Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tehran Condemns "anti-Iranian" Movie 300
playfuls.com ^ | 12 March 2006 | playfuls team

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 300; iran; persia; trop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last
To: timsbella
Saw it in Imax yesterday - FABULOUS!

You weren't the only one. Or else you took a LOT of friends:

300 Warner Bros.

Friday: #1, $28,000,000 /
Saturday: #1, $24,800,000 /
Sunday: #1 $17,225,000

21 posted on 03/12/2007 1:09:41 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

If I was running Warner Bros, I would of already green-lighted that project.


22 posted on 03/12/2007 1:10:14 PM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: timsbella
One of the problems with Islamists is that they can't distinguish fairy tale Hollywood from real world America.

What the Islamists actually hate are Liberals. Which is quite Ironic since Liberals love the hell out of the Islamists.
23 posted on 03/12/2007 1:14:03 PM PDT by ryan71 (You can hear it on the coconut telegraph...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timsbella
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."

So the Iranians are more offended by the fact that the Persians were made up to either look ugly or bizarre and inhuman than the fact that the Spartans piled up Persian bodies by the thousand? Also, why are the Iranians so offended about someone insulting their days of kufirdom? They should be happy to see their unbelieving Zoroastrian ancestors defeated and humiliated just like they enjoy seeing unbelieving Jews and Christians defeated and humiliated.

24 posted on 03/12/2007 1:15:12 PM PDT by Quick or Dead (Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timsbella
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."

So the Iranians are more offended by the fact that the Persians were made up to either look ugly or bizarre and inhuman than the fact that the Spartans piled up Persian bodies by the thousand? Also, why are the Iranians so offended about someone insulting their days of kufirdom? They should be happy to see their unbelieving Zoroastrian ancestors defeated and humiliated just like they enjoy seeing unbelieving Jews and Christians defeated and humiliated.

25 posted on 03/12/2007 1:15:14 PM PDT by Quick or Dead (Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timsbella

/sarc

Yes, Iranian wackos: Alerting Americans that YOU don't like "300" will be SURE to keep them from buying tickets.

How's that American embassy doing over there?

/sarc


26 posted on 03/12/2007 1:15:23 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
They have been that way since Alexander of Macedonia stomped Darius III into the dirt in 333 BC. Essentially, Macedonia simply absorbed all of the Persian empire of the time.

I also seem to recall a visit to the then-Persian capital city of Baghdad by the Mongols under Hulegu Khan around 1257-1258, effectively ending the 500-year Abbasid caliphate then headed by Al-Musta'sim.

I suppose the Iranians/Persians sent a strongly-worded whimper about that little disturbance to their preferred way of doing things, too.

27 posted on 03/12/2007 1:15:27 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: livius

The use of sepia tones and other colour techniques made it visually stunning. I also liked that "ready to rumble" rock and roll type music when they were suiting up for battle. I haven't seen or even heard of the comic 300, but it might be work a look.


28 posted on 03/12/2007 1:15:38 PM PDT by timsbella (Mark Steyn for Prime Minister of Canada! (Steve's won my vote in the meantime))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: timsbella
As I said before, it was such a great movie I was probably going to see it again. But after all this hand-wringing by the Iranians and liberals, I'm DEFINITELY seeing it again and I'm bringing more friends with me.

Boy I'd love to see this movie hit $1 billion!

:-)

29 posted on 03/12/2007 1:17:45 PM PDT by The Blitherer (What the devil is keeping the Yanks? Duncan Hunter for President '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaudiusI
You may change your mind after reading this Frank Miller Essay at NPR.

"That Old Piece of Cloth"

http://thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?lastname=Miller&uid=23037&start=0
30 posted on 03/12/2007 1:18:26 PM PDT by fsorbello (Liberalism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere can take care of themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney; ClaudiusI
My, Frank Miller must be pissed about the movie being embraced by the right-wing, considering what a die-hard leftist loon he is... http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004546.htm Miller proudly announced the title of his next Batman book, which he will write, draw and ink. Holy Terror, Batman! is no joke. And Miller doesn't hold back on the true purpose of the book, calling it "a piece of prop[a]ganda," where 'Batman kicks al Qaeda's ass." He may have been left of center in the 80's, however he may have grown up on Sept 11th like many people did.
31 posted on 03/12/2007 1:19:15 PM PDT by aft_lizard (born conservative...I chose to be a republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: timsbella
Is the movie suitable for an 11 and 13 year old boy- they've seen their share of war movies? Would like to take them but thought I would get the Freeper POV on the issue from those that have seen it.
32 posted on 03/12/2007 1:20:54 PM PDT by h-roark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timsbella

"They look thirsty...let's give them something to drink!"


33 posted on 03/12/2007 1:21:41 PM PDT by FortWorthPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: h-roark

I let my 15 year old see it and he loved it. He also thought that it was much to gory for his 13 year old brother to see...


34 posted on 03/12/2007 1:23:39 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney; ClaudiusI

I forgot to add this:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004546.htm

The reason for this work, Miller said, was "an explosion from my gut reaction of what's happening now." He can't stand entertainers who lack the moxy of their '40s counterparts who stood up to Hitler. Holy Terror is "a reminder to people who seem to have forgotten who we're up against."


35 posted on 03/12/2007 1:25:22 PM PDT by aft_lizard (born conservative...I chose to be a republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: h-roark
Is the movie suitable for an 11 and 13 year old boy

It has one pretty graphic sex scene and several other scenes with nudity and sexual themes. Also, don't underestimate how violent it is.

Personally, despite the excellent message, I think it might not be appropriate for boys so young.

36 posted on 03/12/2007 1:25:37 PM PDT by The Blitherer (What the devil is keeping the Yanks? Duncan Hunter for President '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: h-roark

I'd have to say no. My own son is 12, and I would love him to see it, but I'd say my comfort with it is at about the 15 year old range. The battles are intense, but not gory. The nudity is tasteful, but again, not for a younger boy. Others may disagree with me. It's probably my overly protective Jewish mother instinct.


37 posted on 03/12/2007 1:26:26 PM PDT by timsbella (Mark Steyn for Prime Minister of Canada! (Steve's won my vote in the meantime))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: h-roark

I wouldn't let any kid under 16 see this movie, it is extremely graphic and holds nothing back.


38 posted on 03/12/2007 1:27:13 PM PDT by aft_lizard (born conservative...I chose to be a republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: timsbella

I liked the old 1962 movie with Richard Egan, "300
Spartans."
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101106.html


39 posted on 03/12/2007 1:27:28 PM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timsbella
I haven't seen or even heard of the comic 300, but it might be work a look.

It's under $20.00 from Amazon. And worth it for the artwork, which you'll find very familiar.


40 posted on 03/12/2007 1:27:45 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson