When i first heard about 300 and watched the trailer, i thought it looked like a good film, but knew that the mere fact it's about a battle involving the persians would make the iranians upset, due to the fact that there was no doubt it would portray them in a negative way, and then several days later, i read about iranians being annoyed at it, so i watched it to see how bad it really was. to be fair i think they do have a point, but i don't think they should take it seriously.
***Potential spoiler warnings. historical account of battle below***
The battle was reconstructed pretty accurately. The iranians/persians do have a very proud history, considering they were one of the worlds first civilizations. King Xerxes managed to build his vast empire because cities he took over were <censored> scared when they saw the size of his truely massive army, including the famous army of invincibles, who were sorta like the ninja of the Persian empire.
However, these "invincibles" made up a very small size of their army, the rest was just slaves, which is why they fought so badly and hence any city that stood up to them actually did very well to fight them off, before only being overun eventually by overwhelming numbers.
...Then they came to the spartans who were exeptionally good fighters in comparison to the rest of the region, and hence halted the persian invasion.
King Xerxes then vanished, probably in humiliation, rumoured to have gone mad and toured Africa, where he disappears from history books altogether. almost all historical accounts of the battle were recorded by the greeks, hence it is very possible that they have been exagurated in order to make a good story to pass down the generations. However, the issue for the iranians isnt the fact they suffered a humiliating defeat, since every empire in existance has had its bad tales to tell.
In the film, the Persians are shown very negatively, wearing chains from every orafice etc in a barbaric way in comparison to the spartans who were all smartly dressed in white togas etc. in reality there is no evidence that shows the persians dressed in such a way. This negative portrayal is also shown further by the fact that on the persian side are so many disfigured people, for example, the executioner having severed arms with blades as replacements.
Also, we see the King Xerxes proclaiming himself a a God-king, however, the persians followed Zoroastrianism at the time, the areas first monotheistic religeon, which had nothing to do with god-kings, which for example, the egyptians or romans claimed.
Of course, this would be pretty much irrelevant if it wasnt for the threat of iran being invaded by the US, with everyone in iran being anxious about what's going to happen to them over the next decade, it's understandable that they may feel threatened or intimated easily, and would explain why they accuse this film of being the first step for the western governments demonising and hence preparing their public for war. after all, this is normally how most wars start off, for example, before Hitler started persecuting the Jews, he spread leaflets around demonising them, hence preparing his people to accept the persecution of Jews amongst them.
However, i think the Iranians should know that this isn't how we really think of them, i was watching it knowing at the end of the day, it was a film and dramatisation, and is based millenia ago, and since then MANY things in the world, and persia/iran have changed since then, hence it could in no way be closely similar to the iran of today. I think that anyone who watched this film and came out saying iran needs to be bombed are either extreme idiots (who probably couldnt put iran on a map, or even relate persia to iran, hence are no threat anyway) or people who already had there mind made up before the film, hence the overal impact of the film couldnt really have made that much of a difference.
hence, I say, enjoy the film for what it is. when watching it, don't think of anything to do with politics or current times. I loved the slow motion fight scenes and graphics in general. however, the actual film itself I thought was very cliché of such a film, where very few people take on hordes of oncoming invaders, for example LOTR and that film I saw about the few Americans holding a point in japan while waves of japs come at them, cant remember the name of it though. actually, towards the end I was thinking "gladiator". there was this noble woman doing all the politics behind the scenes of the fighting, and then the scene in the corn field, but then, to my amazement, the same flippin' sound track comes on at the end!
anyway, anyone here seen the original 300 film? it's a far more realistic account of the battle, since they didn't have the CGI or other technology to play around with and dramatise the story with.
edit: all this stuff i've been reading in you're posts about brits hating america and not the other way around. I've seen videos, where british/australian journalists go to the states, and people say that britain should be bombed next, and then scarily point to it on a map when being asked to point to iraq/israel/afghanistan etc. so there. SOME americans want britain bombed. dont deny it.
