300 is the most RACIST film since Birth of a Nation!
Stop the movie 300
Iranian cyber attack against American movie
Comment: These postings are relevant to this blog because
1) 300 is an example of our cultural mythmaking: the noble Westerners against the base non-Westerners.
2) Zack Snyder used techniques similar to Mel Gibson's to make a nation of people look inferior, barbaric.
If you transposed 300 to the American West, what would you have? Think Custer's Last Stand.
17 comments:
Writerfella here --
First, the film 300 had the largest boxoffice opening of any March release ever and the third largest boxoffice opening of any R-rated film ever. Second, 300 did $70 million in domestic admissions in less than three days. Third, though ahistorical, 300 is a rousing epic film based on a graphic novel and stands equally drenched in testosterone as it is in CGI computer animation special effects. Fourth, it is behaving like a summer season blockbuster and seems unlikely either to stop or even to slow down very soon. Fifth, since Greeks and Mesopotamians all were Caucasians, where is the racism? The only complain writerfella had was that Xerxes was too reminiscent of the alien man-god Gou-a'ulds from the Sci-Fi Channel's "STARGATE SG-1" and, as he watched it totally enthralled, certainly the last thing that ever would have come to writerfellas mind was Custer's Last Stand! But of course, if writerfella were stupid or ignorant or both, when he watched TITANIC, maybe he might have been able to think of nothing else but Mayans and pyramids, or when he saw SPIDERMAN 2, images of jaguars and running naked tribesmen simply just would not go away. How's about April Fool, two weeks early?
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Several critics have remarked on the Persians' distinctive physical traits: dark skins, piercings, etc. The racism comes in giving them and only them these indicators of inferiority. In reality they were just as civilized and "white" as the Greeks.
Are you saying the critics were wrong--that you couldn't distinguish the Greeks and Persians physically? If so, you're the first to take that position. Congratulations on your original thinking. ;-)
Whether 300 is doing well at the box office is irrelevant to its message of light-skinned civilization vs. dark-skinned barbarism. Given the debacle in Iraq, Americans are probably hungry for black-and-white movies in which the good guys stick it to the bad guys. Westerns were popular for the same reason: It was cathartic to watch cowboys killing Indians.
Writerfella here --
Catharsis seems little reason over which to make a major motion picture, especially when Ex-Lax is so much cheaper. And the film clearly shows Xerxes as being whiter than the Spartans ever thought about being. However, Iran has gone on public record about being deeply disturbed by the film's employment of what they believe is their place in history. Poor babies!
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Writerfella, you are so right, about Xerxes coming across like a Gou'ald (however you spell and punctuate it).
A little surprised that Iran has "officially" complained. The ancient Persians depicted in it practiced indiginous Persian religions. Those who now practice indigious faiths in Iran such as Zoroastrianism are severely presecuted by the Iranian government....
I wonder what Iran would say about a film depicting the brave Iranians who fought against the Muslim invaders prior to the year 650 A.D.?
Writerfella here --
Or a film in which the Persian Empire later is destroyed by the armies of Alexander the Great? Not having seen ALEXANDER or other such recent or classica sword and sandal epics, writerfella cannot say if such a film has not already been made.
Voyageur quite is correct to say that, if Zoroaster were alive in Iran today, he would be sought out as a heretic and executed.
And Rob misses one important point entirely -- the public pays to see films, but critics do not. They are admitted free to special screenings or to theaters showing the films upon release. A cetain portion of them get free videocassettes or even DVDs to facilitate their writing of reviews. Thus it is that critics only can be trusted just so far, as they have no investment in watching the film with any attention because they did not pay to see it as any of the rest of us must. They are earning their paychecks with what they write, and that is no incentive to be either fair or impartial at all.
Lastly, many times critics are wrong, and/or the public believes them to be wrong. Else, WILD HOGS and GHOST RIDER would have been severely unattended, if the terible reviews those films received were given any credence by the moviegoing public. writerfella correctly predicted in this very blog that Nicholas Cage in GHOST RIDER would do far better than he did in THE WICKER MAN. In fact, GHOST RIDER became the first film of 2007 to cross past $100 milion in box office receipts. Critics have their role and their place in media publishing, but they rarely truly fulfill such a role and they certainly rarely know their place...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
"Ghost Rider" and "Wild Hogs" also show the appetite for motorcycle movies.
One would only imagine that if they had added Harleys to "300", the resulting film with motorcycle-riding Spartans would have clocked in a record $225 million weekend. Add Tim Allen as one of the Spartan leaders, and make sure that the Persians all had flaming skulls on their shoulders, and you'd have a box office record that would never be broken.
Writerfella here --
Interesting to say, but since Hollywood 'creativity' mostly is based on what sells OR is selling, your hyperbole about lumping motorcycle movies and comic stars in with sword and sandal dudes is not as far-fetched as you might believe...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
With all the people writing reviews for publications about archaeology, history, Indians, etc.--not to mention all the bloggers--I bet the critics who pay greatly outnumber the critics who don't. Not that who pays is relevant to anything. Critics generally have their reputations or their careers on the line, which far outweighs the price of a single ticket. A typical critic is much more invested in a movie than a typical fan, not much less.
Critics aren't "wrong" if they judge a movie bad and the public judges it good. They're going by different sets of criteria. Critics are judging whether the movie achieves the highest standards of the motion picture arts. Fans care only if the movie fulfills a common denominator level of entertainment.
Are you seriously arguing that the public is a better judge of a movie's quality than the critics? According to the public, the best movies of all time include Titanic, Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. According to the critics, the best movies include Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and The Godfather. Now explain to us again how the public knows better than the critics do.
Gee, Russ, I didn't think I'd have to explain Movie Criticism 101 to you. Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with.
I looked at lots of 300 pictures to verify the critics' complaints. Here's one with the opposing characters side by side:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/03/13/3001.jpg
Check your vision, because it doesn't close to me. The Persian has darker skin than the Spartan.
Writerfella here --
As is usual for this blog, the link did not publish. But writerfella will write it down and look it up. Give him a few moments, and then -- WATCH OUT!!
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Writerfella here --
After traipsing through four websites answering the URL, NONE of them had anything about 300. The photos so presented were showing Anthony Hopkins in HEARTS OF ATLANTIS, ALEXANDER, and THE HUMAN STAIN. Since Anthony Hopkins was not in 300, it doesn't seem to apply... Are we talking apples and pineapples here?
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Writerfella here --
Okay, the web searches do not reveal what is good or bad about 300, according to published accounts from the media. But no one seems to be paying much attention to critics and possibly they finally have been revealed as not being of much influence for any given film entirely. So, who do they represent? writerfella says that such 'critics' are obeying their own destinies completely. If someone no longer is a willing receptor of Native information/direction at all, then they are operating from their own agenda. They even may be being paid by those forces who can profit by the success or failure of certain Native entertainment venues of same. How many more $20 bills have or will be exchanged, therefore?
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Writerfella here --
Quoting from the March 23 issue of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, for the enlightenment of the many, especially Rob, as he has a tie to 300 he likely never knew:
"The industry was stunned by the magnitude of the Spartan victory. As he watched the weekend grosses ringing up far above the widely-expected $30 million, (Zack) Snyder himself could hardly believe the numbers: 'I was like, No, that can't be right -- that's nutty time. The tracking showed we'd be popular, but not STUPIDLY popular. It's just a goofy, litle $60 million movie!"
For Warner Bros. (which, like ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, is owned by Time-Warner), the goofy little movie's surprising success represents a rebound from a fairly dismal 2006, stemming some of the losses from pricey disappointments like POSEIDON, LADY IN THE WATER, and SUPERMAN RETURNS. Exactly what it means to the rest of Hollywood, though, depends on whom you ask. To the many critics who trashed 300 as as a modest exercise in stylized warmongering, it's merely the latest in a string of dispiritingly pan-resistant hits this season, following NORBIT, GHOST RIDER, and WILD HOGS...----------------
"While 300 came in at just a third of the reported cost of TROY, $60 million is still not what most people would call cheap, particularly for a film as risky as this one, and Warner Bros.' marketing team was bent on using every means at its disposal to sell the movie to the widest audience. Their campaign to win the hearts and minds of comic-book fanboys kicked off last July at San Diego's Comic-Con International, where (Zack Snyder) and (Frank) Miller held a Q&A and showed early footage from the movie...
Since somehow film critics believe it is their purpose to keep audiences away from films that they as critics did not like, the critics are wrong if they fail to do so. In fact, the critics' first mistake was to believe their own tastes should rule what the public decides...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Writerfella here --
On 300's second weekend, its domestic boxoffice take rose to #127.5 million, despite bad weather in the east and the NCAA Basketball Tournament diverting away some of its under-25 male audience. Over the weekend, 300 was premiered in London.
Then again, GHOST RIDER rose to a total of #110,202,000, NORBIT rose to $92,394,000, and WILD HOGS rose to $103,993,000. All four therefore are certifiable hits with a combined boxoffice of $434.1 million in just a few weeks, and the industry itself is astonished that, despite terrible or tepid reviews for these films, the filmgoing public was not deterred in the least. Gene Siskel must be whirling in his grave fast enough to light Hollywood, FL., as critics seem to be the only ones who take their own words at greater than face value...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
All the links in the original posting still work, as does the photo link in the comments section. If you can't click on a URL or cut and paste it correctly, that's your problem.
If you had followed the links, you would've found plenty of negative comments from fans and critics alike. If you can't handle the professional critics, deal with the fans' comments instead, since they're saying the same thing. Or do you define a critic as anyone who doesn't fawn over a movie the way you do?
This comment
"Since somehow film critics believe it is their purpose to keep audiences away from films that they as critics did not like, the critics are wrong if they fail to do so."
shows why you may want to take a class in criticism. As I said, the critic's job is to assess how a product compares to the highest standards of the art. When critics write reviews, they're trying to educate the public about the art form. A critic doesn't care how a fan uses a review any more than a teacher cares how a student uses a lesson. Or in your case, how a reader uses one of your stories. Like many forms of writing, criticism exists for its own sake.
In other words, a critic is "wrong" in the same way teachers are wrong if they teach proper grammar and their students willfully ignore it. Which is to say, not at all. Whether the students apply the lesson or not, the teachers have taught it. It's not their job to enforce the rules outside the classroom.
Do these vague comments
"If someone no longer is a willing receptor of Native information/direction at all, then they are operating from their own agenda. They even may be being paid by those forces who can profit by the success or failure of certain Native entertainment venues of same."
refer to me? Ignoring the shoddy grammar (someone is/they are), I'll address them as if they do. I've told you where my income comes from and it isn't from "Native entertainment venues." If it did come from Native entertainment venues, which it doesn't, your point would be irrelevant. Why? Because such venues have nothing to do with movies such as 300. There's literally no connection.
Writerfella here --
If transmitted links do not work, it is not writerfella's fault or intent. His new computer system handles HTML even better than his former setup.
And fans? Fans of what? If they were negatively commenting, which writerfella could not find, they certainly were not fans. The term means those who fanatically are devoted to a certain subject or topic or genre. And as far as critics' qualifications go, what they would have to say means something only if they have an intimate knowledge of what represents "the highest standards of the art", which is unlikely if they are observers and consumers only. Show me a critic who has done the work himself (such as Roger Ebert) and you will have shown me someone who is qualified to make such comments. Otherwise, they simply are wannabes who never had the time, the wherewithal, or the tenacity to work in the very industry that they are criticizing. Basically what is being said is this: "I don't know art, but I know what I like." That and $4.85 will get you a small Latte` at StarBuck's...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
One can be a fan of movies or a genre of movies without liking any particular movie. Duh.
So you've denigrated critics because you imagine they don't take movies as seriously as fans do. And you've denigrated fans because they don't have the critics' "intimate knowledge" of movies. In other words, you've denigrated anyone who doesn't share your gushing opinions. You must be the Native American Gene Shalit, who has never met a movie he didn't like.
Let us know when you have anything to say about the actual criticism of 300. So far, you've contradicted yourself on the issue of criticism while failing to address the issue of racism. Thanks for the box-office update, but that's irrelevant to the issue(s) at hand.
Post a Comment