Phoebus wrote:
You're right that they are not, but the onus is on you to demonstrate that "300" was both. The creators, distributors, and makers behind it vociferously denied this even before the film was released.
Why did the creators have to deny that 300 is political propaganda even before it was released? Were they accused of such? I am not alone!!
From memory, the Persian messenger whose arms are amputated before the battle was black too.
Was he? He simply looked swarthy to me.
"Swarthy" is such a difficult word to define. It doesn't mean dark skin does it?
So, that's quite a few prominent roles. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
And I'll reiterate: the ephors and Councilman Theros not only outnumber the two, possibly three dark-skinned individuals in the movie; they also get more screen time and represent a far greater deal of villainy than all of their "evil" counterparts combined.
The ephors were deformed and definitely "evil". It feels like you're arguing my point.
Phoebus, '300' is my first introduction to Frank Miller. I think the movie is disturbing enough to write lengthy posts about in terms of it's politics. You should've guessed that I am highly ulikely to seek out his other work.
Then no offense, but you can't very well say that you have a grasp of who the man is or what his beliefs are. Your only exposure to the man comes from a movie based on one of his works;
You're putting words in my mouth. The first sentence I wrote to you in this thread was emphasising that I have no interest in determining Frank Miller's political persuations. I have never claimed to "know who the man is or what his beliefs are". I've been very clear in stating that my only introduction to Miller is the movie. And having expressed my very negative views of it, when you recommended checking out his other works, I was surprised.
your reaction to that movie is negative because you feel the use of darker skin equates to a character being evil--even though there are just as much, if not moreso, evil characters who are about as white as one might get. All said and done, I'm not sure that your view of Miller is fair. I really don't mean to be rude, but I think your outlook on him is rushed.
Again. Are you arguing my point here that dark skin equated with evil the way monstrosities were? Every "evil" character that wasn't dark-skinned was deformed, which served to demonize them. The sole exception is the councilman.
I'm sure you don't mean to be rude as you say, but it would be nicer to disagree on a movie without being told to "take an objective look" or having one's views labelled as "rushed".
Own merit as in I shouldn't have to look at his other work to assure myself about this one.
As I said; it was an award-winning, acclaimed, and popularly received work. Artists and writers from across the field nominate the five panel members (who often are not comics professionals themselves to begin with) who vote on the best in the industry. It would take a stunningly broad cross-section of racism for "300" to skate off as the top pick of that year with the only (limited) outcry being reserved for Leonidas' "boy-lovers" line (which Miller defended as an example of Spartan hypocricy).
"Other people don't agree with you" has never stopped me before.
In any case, it is simply untrue that the "outcry (was) reserved for Leonida' "boy-lovers" line". A simple google search with the words '300 racist' will show that.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about the proportion of dark skinned actors in speaking roles. It was obvious that not all Persians are black.
I still stand by my ground. At worst, of the two, possibly 3, black speaking roles, one is guilty of bribery and the other is guilty of whipping some people. By contrast, Theron's crimes amount to treason and rape. The ephors, who are just as monstrous as anything in Xerxes' court, drug and molest girls and young women--when they're not selling out their state.
The Ephors were deformed. Xerxes was obviously darker than the Spartans. Are you making my point or arguing against it?
Although, this might bring the "contrast" theory into question.
Not really, because there were several methods used for this, but we're really getting into the little details of art production.
Might be too "deep" for me...
I was attempting to contrast the statements I thought were contradictory. I do try my best not to selectively quote. Apologies if that was the case. It's a bit frustrating all this. When I discuss the dark skin, the answer is "it's because it's like that in the comic". When I mention the monstrosities, the answer is "but it wasn't like that in the comic".
But the important thing here is that in
the works themselves there are monstrosities for
both sides. In neither work is actual evil restricted to one side.
I've stated that more than once in this thread. For example, in the sentence you quote next. The part highlighted in Italics.
I brought up the deformities in response to your statement that " I believe his point is that you should root for the hero and jeer against the villain regardless what they look like." This jars with the fact that only the bad guys (Persian or Spartan) had deformities, the good guys didn't. You can call the portrait of Ephialtes sympathetic, but he is still a traitor in the end.
I apologize; I thought it clear that I meant that on a basis of skin color. When I made that statement, I was attempting to carry on from my previous paragraph/sentence--that Frank Miller had illustrated and written black heroes before. An easy example of this would be his work on Sin City: Hell and Back, but I think that "Give Me Liberty" and its associated graphic novel and one-shot sequels (starring Martha Washington, a young African-American woman who helps decide the fate of America in a near, dystopian, future) would serve as a far better example.
It is a real pity then that '300' comes across as such "clash of civilizations" (intensified by "race") type propaganda. Perhaps Miller would be horrified to be associated with such ideas. But at the end of the day, that's how this piece of work comes across to me.
I'm not so sure about abelling someone an "artist" and automatically placing them above everybody else in society is the way to go. Especially if said artist is mass marketing their wares.
I didn't say that artists should get a carte blanche on that regard; I pointed to the fact that artists don't always operate along the tastes of the mass audience.
Good point. Agreed. Although, '300' must've (unintentionally?) catered to the tastes of the mass audience on some level because as a commercial blockbuster, it was highly successful at the box office.
All right. I'm done with this topic. Let's just be friends like these guys.
