Sorry for taking so long to reply; I was in Greece for the past few days, on account of a wedding.
I'm not sure that they had to defend themselves from mass public knee-jerking means anything in and of itself. By that standard, let us then re-examine Oliver Stone's need to defend himself from those who claimed his version of Alexander was offensive on a sexual level...Semiramis wrote: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!!
By that, I mean not African, and probably some flavor of either Mediterranean (perhaps Corsican or Sicilian, but more likely Moorish, Arabian, Semitic)."Swarthy" is such a difficult word to define. It doesn't mean dark skin does it?
Not really; I'm showing that skin color was hardly a basis for "badness". There was evil all around, and one had to really be choosy to think that two random African-looking fellows most represented it.The ephors were deformed and definitely "evil". It feels like you're arguing my point.
I certainly did not mean to. Your language indicated a level of doubt as to whether Miller's work was in truth racist. I wished to show that it was not, if for no other reason than to prevent you from having a negative view of the man for the wrong reasons.You're putting words in my mouth.
Then I have to say that I'm saddened by your stance.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.
Yeah... the evil character with the greatest speaking part in the movie.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 certainly did not mean to be rude, but then again I did feel the words needed to be used. Perhaps it's a matter of the message board not being the perfect conduit for one to understand another's point (I'm referring to my potential inability, incidentally)... I felt that much of this debate centered on skin tone issues that I failed to see as even remotely central to the movie (for reasons already outlined) or on Miller's prejudices. I used words that perhaps were not very politic, but I assure you I didn't do so with the intent of being condescending. Perhaps I'm missing the forest for the trees when I'm reading your points; I assure you, I'm not under the impression that I'm preaching from a pulpit here.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".
The first 10 hit showed articles about the film, except for two that focused on Paul Cartledge's new book about the battle itself--which is hardly prejudiced toward the Spartans. I reiterate my point from the 1st paragraph."Other people don't agree with you" has never stopped me before.
Given the amount of discussion that went into the esoterics of "Alexander", I'd say not!Might be too "deep" for me...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And so is ugliness, I suppose. Rendered to a story about just the events of those three days (and a bit of exposition), the battle could be interpreted as such. "Race-type propaganda", though? No offense, but that just comes off as a bit melodramatic to me.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.
Watching the first five minutes of the movie, I'd say that anyone who felt like celebrating what the Spartans were selling is either a crackpot or a sociopath. You tell me that you see a clash of civilizations? I see a story that speaks of the irony involved in "free" western culture finding its genesis in the armed struggle of a decidedly tyrannical, ultra-conservative society.
I have no doubt that people at Warner Brothers & co. were thinking that swords + blood + cool one-liners + a very sexy queen + recquisite beefcake could add up to a healthy profit margin. I question whether they were peddling "racist war propaganda", as John Powers of artthreat.net (who apparently has a very skewed and lacking viewpoint of Hellenic history) asserts.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.
We weren't?All right. I'm done with this topic. Let's just be friends like these guys.
. Not a breast Plate Skirt or piece of Armour anywhere. 
Dont you think they should be more realistic in there art.... Who knows some sill y film maker might do the same thing and depict Spartan Soldiers in trunks and nothiing more than a shield.... An that wont go down well with the history buffs. 
