Sidon Sarcophagus in Technicolour

[Semiramis]

However, based on that, I'm not sure you can call Greek propaganda against Persians "racist". The parts I might label "racist" in '300' were all inventions of the creators.
...
Greeks did not associate dark skin or African features with a "evil", "slavishness" or "weakened sexual restraint". It's the movie that seems to associate both deformity and dark skin with the "decrepid soul" of the "threatening Other".

This is an unfortunate impression of "300", and it saddens me because Frank Miller, whose work was copied faithfully where the Persian characters are concerned (excluding the harem characters, the Immortals, and the Executioner), is hardly racist.

Good questions Pheobus. I don't want to speculate on Frank Miller's political persuasions.That would be unfair because his work should speak for itself. I'd like to make the distinction that I'm actually criticizing '300' the movie. I haven't read the comic, so I'm not going to get into that either. However, "I was only following the comic" can't be an excuse for what we see in what is ultimately Zack Snyder's movie.

I really have to ask, though, Semiramis: you put quotes around the word racist insofar as how you felt about the movie, and you also used the word "might". How racist did you think the portrayal of Persians as "dark-skinned" people was, and do you honestly think that Miller's motivations were racially driven?

It's the idea that being dark-skinned makes the Persians more like bad guys that didn't sit well with me. Now if Persians were dark-skinned in the past or present, this would be a non-issue. But that’s not the case. The concept that dark skin is more indicative of "evil", making dark-skinned people more "scary", is racist. In fact, isn’t that the classic old-school racism?

To be frankly honest with you, I think a line needs to be drawn at some point, where people have to realize that a gut reaction of someone being offensive (not necessarily yours, per se) and someone actually being offensive is not necessarily the same thing.

The question isn't about whether I'm offended or even whether Snyder and co. meant to offend. If a movie is racist, things are far more serious than "offence". I’m not griping about a “gut reaction” here. I have tried to set out my objections backed up by logic. As for intent on the film-makers’ part, I can't but believe that the casting of the Persians was done that way deliberately. We're talking about a multi-million-dollar blockbuster here, not a school play. So, I have to attribute to the makers the idea of demonizing the Persians through the use of dark skin colour. If you know any Iranians, the casting must strike you as curious in the least?

At some point, people have to realize that movies are meant to be entertainment, but that there's no real guarantee that one will be entertained. My personal philosophy? I'd much rather eschew dry drama and tame war movies that try to moralize and relativize, or set up the "there's no bad guy" theme (a-la "Kingdom of Heaven"), and see gripping movies told from the POV of the other side.

To clarify, it's not that the Persians were the bad guys. I don't mind that the Persians had giant monsters. I don't mind historical inaccuracies. Or the violence. Actually, when I read the history as a kid I loved the story. I thought the Spartans were amazing and obviously the Persians were the "bad guys". Can't say my take on the real historical event has changed too much since then. I’ve never considered the Spartan POV to be that of the “other side”. I have always been “on their side” since first hearing the story. But that didn’t stop me from enjoying Gore Vidal’s “Creation”, where the war is told only from the POV of a Persian diplomat. POV is not the issue here.

I don't mind simplistic good guys vs. bad guys movies. I don't even expect a movie based on a comic book (that's desperately trying to attract adolescent boys) to be terribly nuanced. I don't dislike '300' because it wasn't "deep" enough. John Carpenter’s 'Ghosts of Mars' is one of my most favourite movies of all time. What does that tell you?

I know that movies are “meant to be for entertainment”. Unless one is arguing that this should put an end to any discussion of the ideas they may be propagating, then “movies are meant for entertainment” is a non-sequitur in this discussion. No one looks at ‘Birth of a Nation’ or ‘Triumph of Will’ and says "Don't overanalyze, they're just for entertainment".

Can you think of an alternate reason for why three out of five Persian messengers are dark-skinned in the movie? I am open to other ideas. I will even accept “Maybe Google was down, so they never looked up Persia.”

To that end, I would gladly go see a "Salah'ad'din" movie or an epic film of Persian conquest. To anyone who says such a venture wouldn't be profitable given American tastes, I say this: neither have been movie attempts to keep things neutral--and any such movie would almost certainly still do financially well overseas.

Why wouldn't those movies do well in the US?

As human beings are invariably brought up with steriotypes and prejudice. Our hopes for movies I gues is to see the goodies and baddies. I guess as you say its much easier if the distinction can be very clearly made.

It's not a bad idea Kenny. Perhaps all movies should start colour-coding the "good guys" and "bad guys". Ooh! I hope my skin colour gets to be marker for good guys. *fingers crossed*

Take care

[Phoebus]

Good questions Pheobus. I don't want to speculate on Frank Miller's political persuasions.That would be unfair because his work should speak for itself.

I think one of the problems here is that people who expect deeper things from cinema looked to deeply in a movie like "300". I think another problem that we have is that, being very close to (in fact, being still in) where racism and prejudice prevailed, we are too quick to react to depictions and to assume that villainization is intended.

I believe that anyone familiar with Frank Miller's body of work knows that he has never been afraid to depict either heroes or villains of "color". At the end of the day, as an art major, movie goer, and graphic novel afficionado, I felt that Miller made an obvious effort to go beyond skin color and to use stylization to indicate unfavorable traits: greed, arrogance, hubris, etc.

Personally, I would bet even money that Frank Miller would specifically scoff at the idea of offending someone on the basis of the coloration of his characters. You may choose to laud him or chastise him for that point of view.

It's the idea that being dark-skinned makes the Persians more like bad guys that didn't sit well with me. Now if Persians were dark-skinned in the past or present, this would be a non-issue. But that’s not the case. The concept that dark skin is more indicative of "evil", making dark-skinned people more "scary", is racist. In fact, isn’t that the classic old-school racism?

No, it's not. No offense intended, but you're transplanting old cliches of racism unto Miller's work. Miller didn't didn't cast the Persians as dark-skinned because "dark is evil"; he was aiming for visual contrast more than anything else. Ever since Sin City, his work has been dominated by color contrasts, the of absence color, and, so often in his monochromatic works, white negative space eating away at an overall black panel.

That people are so quick to read racism into this is, I'm afraid, indicative of the baggage we carry as a society--not of how Miller feels about Persians, African Americans, or anyone else. Feel free to accuse Miller of being short with the context behind the war, or of being parochial in subscribing to an old style of storytelling (clear-cut heroes and villains and such); I'm sure he would agree with that line, and would likely simply argue on whether such entertainment is either wanted or needed nowadays.

The question isn't about whether I'm offended or even whether Snyder and co. meant to offend. If a movie is racist, things are far more serious than "offence". I’m not griping about a “gut reaction” here. I have tried to set out my objections backed up by logic. As for intent on the film-makers’ part, I can't but believe that the casting of the Persians was done that way deliberately. We're talking about a multi-million-dollar blockbuster here, not a school play. So, I have to attribute to the makers the idea of demonizing the Persians through the use of dark skin colour

If you know any Iranians, the casting must strike you as curious in the least?

Only if I knew nothing about the graphic novel itself.

Ironic fact: in at least one of the serialized issues of "300" (before coming out in a compiled, graphic novel form), Miller responded to letters by readers, defending his portrayal of Xerxes: he rejected the idea that he was aiming low, and claimed instead that he was going for something alien, exotic, grandiose (height, stature) and, yes, even sexy in his portrayal.

And this ties in with his other character portrayals. The ephors' "diseased" (to use Leonidas' word choice) souls are reflected in their outer countenance. Ephialtes is transformed from a traitor of monstrous infamy to a monstrous traitor. The briber of the Ephors has his greed reflected through a somewhat corpulent, gleeful mien. So on, so forth.

John Carpenter’s 'Ghosts of Mars' is one of my most favourite movies of all time. What does that tell you?

That you should watch "Big Trouble in Little China"? Duuuuuh?!?
(kidding!)

No one looks at ‘Birth of a Nation’ or ‘Triumph of Will’ and says "Don't overanalyze, they're just for entertainment".

And I would say that you're trying a bit too hard with these comparisons. "Triumph" was intended as a piece of political propaganda and was received as political and social affirmation. I hardly see how a privately financed movie starring airbrushed and digitally-enhanced abdominal muscles fits in that category.

Can you think of an alternate reason for why three out of five Persian messengers are dark-skinned in the movie? I am open to other ideas. I will even accept “Maybe Google was down, so they never looked up Persia.”

Because the messenger in the graphic novel was as well? The main difference is that the speaker in the graphic novel has hair.

Why wouldn't those movies do well in the US?

Perhaps for a variant of the reason that a Salah'ad'din-neutral movie ("Kingdom of Heaven") didn't; generally speaking, Americans aren't ready to dish out the desired amount of money to root for cinematic heroes that don't fit their desired cultural mold.

It's not a bad idea Kenny. Perhaps all movies should start colour-coding the "good guys" and "bad guys". Ooh! I hope my skin colour gets to be marker for good guys. *fingers crossed*

I think Miller's point is that your skin colour shouldn't be a marker for anything. I believe his point is that you should root for the hero and jeer against the villain regardless what they look like. Ephialtes, monstrous or not, is sympathetic in the graphic novel because he wants to *belong*. He wants affirm that his parents' sacrifice was meaningful. The ephors aren't, because they're a greedy pack of molesters who claim divine right.

Cheers,
P.

[jasonxx]

Phoebus

I think Id agree with every thing you say. Theres always some one wants to drag out some kind of racist agenda etc within a movie. look for something that to me isnt really there.

Im glad you know more about frank Miller than Id guess we do. Ive heard his interviews with 300 Disc 2. He doesnt try to be clever with plots. he put on as he says his tint on astory first Written by Herodotus years after the event. So its fair to say even Herodotus will have put even his own tint on the Hot gates battle.

I like other opinions. That 300 doesnt pretend to be anything more than a good old fashioned buts up war films. How can anyone argue with 300 been out of context with its brutality the way society is. Even our kids are taught bllod lust and distruction just take a look at the majority of Nintendo and computer games. Mostly based on war and destruction and the graphics make them look real.

frank Millers demonisation and monstrous depictions of Ephialtes and the South sayers is basically Symbolic. Listen to Bettany Hughes.

Demonisation goes on forever. If ever theres a Bible Movie the mere mention of Judas Brings on thunder bolts etc. When in reality Judas Escariot was only doing Jesus a favour and doung what he was destined to do.

As a rule most put up with the inuendos. Every time Mel Gibson makes a movie about the English he makes them out to be reall blood thirst and somewhat stupid. Braveheart and The Patriot. Yet the English take Gibson with a pinch of salt and say. Yea Mel ... Braveheart was a great film but as far fetched as Rocking Horse Crap from Chine.

Maybe sometimes certain ethnicities should ease off with the persecution crap. I get cracks and micky taken at work.. I dont go the the head chef and cry ive been offended.

Kenny

[Phoebus]

Two quick things:

1) The English didn't take Gibson with a grain of salt... most of my English acquaintances are still annoyed enough with "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" to roll their eyes when the topic comes up. That having been said, I think there's a difference between their issues (which center on what they believe to be historical accuracy issues regarding William Wallace being a hero) and those Semiramis brings up (symbolic use of skin tone/race to represent "evil").

2) I don't think Miller was demonizing either the ephors or Ephialtes... he was, rather, using artistic license to represent who they were and what they did.

[marcus]

However, "I was only following the comic" can't be an excuse for what we see in what is ultimately Zack Snyder's movie.

Well, it sort of is, inasmuch as that is exactly what Snyder wanted to do - turn the still images of the graphic novel into a moving picture version.

Now, one could argue that it was his opportunity to redress what might have been construed as racist elements in the graphic novel; but ultimately he did exactly what he set out to do. It's not even a case of "following" the graphic novel - he put the graphic novel on the screen.

ATB

[Phoebus]

With a few exceptions, of course: the rhino, the exploding amphorae, the orcish immortals, the gruesome executioner, the harem (as depicted in the movie), the side-plot involving Gorgo and the Councilman, the scene of the ruined Greek village; all those and a few more were movie additions.

That I didn't care for them that much is beside the point. I'm interested in finding out what Miller thought about them.

[jasonxx]

I can say one beneficial point for 300. And its the interest it has stirred in the Hot Gates The Spartans and the Ancient greeks as a Whole.

300 as a movie has stirred more general interest in the Greeks that Stones Alexander has done for Alexander. Which i think is a very pertinant point. Put a good entertaining movie to the screen something every day viewrs will watch and as whole will enjoy. I think it goes without saying it does stir the appetite for Information.

Ironically my journey towards Alexander began with the First Richard Egan Movie about the 300 Spartans it so inspired me with there bravery I picked up books firstly to read about the Spartans and once your on that road you inevitably arrive at Alexander The Great. Some do continue but i stayed with Alexander and read in depth about him.

I feel its there where Stone let Alexander down. He had great opportunuty to give the lay public an overall view of Alexander and his Greatness. He failed and gave us undertones. feelings and some hearsay that probably never happened. All it left was Im sure a dread no one will touch the subject again.

In Alexander we relatively have a warrior akin to Ahilles and even leonidas. battles galore to satisfy the action junkies. A fantasical history of events. Episodes that would have glued the viewer to think" hey he was a bit good this Alexander The Great. Maybe I should read up"

Instead we got a ovie no one talks about or will hardly be remembered. Is that worth for a gUy remembered as Alexander The great.?

kenny

[marcus]

300 as a movie has stirred more general interest in the Greeks that Stones Alexander has done for Alexander. Which i think is a very pertinant point. Put a good entertaining movie to the screen something every day viewrs will watch and as whole will enjoy. I think it goes without saying it does stir the appetite for Information.

I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case, if I'm honest. Maybe I've missed something, but do you have any proof that 300 has stirred any general interest in Ancient Greece?

ATB

[jasonxx]

MARCUS

Go to ebay and see the amount of merchandise and goods for sale relating to 300 and then compare to the items for sale in connection with Stones Alexander.

The Interest in 300 far out weighs Alexander and the interest surely has some recall for interest in the Greeks per say

[Semiramis]

Phoebus,

No one looks at ‘Birth of a Nation’ or ‘Triumph of Will’ and says "Don't overanalyze, they're just for entertainment".

And I would say that you're trying a bit too hard with these comparisons. "Triumph" was intended as a piece of political propaganda and was received as political and socialaffirmation. I hardly see how a privately financed movie starring airbrushed and digitally-enhanced abdominal muscles fits in that category.

I didn’t at any stage compare ‘300’ to these movies. I was responding to your “movies are meant for entertainment” comment. I chose the two most obvious examples that should tell us that movies shouldn’t be above social criticism.

Don’t knock the beautiful people in ‘Triumph of Will’. They didn't have CGI-enhanced abs but their athleticism was in full display. Propaganda aside, from the point of view of "art", the movie is considered such a breakthrough in cinematic technique that it’s still studied in film courses. That’s how I managed to sneak into one of the screenings and watch it on the big screen.

The question isn't about whether I'm offended or even whether Snyder and co. meant to offend. If a movie is racist, things are far more serious than "offence". I’m not griping about a “gut reaction” here. I have tried to set out my objections backed up by logic. As for intent on the film-makers’ part, I can't but believe that the casting of the Persians was done that way deliberately. We're talking about a multi-million-dollar blockbuster here, not a school play. So, I have to attribute to the makers the idea of demonizing the Persians through the use of dark skin colour. If you know any Iranians, the casting must strike you as curious in the least?

Only if I knew nothing about the graphic novel itself.

Can you think of an alternate reason for why three out of five Persian messengers are dark-skinned in the movie? I am open to other ideas. I will even accept “Maybe Google was down, so they never looked up Persia.”

Because the messenger in the graphic novel was as well? The main difference is that the speaker in the graphic novel has hair.

It seems that you and Marcus are in agreement that Synder’s movie is faithfully based on Miller’s comic (which I haven’t read), and the casting in the movie was done to reflect that. In that case, shouldn’t my criticisms about the depiction of Persians apply to Miller’s comic as well?

I believe that anyone familiar with Frank Miller's body of work knows that he has never been afraid to depict either heroes or villains of "color". At the end of the day, as an art major, movie goer, and graphic novel afficionado, I felt that Miller made an obvious effort to go beyond skin color and to use stylization to indicate unfavorable traits: greed, arrogance, hubris, etc.

Rather than addressing my points about the movie ‘300’, you referred me the comic. And rather than addressing the issues with the comic '300', you’ve referred me to Miller’s "body of work". I'll repeat what I said about the movie. Shouldn’t each “graphic novel” stand on its own merit? Or are we getting dangerously close to the “well, I’m an expert on Miller and you are not” territory? ‘300’ wasn’t only aimed at ardent Frank Miller fans and analysts. It was released widely.

I think one of the problems here is that people who expect deeper things from cinema looked to deeply in a movie like "300". I think another problem that we have is that, being very close to (in fact, being still in) where racism and prejudice prevailed, we are too quick to react to depictions and to assume that villainization is intended.

It's the idea that being dark-skinned makes the Persians more like bad guys that didn't sit well with me. Now if Persians were dark-skinned in the past or present, this would be a non-issue. But that’s not the case. The concept that dark skin is more indicative of "evil", making dark-skinned people more "scary", is racist. In fact, isn’t that the classic old-school racism?

No, it's not. No offense intended, but you're transplanting old cliches of racism unto Miller's work. Miller didn't didn't cast the Persians as dark-skinned because "dark is evil"; he was aiming for visual contrast more than anything else. Ever since Sin City, his work has been dominated by color contrasts, the of absence color, and, so often in his monochromatic works, white negative space eating away at an overall black panel.

You say people are looking too deeply into the movie if they see any association of black skin with bad guys. I was going with a simple definition of the word "racism", which is - associating traits with individuals based on their skin colour, facial features etc. You have had to resort to citing Miller's entire body of work, getting into concepts like monochormatic works of art, negative space etc. to justify the "Persians were only given black skin for the colour contrast" theory. Take it as a compliment but I found this stuff "too deep". In any case, I'm disappointed with the casting of Xerxes. His features didn't match the comic too well IMHO.

I think Miller's point is that your skin colour shouldn't be a marker for anything. I believe his point is that you should root for the hero and jeer against the villain regardless what they look like.

When you said Miller gave the Persians black skin to "contrast" them with the Spartans, didn't you admit there that in this novel black skin is a "marker" for bad guys? Aside from skin colour "contasts", you mention deformities, monstrosities for the villains and abs and pecs for the heroes. After all this, how can you possibly state that Miller wants us to cheer the hero and jeer the villain "regardless of what they look like"?

That people are so quick to read racism into this is, I'm afraid, indicative of the baggage we carry as a society--not of how Miller feels about Persians, African Americans, or anyone else.

Perhaps for a variant of the reason that a Salah'ad'din-neutral movie ("Kingdom of Heaven") didn't; generally speaking, Americans aren't ready to dish out the desired amount of money to root for cinematic heroes that don't fit their desired cultural mold.

What is this “desired cultural mold” heroes must fit into? Is it somehow related to the "baggage we carry as a society"? Do we take our "baggage" about the "desired cultural mold" of heroes and villains into movies? Why is our "desired cultural mold" so relevant to a Saladin movie, yet, in your opinion, irrelevant to '300'?

Take care

[Phoebus]

I didn’t at any stage compare ‘300’ to these movies. I was responding to your “movies are meant for entertainment” comment.

Not trying to be rude here, Semiramis, but I don't think I should have to specifically spell out the difference between mass entertainment and political propaganda.

Don’t knock the beautiful people in ‘Triumph of Will’. They didn't have CGI-enhanced abs but their athleticism was in full display. Propaganda aside, from the point of view of "art", the movie is considered such a breakthrough in cinematic technique that it’s still studied in film courses. That’s how I managed to sneak into one of the screenings and watch it on the big screen.

I'm not knocking anything. I'm pointing out that "300", unlike "Triumph" is not trying to sell a political, social, cultural, and racial "ideal" to anyone.

It seems that you and Marcus are in agreement that Synder’s movie is faithfully based on Miller’s comic (which I haven’t read), and the casting in the movie was done to reflect that. In that case, shouldn’t my criticisms about the depiction of Persians apply to Miller’s comic as well?

Maybe they should. But I think that an objective look at the movie would reveal to the watcher that Miller (and, by association, Snyder) wasn't ultimately just looking at the use of color (speaking of pigments here, not race), but also of making Persia look like a multi-cultural empire.

My issue here is why you're so convinced that the use of dark skin tones is meant to imply a negative. The ambassador at the beginning of the movie is hardly a villain; his greatest crime is one of trying to intimidate a warrior culture, and his reaction to Leonidas' threat at his life reflects a sense of personal and cultural honor. The only other prevalent "dark-skinned" individual I recall is the briber of the ephors. By contrast, the most classically "evil" villain in the movie is, in fact, a Spartan.

Going beyond this, neither the movie nor the graphic novel focus extensively on "darker-skinned" people. The battle scenes that dominate the movie feature individuals who are far more fair of skin (olive, at the darkest). For instance:

Rather than addressing my points about the movie ‘300’, you referred me the comic. nd rather than addressing the issues with the comic '300', you’ve referred me to Miller’s "body of work".

You said you hadn't read it, and you also stated that you feared the idea of using dark skin tones to identify the bad guy. Given this, I felt it was only appropriate to not only offer insights from the comic itself (and I did), but to also point at his other works. Don't believe me? Research the guy yourself.

A I'll repeat what I said about the movie. Shouldn’t each “graphic novel” stand on its own merit?

I'm not sure how it doesn't. It won three Eisner Awards (for best limited series, best writer/artist, and for best Colorist). Unless we're now questioning whether the comic world as a whole is tolerant of racism, I'd say that's a fairly good track record.

I was going with a simple definition of the word "racism", which is - associating traits with individuals based on their skin colour, facial features etc.

And, quite frankly, I disagree that this was the case. You're claiming that it was, and I'm attempting to show you evidence to the contrary.

You have had to resort to citing Miller's entire body of work, getting into concepts like monochormatic works of art, negative space etc. to justify the "Persians were only given black skin for the colour contrast" theory. Take it as a compliment but I found this stuff "too deep".

Fair enough, but I didn't want to shortchange you. I hate it when I haven't read something and someone just tells me "it was like that; trust me". I would rather give someone as much detail as I can to justify a POV until he or she has a chance to check the product out for themself.

In any case, I'm disappointed with the casting of Xerxes. His features didn't match the comic too well IMHO.

Nothing can be perfect; Delios didn't look quite like Delios, either, and Leonidas in the comic has a classic "Greek Pottery"-style beard that no CGI could really replicate.

When you said Miller gave the Persians black skin to "contrast" them with the Spartans, ...

No, I believe that I said that (in some cases) he cast Persians as "dark-skinned", and even there I think I was getting carried away.

Here's an indicative Persian from the graphic novel:

... didn't you admit there that in this novel black skin is a "marker" for bad guys?

See above, no. I have a bad habit of letting others' words creep into my own post, for which I claim full responsibility. In fact, Miller's Persians (graphic novel) often suffer from having the same beard and hair as the mural Persians we're all so familiar with.

Aside from skin colour "contasts", you mention deformities, monstrosities for the villains and abs and pecs for the heroes. After all this, how can you possibly state that Miller wants us to cheer the hero and jeer the villain "regardless of what they look like"?

You're only citing that part of my statement that suits your argument, and I'm not sure I like that. I also stated that he works to make Ephialtes sympathetic despite his appearance. There is, in fact, no Persian monstrosity in the graphic novel.

Where the film is concerned, I have never defended Snyder's use of bone-bladed executioners and amputated courtesans; I have simply questioned the apparent tendency to fixate on the Persian negatives while ignoring the Spartan ones (ephors; the councilor villain).

What is this “desired cultural mold” heroes must fit into? Is it somehow related to the "baggage we carry as a society"? Do we take our "baggage" about the "desired cultural mold" of heroes and villains into movies? Why is our "desired cultural mold" so relevant to a Saladin movie, yet, in your opinion, irrelevant to '300'?

I would think this to be obvious: just because a large part of a society operates on a certain level doesn't mean that its artists do.

That there are large swaths of Americans out there who are uncomfortable with homosexual conquerors, Muslim heroes, etc., is a sad fact of life. That Frank Miller wished to identify dark skin with evil isn't.

[Semiramis]

I didn’t at any stage compare ‘300’ to these movies. I was responding to your “movies are meant for entertainment” comment.

Not trying to be rude here, Semiramis, but I don't think I should have to specifically spell out the difference between mass entertainment and political propaganda.

You're just misunderstanding my point that "mass entertainment" should not be exempt from social criticism. 'Birth of a Nation' - that other movie I mentioned together with 'Triumph of Will' - was a privately produced movie for "mass entertainment". In fact, it was extremely popular when released. It remained the most watched movie in history for over 20 years after it's release. "Mass entertainment" and "political propaganda" are not mutually exclusive.

Don’t knock the beautiful people in ‘Triumph of Will’. They didn't have CGI-enhanced abs but their athleticism was in full display. Propaganda aside, from the point of view of "art", the movie is considered such a breakthrough in cinematic technique that it’s still studied in film courses. That’s how I managed to sneak into one of the screenings and watch it on the big screen.

I'm not knocking anything. I'm pointing out that "300", unlike "Triumph" is not trying to sell a political, social, cultural, and racial "ideal" to anyone.

That was a joke Phoebus. I don't have a problem if you knock fascist propaganda.

It seems that you and Marcus are in agreement that Synder’s movie is faithfully based on Miller’s comic (which I haven’t read), and the casting in the movie was done to reflect that. In that case, shouldn’t my criticisms about the depiction of Persians apply to Miller’s comic as well?

Maybe they should. But I think that an objective look at the movie would reveal to the watcher that Miller (and, by association, Snyder) wasn't ultimately just looking at the use of color (speaking of pigments here, not race), but also of making Persia look like a multi-cultural empire.

We interpret a movie differently. I'm sure we're both doing our best to have an "objective look". That's why I'm asking you questions. Because I'm interested in why your interpretations are different.

My issue here is why you're so convinced that the use of dark skin tones is meant to imply a negative. The ambassador at the beginning of the movie is hardly a villain; his greatest crime is one of trying to intimidate a warrior culture, and his reaction to Leonidas' threat at his life reflects a sense of personal and cultural honor. The only other prevalent "dark-skinned" individual I recall is the briber of the ephors. By contrast, the most classically "evil" villain in the movie is, in fact, a Spartan.

Going beyond this, neither the movie nor the graphic novel focus extensively on "darker-skinned" people. The battle scenes that dominate the movie feature individuals who are far more fair of skin (olive, at the darkest).

From memory, the Persian messenger whose arms are amputated before the battle was black too. So, that's quite a few prominent roles. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Rather than addressing my points about the movie ‘300’, you referred me the comic. nd rather than addressing the issues with the comic '300', you’ve referred me to Miller’s "body of work".

You said you hadn't read it, and you also stated that you feared the idea of using dark skin tones to identify the bad guy. Given this, I felt it was only appropriate to not only offer insights from the comic itself (and I did), but to also point at his other works. Don't believe me? Research the guy yourself.

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.

A I'll repeat what I said about the movie. Shouldn’t each “graphic novel” stand on its own merit?

I'm not sure how it doesn't. It won three Eisner Awards (for best limited series, best writer/artist, and for best Colorist). Unless we're now questioning whether the comic world as a whole is tolerant of racism, I'd say that's a fairly good track record.

Own merit as in I shouldn't have to look at his other work to assure myself about this one.

I was going with a simple definition of the word "racism", which is - associating traits with individuals based on their skin colour, facial features etc.

And, quite frankly, I disagree that this was the case. You're claiming that it was, and I'm attempting to show you evidence to the contrary.

Agreed.

When you said Miller gave the Persians black skin to "contrast" them with the Spartans, ...

No, I believe that I said that (in some cases) he cast Persians as "dark-skinned", and even there I think I was getting carried away.

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. Although, this might bring the "contrast" theory into question.

Aside from skin colour "contasts", you mention deformities, monstrosities for the villains and abs and pecs for the heroes. After all this, how can you possibly state that Miller wants us to cheer the hero and jeer the villain "regardless of what they look like"?

You're only citing that part of my statement that suits your argument, and I'm not sure I like that. I also stated that he works to make Ephialtes sympathetic despite his appearance. There is, in fact, no Persian monstrosity in the graphic novel.

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".

Where the film is concerned, I have never defended Snyder's use of bone-bladed executioners and amputated courtesans; I have simply questioned the apparent tendency to fixate on the Persian negatives while ignoring the Spartan ones (ephors; the councilor villain).

I have never focused on Persian negatives. I have focused on skin-colour.I stated quite clearly in my other post that I don't have a problem with the Persians being shown as the bad guys in the story. 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.

What is this “desired cultural mold” heroes must fit into? Is it somehow related to the "baggage we carry as a society"? Do we take our "baggage" about the "desired cultural mold" of heroes and villains into movies? Why is our "desired cultural mold" so relevant to a Saladin movie, yet, in your opinion, irrelevant to '300'?

I would think this to be obvious: just because a large part of a society operates on a certain level doesn't mean that its artists do.

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.

That there are large swaths of Americans out there who are uncomfortable with homosexual conquerors, Muslim heroes, etc., is a sad fact of life. That Frank Miller wished to identify dark skin with evil isn't.

I admire your faith in Miller. You haven't converted me. But it's been a fascinating discussion.

Take care

[Phoebus]

You're just misunderstanding my point that "mass entertainment" should not be exempt from social criticism. 'Birth of a Nation' - that other movie I mentioned together with 'Triumph of Will' - was a privately produced movie for "mass entertainment". In fact, it was extremely popular when released. It remained the most watched movie in history for over 20 years after it's release. "Mass entertainment" and "political propaganda" are not mutually exclusive.

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.

That was a joke Phoebus. I don't have a problem if you knock fascist propaganda.

Damn you, Spidey-sense!!!

We interpret a movie differently. I'm sure we're both doing our best to have an "objective look". That's why I'm asking you questions. Because I'm interested in why your interpretations are different.

Well I'm not!!!

Wait, hold on. Yes, yes I am.

From memory, the Persian messenger whose arms are amputated before the battle was black too.

Was he? He simply looked swarthy to me.

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.

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; 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.

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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Cheers,
P.

[marcus]

MARCUS

Go to ebay and see the amount of merchandise and goods for sale relating to 300 and then compare to the items for sale in connection with Stones Alexander.

The Interest in 300 far out weighs Alexander and the interest surely has some recall for interest in the Greeks per say

The fact that the studio didn't put out any merchandise for Alexander doesn't mean that it aroused less interest than 300, whose studio did. What it shows is that one studio cashed in on merchandise possibilities far more than the other did.

I'm not disputing your point, Kenny; it's just that I've seen absolutely no evidence that 300 has prompted more interest than Alexander has in Ancient Greece. It might well have done - but where's the evidence for that?

ATB

[jasonxx]

Marcus

Just as a little exercize. I know your a teacher the next time you have a class ask the pulils about. Stones Alexander and 300. I would bet my bottom dollar 300 will get more feedback from your pupils than the Alexander. And as a point as Ive said before it would in my opinion be a good linch pin to stir any interest.

I always maintain a journey begins with the first stem and the journey comences. Maybe not statistically proven that 300 would instill more interest in Ancient Greece. But I would wager it has more of an effect to wet the appetite for the subject.
ill not bang on about the impresion I get from every day people about Alexander. As I said all people say to me with watching Stones movie. I know its not nice but I get asked whats the attraction for a puff that cried to his mother on and on... I cant argue against any Alexander knockers because basically Stone has hanged him up to be shot at.


If you think im wrong ask your pupils if they saw it. What impresion Stones Alexander left with them.

Anywayim not going to argue about points you have your own points of view. but ill ask anyone in hereif they actually think Stone did Alexander The Great any favours.

Kenny