Posted on 03/12/2007 12:51:43 PM PDT by timsbella
Iran on Monday strongly condemned the US film company Warner Bros. over the allegedly "anti-Iranian" blockbuster film 300.
Javad Shamqadri, art advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told Fars news agency that the film was an insult to Persian culture and in line with the American "psychological war" against Iran.
Zack Snyder's film, based on a comic book by Frank Miller, tells the story of the battle of Thermopylae in Greek history in which 300 Spartan warriors led by King Leonidas heroically fought a massive Persian army attack, delaying an invasion by King Xerxes' forces and giving Greeks time for a counterattack.
Iran's has called foul over what it calls "deviation of history" but also because the Persians in the film were shown as "ugly and violent creatures rather than human beings."
The news network Khabar organised a special programme in which the film was evaluated from several angles by film critics who argued that the film's alleged efforts to expose Persians as violent was a US political plot implemented through Hollywood and the Warner Bros. company.
The state-run network also linked the film to ongoing political differences between Washington and Tehran such as the nuclear dispute.
The film critics further said that after Germans, Japanese, Russians and Arabs, Iranians seem to become the new "villian" in Hollywood productions.
A large number of Iranians abroad have already started a worldwide email campaign to send protest missives to Warner Bros. for having insulted Persian culture and history.
The film reportedly made 70 million dollars over its opening weekend, making it the first official blockbuster of the year.
(Excerpt) Read more at playfuls.com ...
I had considered taking my 11 yo son but after seeing it first I will not. The violence is particularly graphic and the sex is particularly ... graphic? lol
Yeah, but the Persians were really nice to the Jooos, don't forget that. In FACT, most likely, the Persian army included JOOOS (and Assyrians, Egyptians, Lydians, Ethiopians, Indians, Persians, Sogdians, Scyths, proto-slavs, proto-germans etc. etc., pretty much the ancestors of all of us who ain't Greek)
Teaser example here. You can see why the leftys and loons are not pleased.
What is pretty funny is that many of those we now consider Greeks were actually either supporters of the Persians (like the Thebians, or Greeks descended from Slavs/Scythians) or Persian-leaning neutrals like the Macedonians.
Ryou're wrong about that:
It was a top-of-the head recollection, but I recall the Siege of Baghdad as happening around that time [1258 was the last four digits of my old phone number, and it was my mnemonic recall helper]
Accordingly, a search for Siege of Baghdad, 1258 turns up the following info from Wiki
The Abbasid caliphate had been in existence for over 500 years, since the accession of the first caliph in Baghdad 751 CE. The Abbasids were the second of the Islamic dynasties; they had defeated the Umayyads, who had ruled since the death of Ali in 661.
Once mighty, the Abbasid caliphate had lost control over much of the former Islamic empire and had declined into a minor state. The caliph had become a figurehead, controlled by Mamluk or Turkic warlords. However, the caliphate still had great symbolic significance, and Baghdad was still a rich and cultured city.
The battle
The Mongol army, led by Hulagu (or Hulegu) Khan and the Chinese commander, Guo Kan as in vice-command set out for Baghdad in November of 1257. Hulagu marched with what was probably the largest army ever fielded by the Mongols. By order of Mongke Khan, one in ten fighting men in the entire empire were gathered for Hulagu's army (Saunders 1971).
Hulagu demanded surrender; the caliph refused, warning the Mongols that they faced the wrath of Allah if they attacked the caliph. Many accounts say that the caliph failed to prepare for the onslaught; he neither gathered armies nor strengthened the walls of Baghdad. David Nicolle states flatly that the Caliph not only failed to prepare, even worse, he greatly offended Hulagu Khan by his threats, and thus assured his destruction. (Monke Khan had ordered his brother to spare the Caliphate if it submitted to the authority of the Mongol Khanate.)
Prior to laying siege to Baghdad, Hulagu easily destroyed the Lurs, and his reputation so frightened the Assassins (also known as the Hashshashin) that they surrendered their impregnable fortress of Alamut to him without a fight in 1256. He then advanced on Baghdad.
Once near the city, Hulagu divided his forces, so that they threatened both sides of the city, on the east and west banks of the Tigris. The caliph's army repulsed some of the forces attacking from the west, but were defeated in the next battle. The attacking Mongols broke some dikes and flooded the ground behind the caliphs army, trapping them. Much of the army was slaughtered or drowned.
Under Guo Kan's order, the Chinese counterparts in the Mongolian army then laid siege to the city, constructing a palisade and ditch, wheeling up siege engines and catapults. The siege started on January 29. The battle was swift, by siege standards. By February 5 the Mongols controlled a stretch of the wall. Al-Musta'sim tried to negotiate, but was refused.
On February 10 Baghdad surrendered. The Mongols swept into the city on February 13 and began a week of massacre, looting, rape, and destruction.
True. Funny how things turn out. I bet if they worked on their problems they might have, considering the distance.
Maybe a measure of civility would have prevailed in that part of the world.
It is interesting how the Persians haven't made a connection between the decline of their civilization and their conquest/conversion by the forces of Islam.
A great quote showing the Iranians are completely out of touch with reality:
Javad Shamqadri, an art advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was quoted as saying "following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the U.S...."
LOL! We have "cultural authorities"? Can anyone imagine David Geffen and President Bush working together on **anything**?
Think they don't like 300, wait till they meet our Marines then they will have something to complain about.
The Spartans, leading the largest Greek Phalanx Army ever fielded up to that time[ and maybe after], of some 40,000 Greeks, routed, and annihilated the army Xerxes left behind after he went back to Persia. That battle was at Platea.
Iranaians still celbrate a festival in the Spring involving bonfires. Goes back to the old days.
"The Spartans, leading the largest Greek Phalanx Army ever fielded up to that time[ and maybe after], of some 40,000 Greeks, routed, and annihilated the army Xerxes left behind after he went back to Persia. That battle was at Platea."
Exactly, it certainly wasn't at Salamis as stated. However even at Platea the Spartans were a minority making up about one third of the total force.
I agree with most of those viewer comments. What I dont like is the way they depicted Persians. During my experience of meeting diverse people from different cultures, Persians came out to be on the close top near the Germans. Very well educated, affable and beautiful people. Have several friends of Persian ancestry who are very fine gentlemen and ladies.
Plus, there is a huge PARSEE population in Bombay, India from where I hail. One of my best childhood friends is a Parsee as well and dont think he looked like a monster.
Depicting them as sub-human monsters is not an insult to them but to the people who make that ridiculous comparison. Only shows their ignorance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.