be a masturbatory experience for the Ann Coulter crowd”
• And close to home, a rousing discussion on Discover Vancouver in 300: A racist film: “The average people doesn’t really study history and learn pretty much most historical facts from movies. I wonder how these people would think of Persians when they come out of theater.”
• “300″: Most Important Piece of Propaganda Made Since 9-11: “As you know, I wasn’t going to see the movie for fear that it would be a 2 hour advertisement for joining the gays.”
• 300 — Dazzling Storytelling; Blatant Propaganda: “Xerxes represents the typical view of ‘AntiChrist’ “
• Tehran condemns “anti-Iranian” movie 300: “…the film was an insult to Persian culture and in line with the American “psychological war” against Iran.”

This one is my favourite so far. A full condemnation as propaganda from someone who hadn’t yet seen the movie but proudly admits to forming complex opinions based solely on seeing a trailer:

• Is the film ‘300′ Anti-Iranian/Pro-War Propaganda?: “So I am calling 300 Official War Propaganda, despite my desire to go see it. I am impervious to the propaganda because I already see it as propaganda.”.

I couldn’t make this stuff up. I’m formulating a new opinion that 300 is nothing more than a mirror into the geo-political/religious world view of the reviewer, myself included Film students, there’s your thesis.

Comments

Copyright © 2007 ob.blog • Using Modernpaper theme created by Performancing