300 (The Second Part ?)

[Rasputin]

The West has had a long history of designating other nations as backward and itself as a great civilization and the model of progress. As the leader and the top representative of the Western civilization, United States has enthusiastically followed this tradition through its movie-making mafia, Hollywood, and after bashing many other nations including Africans, Indians, Chinese, and Japanese, it has recently turned its attention to the Iranians.
It is a bare fact that history is always written by the victors.

Unfortunately, due to a turbulent past not only other nations but also a large number of the Iranians themselves do not have an accurate and undistorted knowledge about the ancient history of Iran, called Persia.

Since the invasion of Persia by the Muslim Arabs in 651 A.D. many of the states and the systems which dominated and ruled the Iranians, portrayed their ancient background much in the same way director Zach Snyder did in the movie 300, and lots of their works on history treated the pre-Islam's Iranian civilization like what the Frank Miller's novel did.
Iranian civilization has long been struggling to defend its old heritage simultaneously in two different fronts, one before its classical rival, Western civilization, and another versus an Arab-Islamic culture or pro-Islam domestic forces. With a long-standing and proud civilization, the Iranian legacy has so far succeeded to overcoming so much hostile waves and its significant contribution in many aspects to the world civilization is indispensable.

Iran is not simply a polity of a single nation; it is truly a small continent of many different ethnic groups that are the backbone of a multicultural country and a community of various people and traditions. After all, 300 does not just vilify the Iranians, it is an obvious assault to the all societies of West Asia, Central Asia, North Africa and Eastern Europe, which were once parts of Iranian wide empires in ancient times. The movie also degrades a large community of Indian, Chinese, European and American people who come from Iranian origins and Persian ancestors.

With a great desire to sell and sensationalize, 300 is a pure fantasy in which the Persian army is depicted as demons devoid of culture, feeling or humanity, and in contrast to the noble Greeks, the Iranians are portrayed as the bloodthirsty people who think of nothing except attacking and killing other nations. As an irresponsible and distorted image of ancient Persia, 300 depict the Persian king, Xerxes and his savage soldiers as decadent sexually flamboyant and evil in nature.

As the Japanese archaeologist, Takashi Okazaki, once pointed out, archaeological finds from Iran and its former territories could indicate an advanced culture the pre-Islam Iranian empires left behind. Regrettably, today many of Iranian highly valuable relics and historical objects are found in Western museums not in Iran. Some of those ancient antiques have been directly smuggled to the West upon their discovery.

300 or Hollywood's similar baloneys like the 2004's Alexander will not easily fool the people, who are familiar with art and often visit museums. That is why when the exhibition of "The Glory of Persia: 7000 years of culture" was inaugurated in Tokyo's Metropolitan Museum last August was welcomed by an unexpected turnout of the Japanese and foreign residents. In this exhibition, 210 unique relics belonging to the 5th millennium B.C. to the end of Sassanid empire era in 651 A.D. had been selected from four Iranian museums. The record number of visitors encouraged South Korea and China to request hosting the exhibition of "The Glory of Persia" after two Japanese cities of Tokyo and Nagoya.

As usual, a worldwide protest by the Iranians against the Hollywood assault has so far backfired, and the Western-based media giants have professionally manipulated and misused their anger in favor of 300 to increase its sale. But the Iranians could not tolerate to be indifferent about such incontestable insults, and it is up to the conscious of international community to give its judgment. Iranians cannot afford more, because they are condemned to the world in which "the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must".

[Rasputin]

Right-wing propaganda! Extreme violence! Nipples! Homoerotism! All that was fitted into 117 minutes of my life, I went from on to the other so quickly it made my head spin, it really did. I’m talking about the film 300, for those who live under a rock this is a film adapted from the graphic novel dubbed 300 by Frank Miller, which itself was party inspired by another film called 300 Spartans. It is a quasi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae which happened in 480 BCE.

The basic outline of the plot is: Persia plans to invade modern Europe to extend its empire, Sparta rejects this and so are forced to battle with the Persian Army; although they can’t because as they cannot interrupt the sacred Carneian festival. Despite this King Leonidas gathers 300 of the finest Spartan warriors and heads off to wage war with the million strong Persian Army. A lot of fighting ensues and the Persians receive a lot of fatalities as do the Spartans who are eventually slaughtered after a climatic ending. Well that’s just brilliant seems like another war epic spouted out of Hollywood, but this film has caused a lot of controversy within Iran, I’m going to explain to you whether this controversy is worth all the bother.

So after buying our tickets and haggling with the cinema staff to let one of my mates in (you see the film is rated for 15 year olds and over, we’re all 14 but we all were allowed but one of my mates wasn’t but thanks to my flattery we all went through), and buying our snacks we entered the cinema. We sat down through the stretched out trailers whilst joking and talking and then the film came on. My immediate thought was...

“Wow, this is amazingly shot; I love the backdrops and directing.”

And this is true; the film in my opinion will definitely pick up the director a Best Director award. It is immaculately shot but that was about the only good point in the film for about the first 30 to 60 minutes. It just dragged on and on, trying to give the film's plot some depth but it failed. The dialogue was boring, the writing was generally poor and as an overall it was just an offense to my rights. I felt violated and dirty. The film incorporates a narrative technique throughout the entire duration of the film which is quite effective; it began with showing the up-bringing of a Spartan boy.

To put it short, Spartan boys for they were born were trained towards one goal, and one goal only; to be a master soldiers. When they were born they were expected and if they were as the film puts it, “puny and weak” they would be thrown in to a little landfill site of dead babies skeletons. Then from the moment they could stand they were taught to fight, they fought against grown men who would savagely beat them, then they were trained further and were encouraged to become empty, cold and feral creatures. The film actually depicts King Leonidas as a child about 5 years of age killing another child.

That’s great, let’s raise our children to not show pain, or any kind of emotion. So after that violation, the other violations of my human rights just kept flooding in. To be honest, I was very close to leaving at one point, it just felt like this movie was made to insult me, I felt like I had wasted £11 to watch a poorly written film. After that little section of the film, we are shown King Leonidas as a grown man and we finally see the image of a Persian. I was not impressed.

What I saw was an image of a Persian I had never seen before, I was used to seeing the quite noble looking, bearded image of a Persian that were engraved into walls. This however was a man with random piercings all over his face and dressed nothing like a Persian and didn’t have a beard. I mean... I can understand most of those, you’re just dressing them up (or down in the case of the Spartans) to sell the movie but what is with the meaningless piercings? Then of course we have the Spartans who are dressed in basically nothing, all they have is a cape and a pair of leather speedos. Which introduces a level of ambiguous homoerotism, which is then denounced when Leonidas refers to a race of Greeks as “boy lovers” which makes the film safe for homophobes.

Then we’re introduced to some mystics which are deformed for no apparent reason, who tell Leonidas that war is not the right choice and would interrupt the sacred Carneian Festival, in a scene with a random girl waving around as if she were high on some kind of hallucinogenic drug whilst showing her nipples. Leonidas heads home confused as he has been refused the right to go to war even though it the right thing to do. Then a random sex scene ensues between Leonidas and his wife, the Queen. Which was quite tastefully done. Then to cut a long and excruciatingly boring story short, the King takes 300 of his finest warriors to war with Persian Army.

Along the way, the Spartans join up with some Thespians, although they don’t really contribute much to the film, they were just there to add some credentials to the accuracy of the historical events but failed there because the Thespians waged war alongside the Spartans but in the film they only fight for about 5 minutes before they are cut down by the Immortals, the Persian Elite. Also in this scene they mess up, as there are only 20 or so Thespians where in reality it was 700.

So after more dragging on, the first of many war scenes ensues. This is where I decided not to leave. Despite the lack of a good storyline and really boring writing, the fight scenes are spectacular. Although the power of the Spartan 300 is really overblown, they are shown as an elite force whilst the Persians are shown as an unorganized, demonic and mutated horde that don’t have a fraction of the strength that the Spartans do. So after the first and second waves of Persian forces are killed the Spartans have not yet had one fatality, then we are introduced to King Xerxes and here is what really degraded this film to a new level of low. King Xerxes is portrayed as an androgynous man, basically a feminine man. He has drawn on eyebrows, eyeliner and lip-gloss on. Along with the womanly nails, and his face was enveloped in countless piercings. Which is ridiculous, plain and simple.

Persians in this film are shown in very absurd ways. They are either androgynous, deformed, homosexual or handicapped. They also showed as a power-hungry virus, enslaving everything in sight. Which in stark contrast to the Spartans who are shown as free and democracy loving people, where in reality the Persians were possibly the most merciful of all empires, they hired and paid people regardless of ethnicity and gender. The Spartans weren’t even a democratic state; they were a military monarchy and collectively owned an entire slave population called the Helots.

Later on the film, a deformed Spartan known as Ephialtes who was earlier rejected to fight in the Spartan army by Leonidas meets with Xerxes to tell him of a passage which they can easily enter Greece from. In this scene we see plenty of lesbian Persian women, all of which are erotically dancing, moving or rubbing themselves against another woman. There’s plenty of nudity in this scene and one lesbian kiss where at first glance the two woman seem fine but they turn and half of their faces are deformed, again for no apparent reason.

Now we go back to the fights, we’ve seen some Immortals who looking amazing with their intimidating masks but when removed underneath they are also mutated and deformed, then we’re introduced to a horde of totally mutated Persian soldiers, which seem to be unable to anything but beat the stuffing out of things and shout. Now we come to the final battle scene. Here Xerxes tells Leonidas to bow down to him and Leonidas, his 300 men and Sparta will be spared. Leonidas does so, but then shouts out a command, a Spartan soldier runs out jumps off his back and impales the nearest Persian soldier with a spear. Leonidas then stands, grabs his spear and launches it at Xerxes but it only manages to scrap his face and make him bleed. Soon after, waves of arrows are launched at the Spartans and that is the end of them. The film then ends a year after that battle and it ends with the beginning of the Battle of Plataea.

Is this controversy warranted? Yes, definitely. My friends even agreed with me that the depiction of the Persians in this film is ridiculous and the whole film seems to woven in ignorance and racism. Persians are shown as mutated and demonic, whilst Spartans are shown as master warriors and elite soldiers. The ideals of both in the film are polar opposites of what they were in real life. The storyline is lacking and the writing was mediocre at best. If not for the amazing directing and backdrops this film would’ve been a complete disaster.

[mike435]

wow i wish i was watching in the thearters what a great graphics
i regret protesting the movie and not watching it in theaters

now that i have watched i think it is the other way i think it is sparta that is current iran and persia that is current america

iran is the country that is refusing to beat to the drums of the world there by UNITED SATES

iran is the country that is people if were to fight will fight for somthing they belive in and somthig that they will be proud to do

i think it is acctualy hint at americas arrogance

atleast this is what i would see if i was a hardliner living in iran.

now i know why my friend watched 3 times and one time in imax

gerat movie to much blood and killing but its better to see it on the screen than in real life

[mike435]

ever noticed how conservatives who always protest bloody movie and gore are the ones that initiatle reall blood shed in real life and real wars

and the artist who creat these horific graphic movie are the ones that are ultra libreal peac loving


lolololololo

more people need to watch these movies
lololol

[mike435]

any one know anyother link i am halfway and it has stoped loading
i reall want to finish watching the movie online

[abadani69]

به نظر مي رسد که هاليوود، به اصطلاح "کم آورده است". فيلم 300 چندان بي بضاعت است که ارزش اعتراض نداشته و ندارد. اعتراض به اين فيلم ضعيف و فاقد هويت، به آن جان بخشيد. توليد کنندگان فيلم 300 بي گمان تنها اميدشان براي برخورداري از بازار فروش، اين بوده و هست که احساسات و اعتراض ايرانيان را برانگيزند و به ياري هيجان سازي هاي خبري و رسانه اي، خوب بازاريابي کنند. تاکنون موفق بوده اند و حتي صداي اعتراض برخي مقامات ايراني که بي گمان نسبت به خشايار شاه و تاريخ باستان ايران چندان احترام و ارادتي ندارند، به صورت رسمي به گوش رسيده است.

در فيلم 300 هر چند تلاش ورزيده اند لشکر مجهز و بزرگ ايرانيان را در برابر 300 رزمنده خوار و ذليل جلوه دهند، اما اين توليد سينمايي که بيشتر به بازي هاي کامپيوتري کودکان مي ماند، به اندازه اي سطحي و قلابي از کار درآمده که نمي تواند تلاش سينماگران را تبديل به موضوعي جدي کرده و در تماشاچي تأثير بگذارد. داوري ذهني در صورتي به طور جدي در تماشاچي ايجاد مي شود که در درجه اول صحنه ها را باور کند. نظر به اينکه فيلم فاقد يک چنين اثرگذاري است، حتي نمي توان آن را با فيلم هاي کامپيوتري و پرهيجان تاريخي که گزارشگر نوعي هويت و ارزش گذاري تاريخي مي شوند مقايسه کرد. فيلم را که با استفاده از حرکات و نقش هاي سفيهانه و شکل هاي کريه چند جادوگر و ديو و دلقک پر ماجرا ساخته اند، حتي مانند يک توليد مرموز و در آميخته با جاذبه هاي ماوراء الطبيعه جذاب نيست.

اينکه از امپراطور ايران سيما و آرايش مضحکي ارائه داده و او را يک موجود مبتذل با ظواهر و آرايش افراطي و زنانه معرفي کرده اند، چيزي را تغيير نداده است. احتمالا اين شکل از نمايش هم نشان از يک سهل انگاري و جهل و ناداني دارد که وقتي در فيلم هاي سينمايي به آن روي مي آورند، فيلم بکلي از سکه مي افتد و فاقد ارزش و اهميت هنري يا تاريخي مي شود. قصه همان قدر که به مضحکه نزديک شده، از تاريخ نگاري دور افتاده است.

امپراطور ايران سيمايي دو جنسي دارد. او بزک کرده است. به برخي جوان هاي بيکاره و عاطل و باطل غرب شبيه است که تمام اجزاي صورت خود را سوراخ سوراخ مي کنند و ده ها حلقه و گوشواره از زبان، ابروان، گوش ها و پره هاي بيني مي گذرانند. امپراطور ايران وسط ميدان جنگي که سخت غير واقعي و مضحک کارگرداني شده، روي ارابه اي جواهر نشان نشسته و مثل بچه ها، بي خيال شادماني مي کند. تا مدتها که قرار است اين فيلم بي محتوا ادامه يابد، امپراطور درست در اوج کشت و کشتار خندان و خوشحال به نظر مي رسد. درست مثل اين است که امپراطور ايران دارد يک نمايش کامپيوتري را نگاه مي کند و خود مي داند همه چيز ساختگي است و اينکه کله هاي سربازانش يکي يکي به هوا مي پرد کاري است که فقط از عهده کامپيوتر بر مي آيد. امپراطور جنگ را همچون نمايشي کودکانه تماشا مي کند و به واقع هم چنين است.

و اما امپراطور رقيب که تافته اي جدا بافته است و قدرت و صلابت غرب را به نمايش مي گذارد، چهره و اندامي مردانه دارد. قدرت لايزال کامپيوتر به او مصونيت بخشيده. در سخت ترين برخوردهاي خونين، هنگامي که ده ها جنگجوي ايراني به وي حمله ور مي شوند، کلاهخود و زره اش تکان نمي خورد و لبخند زير کلاهخود سر جاي خود باقي است. او نيز با طبيعت انساني که ترس و وحشت اقتضاي آن است وداع گفته و به يک بازي کامپيوتري مشغول است و خوب مي داند اين او نيست که بازي مي کند و بلکه برنامه کامپيوتر است که او را بازي مي دهد.

امپراطوري که رهبر 300 نفر جنگجو است يک تنه بسياري را مي کشد و خود تا وقتي قرار است فيلم ادامه يابد زنده مي ماند. تازه موقعي هم که قرار مي شود فيلم پايان بگيرد، يک جادوگر و دلقک خيانتکار است که مي آيد و فاتحه اش را مي خواند.

در فيلم 300 به هر بهانه اي تلاش شده اين گونه ادعا شود که جنگ 300 رزمجو، براي آزادي است. تأکيد مي شود بر اينکه در ذهيت اين جنگجويان، زن به راستي داراي ارزش و احترام است. در هر حال فيلمي که به نيروي کامپيوتر، اما در کمال بد سيلقگي ساخته شده، براي پر کردن ساعاتي از زندگي مردمي که از روزمرگي ترسناک آمريکا خسته مي شوند مفيد است. آنها روزمرگي را با اين جنگ هاي دروغي و قهرمان هاي دروغي از ياد مي برند. با اين وصف فيلم به اندازه اي در مقايسه با فيلم هاي مشابه و متوسط و سطحي بي رمق است که هر گاه اعتراضي بر ضد آن آغاز نمي شد و به آن هويت تاريخي نمي بخشيدند، زود از بازار بيرون مي افتاد.

افسوس که اعتراض مردم اين سوي جهان (خاور ميانه) تبديل شده است به نردبان ترقي نويسندگان متوسط غربي، هنرمندان متوسط غربي، فلاسفه متوسط غربي، کاريکاتوريست هاي متوسط غربي ... و در مجموع عاملي است براي بازار يابي براي کالاهايي که بدون اين اعتراض، دست آوردي کسب نمي کنند.

کاريکاتوريست هايي که در پناه اعتراض مسلمانان قهرمان هاي دوران شده اند هنوز دارند از شهد شهرت و بازار غير متنظره اي که به دست آورده اند لذت مي برند. شايد توليد کنندگان، کارگردان و هنرپيشگان فيلم بي بضاعت 300 هم تبديل به چهره هاي پولسازتر بشوند و از نمد اعتراض غير ضروري ساکنان خاورميانه، کلاهي نصيب شان بشود. اگر آنها تنه به تنه قهرمانان بزنند يا بازار فروش غير قابل تصوري را قبضه کنند، اين همه را از تمايلات مردم خاورميانه نسبت به اعتراض هاي بي جا دارند. مردمي که به جاي ورود به جهان توليد، از تکذيب ديگران لذت مي برند و به ديگران نيرو و اعتبار مي بخشند.

[abadani69]

فيلم 300 در ادامه جنجال بزرگي که بر سرآن بر پا شده، همچنان مورد بحث محافل سينمائي و سياسي است. نگاهي داريم به اين فيلم.
نگاهي به فيلم 300
چهره ايراني را فقط غريبه تخريب نمي کند

کارگردان: زاک اسنايدر. فيلمنامه: زاک اسنايدر، کرت جانستد، مايکل گوردون بر اساس داستان مصور فرانک ميلر و لين والري. موسيقي: تيلر بيتز. مدير فيلمبرداري: ئلري فانگ. تدوين: ويليام هوي. طراح صحنه: جيمز بي. بيزل. بازيگران: جرارد باتلر[پادشاه ليونيداس]، لنا هيدي[ملکه گورگو]، دومينيک وست[ترون]، ديويد دنهم[ديليوس]، وينست رگان[سروان]، مايکل فاسبندر[استليوس]، تام ويزدام[آستينوس]، اندرو پليوين[داکسوس]، رودريگو سانتورو[خشايار شاه]. ١١٧ دقيقه. محصول ٢٠٠٦ آمريکا.
٤٨٠ سال قبل از ميلاد. خشايارشاه پادشاه پارس به دنبال عملي کردن نقشه بزرگ پدرش داريوش در صدد فتح دولت شهرهاي يوناني است. بزرگ ترين اين شهرها اسپارت و آتن هستند که در برابر فرستادگان خشايارشاه مبني بر تسليم، مقاومت مي کنند. لئونيداس پادشاه اسپارت که پذيرش دستورهاي خشايار شاه را بردگي مي داند، با کشتن فرستاده خشايار شاه به او اعلان جنگ مي دهد. در سناي آتن بر سر جمع کردن سپاه و پشتيباني از لئنيداس اختلاف وجود دارد. اما لئونيداس که از نزديک شدن سپاه خشايارشاه آگاه شده، تصميم به مقاومت در برابر آنان مي گيرد. براي اين کار فقط به سيصد سرباز حرفه اي گارد محافظ خود اطمينان و دسترسي دارد. او مي انديشيد اگر بتواند چند روزي در برابر سپاه پارس بايستد سناي آتن به يگانگي دست سافته و ارتشي جهت نبرد با نيروهاي خشايار شاه فراهم خواهند کند. لئونيداس به همراه افرادش در تنگه ترموپيل موضع گرفته و با رسيدن سپاه پارس درگير جنگي خونين و نابرابر مي شوند. در پشت جبهه گورگو، همسر وي نيز اسير دسيسه هاي خائنان است و تصميم دارد سناتورها را به وحدت فرا خواند. در سومين روز نبرد همگي سيصد اسپارتي و لئونيداس کشته مي شوند. در حالي که آتني ها با کشف خائن و ضرورت فراهم کردن سپاه تصميم به مقاومت در برابر نيروهاي پارس گرفته اند...
فيلم ٣٠٠ بر اساس قصه مصوري به همين نام نوشته فرانک ميلر ساخته شده. اين کتاب در ١٩٩٨ در ٥ جلد تحت عناوين شرف، وظيفه، افتخار، نبرد و پيروزي منتشر شد و چند جايزه هم گرفت. و حالا ٩ سال بعد از انتشار توسط زاک اسنايدر تبديل به يک فيلم سينمايي شده و بر خلاف کتاب که در زمان انتشار خود هيچ واکنشي از طرف ايراني ها برنيانگيخت، با عکس العمل هاي شديد ايراني هاي داخل و خارج کشور روبرو شده و در حال تبديل شدن به يک پديده است. پديده اي که عکس العمل هاي نسنجيده در برابر آن پيامدهاي منفي بيشتري از ساخت آن به دنبال خواهد داشت.
فيلم ٣٠٠ قصه اي تکراري از مقاومت گروهي اندک و نماينده جبهه خير در برابر گروه کثير جبهه شر دارد و به نوعي عمليات انتحاري غربي با هدف حراست از اولين دموکراسي است. اين عمليات انتحاري با انواع مشابه شرقي آن مثل کاميکازه هاي ژاپني يا انواع قديمي و جديد اسلامي آن ؛ هيچ تفاوت ماهوي ندارد. طرف اسپارتي حاضر به انتخاب مرگ با عزت در برابر زندگي توام با ذلت و بردگي است تا برتري اخلاقي خودش را به نمايش بگذارد. نتيجه يک حمام خون با پيامي جانانه به منتقدان سياست هاي جورج بوش و جوان آمريکايي امروز است:
از کلانتر محلي خودتان حمايت کنيد! به عبارت واضح تر بوش را در حمله به ايران تنها و بدون پشتيبان نگذاريد. چون او نيز مانند لئونيداس به نقش خودش در حراست از آزادي و دموکراسي واقف است.
فيلم سيصد يک فيلم حماسي با جلوه هاي ويژه خيره کننده است که قبلاً در اقتباس ديگري از فرانک ميلر به اسم شهر گناه شاهد آن بوديم. با اين تفاوت که از پيچيدگي قصه شهر گناه در اينجا خبري نيست و تمامي هم و غم سازندگان فيلم صرف از کار در آوردن هر چه تماشايي تر صحنه هاي نبرد و در واقع عمليات خوب مردن شده است. اتفاقي که باعث همذات پنداري تماشاگر جوان- که مخاطب اصلي اين فيلم است- با طرف خير و نماينده دموکراسي غربي شده و او را براي قصابي طرف شر؛ يعني ايراني ها در عالم واقعيت آماده مي کند.

فيلم سيصد به نوعي ستايش از خشونت، عمل گرايي، نظامي گري و حرفه اي گري است. طرف اسپارتي متشکل از سربازاني حرفه اي، خوش هيکل و عمل گرا است. مرداني مثل سربازان همه فن حريف فيلم تيم آمريکا که قرار است با سپاه خشايارشاه بجنگند. سپاهي که ترکيبي کامل از تمامي سمبل هاي هراس دنياي غرب است. شباهت گارد جاويدان به نينجاهاي ژاپني يا حضور پياده نظامي با لباس هاي عربي-که تماشاگر بي اختيار به ياد تروريست هاي مسلمان مي اندازد- تصادفي نيست. اين امر در سايه فانتزي بودن فيلم قابل چشم پوشي به نظر مي رسد، چون نه فرانک ميلر و نه زاک اسنايدر و حتي کمپاني برادران وارنر ادعاي ساختن فيلمي تاريخي و مستند را ندارند. اما همين اتفاق از ديدگاه هنري منجر به آشفتگي بصري فيلم شده تا جايي که منتقدان آمريکايي فيلم را در مقايسه با آپوکاليپتو خشن تر و دو برابر آن احمقانه تر ارزيابي کرده اند. سهم اصلي اين آشفتگي به فرانک ميلر و قصه او برمي گردد چون به جرات مي توان گفت که زاک اسنايدر برگردان سينمايي بسيار وفادارانه اي ساخته است.
نمايش سيصد بيش از هر فيلم ديگري در زمان ما جنجال آفريده است و همان طور که در ابتداي صحبت عرض کردم عکس العمل هاي نسنجيده در برابر آن مي تواند نتايج بدتري از ساخت آن به دنبال داشته باشد.[اين جنجال هاي بي خود تا اين لحظه در آمدي ١٣٠ ميليون دلاري براي فيلم فراهم کرده] استفاده دولت ها از سينما يا جانبداري سينماگران از سياست هاي يک دولت يا شخصي خاص، از اولين روزهاي تولد سينماي قصه گو وجود داشته است. اما همان طور که هوارد هيوز تهيه کننده مشهور گفته است: بايد اين قرص تلخ سياست را در لفافه اي شيرين پيچيد و به خورد تماشاگر داد، چون تماشاگر پول مي دهد تا سرگرم بشود و فيلمي که فاقد اين ويژگي باشد، پيام آن هم پشيزي ارزش نخواهد داشت. با اين ديدگاه ساخته شدن ٣٠٠ امري صرفاً سياسي نيست، چون هاليوود هميشه در صدد پول در آوردن از هر چيزي بوده که بر سر راهش قرار گرفته است. فرمايشي نبودن بسياري از اين گونه توليدات هم بر خلاف آثار مشابه توليد شده تحت حکومت هاي ايدئولوژيک و داراي سينماي دولتي هم واضح است، چون بسياري از عوامل توليد چنين فيلم هايي در عالم واقعيت نيز به خاستگاه طبقاتي و دلبستگي هاي سياسي مشخصي تعلق دارند که در فيلم هاي شان انعکاس پيدا مي کند.
از طرف ديگر اگر بپذيريم که دولت آمريکا و جمهوري اسلامي در حالت صلح مسلح به سر مي برند و خطر وقوع يک درگيري فيزيکي در آينده وجود دارد؛ طبيعي است که اين مسئله در کالاهاي فرهنگي هر دو طرف بازتاب پيدا کند. عملي طبيعي که پاسخي از جنس خودش را طلب مي کند. به همين دليل به نظر من ساخته شدن ٣٠٠ يک اتفاق طبيعي و يک قصه فانتزي بر اساس واقعه اي تاريخي است که نبايد بيش از اندازه جدي گرفته شود: چون در حد و اندازه يک کار جدي هنري نيست و مانند همه فيلم هاي تبليغاتي محکوم به فراموشي است. يعني کاربردي مقطعي دارد و بس! و حتي به فرض محال اگر فيلمي جدي باشد وظيفه ما در برابر آن شکيبايي، تحمل نقد و دادن پاسخي با استفاده از همان رسانه است. آيا بهتر نيست کارگردانان ايراني است که بيانيه اي منتشر کرده و ٣٠٠ را دروغ پردازانه و موهن خوانده اند؛ به جاي ساخت زندگي نامه امامان ريز و درشت غير ايراني يا قصه هاي تخيلي اسلامي مانند اصحاب کهف با بودجه هاي کلان دولتي، فيلمي در باره تاريخ ايران-مثلاً مقاومت آريو برزن در برابر اسکندر که بي شباهت به ماجراي لئونيداس و خشايارشاه نيست- بسازند؟ پس مي بينيد متاسفانه آن کسي که چهره ايراني را در سينما تخريب کرده، غريبه نيست!
اجازه بدهيد صحبت را با يک نتيجه گيري فرامتني صحبت ام به اتمام برسانم؛ در آستانه قرن بيست و يکم با دولت و سياستمداراني که هيچ نشاني از ايراني بودن ندارند و در صدد برپايي حکومت جهاني اسلامي هستند، چهره ما در عالم واقعيت به شدت دچار تخريب شده، بياييد به جاي موضع گيري در برابر يک فيلم کم ارزش نيروي خود را صرف ترميم تصوير خود در جهان حقيقي بکنيم.
چون فيلمي فانتزي که به قصد کسب سود مادي ساخته شده، به دليل همزماني نمايش اش با تلاش هاي جمهوري اسلامي براي دستيابي به قدرت اتمي و نبرد اعلام شده جورج بوش با کانون هاي شر در خاورميانه زمينه ساز جنجال هاي فرامتني و حتي غير ضروري فراواني شده. به طوري که دولتمردان جمهوري اسلامي هم مانند ماجراي آيات شيطاني، پس از مدتي تاخير در برابر آن موضع گرفته اند و مطمئن باشيد حضور "رهبري" از جنس آبت اله خميني مي توانست منجر به صدور يک فتواي ديگر شود. چون اين دولت ضد مردمي از هر جنجالي که منجر به انحراف اذهان عمومي بشود، استفاده مي کند. در يک کلام بحران سازي هم استراتژي و هم تاکتيک جمهوري اسلامي است و خوشبختانه يا متاسفانه با يافته شدن يک موضوع واقعي[دستگيري ملوانان انگليسي و اجراي پروژه تواب سازي در باره آنان] اين مسئله خيلي زود فراموش شد.
همان طور که فتواي قتل رشدي براي پوشانيدن ماجراي قطعنامه ٥٩٨ و از همه مهم تر کشتار زندانيان سياسي در سال ١٣٦٧ با قصد ايجاد اتحاد ميان وارثان حکومت اسلامي از طريق آلوده شدن دست هاي شان در يک حمام خون؛ طراحي و اجرا شد. بنابر اين جنجال هاي ايجاد شده در پيرامون فيلم ٣٠٠ نيز مي تواند تبديل به اتفاقي مشابه بشود و جبهه گيري دنيا در برابر تلاش هاي جمهوري اسلامي براي دستيابي به قدرت اتمي را از صدر اخبار روز در داخل کشور حذف کند يا در خارج از کشور به درجه دوم تقليل بدهد. چون اين دولت در طول نزديک به سه دهه گذشته فقط و فقط با ايجاد بحران هاي تصنعي و غوغاسالاري موفق به ادامه حيات خود شده و بس! به همين خاطر کساني را که فکر مي کنند پاسخ هاي رسمي و غير رسمي دولت جمهوري اسلامي از سر وطن پرستي است، به حرف هاي رهبران جمهوري اسلامي ارجاع مي دهم که همواره اسلاميت را عملاً به ايرانيت ترجيح داده اند و حاضر به قرباني کردن ايران و ايراني به پاي اسلام بوده و هستند!

[Rasputin]

I have been following reactions to the movie “300” and to my article which appeared on Iranian.com as well as on Payvand.com and in the Orange County Register. Of course each of these venues has their own constituency and so reactions have been somewhat different, to say the least. But comments on Iranian.com merit a follow up to my review which will come out to a wider audience in a national newspaper. On the Iranian.com the comments by Parsa Pezeshki and Darryl Narcisse caught my attention and interest. The first by Pezeshki entitled “Ummm…it’s a movie man,” calls my review “truly comical,” while Narcisse felt that my reflections were bordering on absurdity.

Indeed, perhaps I have had my head buried in the books for too long, but having taken courses on politics and history through film (such courses are offered at major universities in the U.S., especially for those who are interested in American popular culture!), I am still quite disturbed by the intentions of the film. In fact, it is these scholarly pursuits that make me dig a bit deeper, past the slogans and moralistic hyperbolae. I see now that the reason that I reacted to “300” needs some explanation, in order that our friends understand why this is not just a movie.

Yes, Zack Snyder’s “300” is just a movie, based on a graphic novel, a form of comic book, by Frank Miller. But let’s talk about some of the people involved in making the film. Who is Frank Miller? Oh, he writes comic books. Do you accept the premise that one’s political ideology and worldview affects her or his creative work? If you say no, there is no need for you to read another word of this article and please either get an education or just head to the beach. Otherwise, if you feel that intent might be important, let’s see how Mr. Miller, Mr. Snyder, and their consultants see the world and the “others,” i.e., the people of the Middle East.

Thanks to a friend, I was able to obtain the transcripts of a recent interview with Frank Miller, made on January 24, 2007, about President Bush’s State of the Union address. Let me give you his responses and thoughts on the current state of affairs in the world (I’ve highlighted the important words):

(National Public Radio – NPR): Frank, what’s the state of the union?

Frank Miller: Well. I don’t really find myself worrying about the state of the union as I do the state of the home-front. It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants … and we’re behaving like a collapsing empire…

NPR: A lot of people would say what America has done abroad has led to the doubts and even the hatred of its own citizens.

Frank Miller: Well, okay, then let’s finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw peoples’ heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.

NPR: As you look at people around you, though, why do you think they’re so, as you would put it, self-absorbed, even whiny?

Frank Miller: Well, I’d say it’s for the same reason the Athenians and Romans were. We’ve got it a little good right now. Where I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he motivated our military, but he didn’t call the nation into a state of war…”

Of course, I know that there are people who hate Islam and all that it represents, but from certain American perspectives, such as the one espoused by Frank Miller, if you live in that part of the world, be you Arab, Persian, or any other, you are on the side of those who have attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Is anyone telling me that the moive has not then consciously portrayed the Persian army of king Xerxes like the Taliban terrorists and the Iraqi insurgents who use IEDs to kill American soldiers?

What about Zack Snyder? I see him as more of a man making a buck, something that the movie industry aims at anyway. By all accounts he is successful. I very much liked his Sin City. I thought it was good. He also gave an interview which was, in short, about whether we should change the world “Persian” to “Zoroastrian” because of the current issues and to avoid offending anyone. An interviewer mentioned that, before the movie was finished, it had been observed that Leonidas, the king of the Spartans, came off like George Bush. Snyder replied that he hadn’t thought much about it and if Leonidas did sound like Bush, all the better.

Oh, still would you say, ‘umm it’s just a movie, man, get over it?’ Frank Miller is just doing a comic book and Zack Snyder is making a fun movie? So, has anyone read the book 300: The Art of the Film? Does anyone know who has written the forward to it? Since I deal with “absurdities,” and I just can’t take things lightly, I searched for the name of the person who has helped turn “just” comic book into to “just” a movie. The name of that person is Victor Davis Hanson. Who is he, you might ask? He is a professor of Classics (Greek and Latin) at California State University, Fresno and is an “expert” on the “Western” way of war, whatever that means (for criticisms see "Speaker debates 'Cheney's favorite historian'"). So why was a historian of Greek warfare asked to write the forward to a book about its making? So next time someone tells you, ‘oh there is no real historical substance to the film,’ ask them why it was necessary for an ancient historian to attempt to lend intellectual legitimacy to it.

But for me, what is much more troubling is who Victor Davis Hanson is, and what he stands for. Beside his work on Greek agriculture and warfare, he does other things. Mr. Hanson is also a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University. If you do not already know about the “great” Hoover Institute, then do some searching and ask people in academia about it. Ummm, and what does Dr. Hanson do in his spare time when he is not writing about Greek techniques of warfare and how they saved Western Civilization from the Barbarians (people like me)? Well, he writes, not on ancient history, but on current events for William Buckley’s National Review Online and other “conservative” (today they are called Neo-conservative) news outlets, as well as his website, victorhanson.com. He has several interesting books which I suggest you look at, such as AnAutumn of War: What America Learned from September 11 and the War on Terrorism (2002). President Bush and Vice President Cheney have met him and are enamored by his views. In fact Hanson’s AnAutumn of War is one of Cheney's favorite recent books. In October 2002, during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Cheney invited Hanson to the vice president's mansion for a meeting followed by dinner. Cheney said little but asked many questions. So Hanson provides the intellectual force behind Cheney’s views.

The fallacy in his historical outlook is clear by such statement as:

“The phrase “300 Spartans” evokes not only the ancient battle of Thermopylae, but also the larger idea of fighting for freedom against all odds — a notion subsequently to be enshrined through some 2,500years ofWestern civilization”.

So he not only provides a skewed portrayal of ancient history, he is also consulted by the so-called compassionate conservatives for purposes of skewing present-day matters of the Middle East!

Dr. Hanson’s other book, Between War and Peace: Lesson from Afghanistan to Iraq (2004) includes such interesting essays as: “Don Rumsfeld, A Radical for Our Time,” “History Isn’t on the Palestinians’ Side,” and “Misunderstanding America: We’re Not the Ones with the Problems,” and he has also written on other things such as Why the West Has Won? (2002); Ripples of Battle: How Wars of the past Still Determine how We Fight, how We Live, and how We Think (2004).

Even more troubling to me is yet another side of Victor Davis Hanson’s writing, that which has to do with seeing the non-Anglo immigrants as contaminating the pure center of Western Civilization, the U.S.A. He is the author of Mexifornia: A State of Becoming (2004) and with this book he became an instant hero of the anti-immigrant movement in the U.S. To quote one reviewer, “He (Hanson) argues that ‘cultural relativism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ – which contend that all cultures possess inherent value – ‘have escaped from the university and circulate like an airborne toxin in the popular culture’ (p. 6) (review online by Walter A. Ewing, The American Immigration Law Foundation) (bold words mine).

For Hanson, all cultures are not equal and should not be appreciated. And not only is he in a state of panic about the Mexican immigration attacking the America which he once knew, but others are not so welcome either. One of my students, after reading Hanson’s chapter in a book called What if? hypothesizing an alternative history in which the Persians won the battle of Salamis in 480 BCE, and which suggested that, as a result, freedom and democracy would not be alive today? My student had asked the author, “Do you think I am an uncivilized person because I am coming from an Iranian civilization?” and he was answered by Hanson that, “If you are from that civilization, I think you are uncivilized, but I think you are part of Western civilization now.”

Dear readers, these are the people behind the book and the movie “300.” You can not say that such individuals have been just writing a comic book and just making a movie with the aid of a ethnocentric historian.

[Rasputin]

I hope that that my “absurdities” have become a bit more clear, and I also hope that it is clear that “300” is not “just, ummm, a film, man,” but that it is informed by an pseudo-intellectual force that is behind many of these types of projects which portray the ancient Persians as the epitome of the modern enemy of the United States. For Hanson, what is unfortunate is that the war between the Greeks and the Persians is still not over but rather has been carrying on for the past 2,500 years. A very sad mindset, indeed. Once we allow this type of stereotyping to continue to bombard the American viewing audience, many whose main mode of learning is visual, you will generate an even more negative view of “others” and also of us Persians/Iranians in the United States. It is these subtleties that I believe are most dangerous to us as immigrants living in the U.S.

When you allow books to appear, without criticism, which call for the “encampment” of Muslims in the United States (Michelle Malkin, In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror (2004, selling over 100,000 copies) or for stopping immigration from the Middle East by the same author, Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores (2004, selling almost 300,000 copies), combined with films portraying the Persians attacking Western values, killing their women and children, hanging them on trees, and crucifying their heroes, I warn you, we will be discriminated against even more. If one does not criticize and articulate the phobia and hatred of these people, then it is easy toend up in a concentration camp somewhere in Nevada or Arizona, because the popular culture has prepared the population of this nation for seeing all of us, be we Arab, Persian, Turk, Muslim, Jewish, Bahai or Zoroastrian, as the head-covered, turban-wearing lunatics who want to destroy the American way of life, freedom, and democracy.

What we need is an articulation of Iranian history in an intelligent and coherent fashion, one that is not wrapped in nationalist language. The Irish and others had a very tough time when they immigrated to the United States in the nineteenth century. There were signs outside bars and other places stating no dogs and no Irish were allowed, and now it may be our turn if we do not stand up. When was the last time a Persian or Iranian was shown in a positive light in Hollywood? Lunacy on either side does not help our cause, but confronting racism, Iran-bashing, and the bashing of the ancient Persians, which “300” has done in many ways, has changed my aim in life. It has certainly enlisted me to spend part of my time writing not just articles for academic journals which are read by maybe fifty people, but rather on a wider scale for the American and English-speaking population to understand that in the sixth century BCE, Peloponnesus (Greece which indeed was and is a great civilization) was not the only place on earth that had a culture, and that Persians, among others, contributed enormously to this World Civilization (that is what needs to be emphasized) who brought to the world such things as backgammon, chess, and polo, the Persian rugs which the world cherishes, the Persian cats that they are willing to pay so much for, and that it was Persians such as Razi who found the medicinal use of alcohol, and, Khawrazmi who formulated algebra and algorithm (the word algorithm derives from his name). Somebody should ask Frank Miller how his microphone could work and his planes could fly if it wasn’t for some of these contributions from Persian civilization.

[Rasputin]

Soon after Khomeini’s flight from Paris to Tehran, in Feb. 1st 1979, the mullahs hijacked our revolution. The result, far from fulfilment of is dream of freedom and democracy, has up to now been nothing but increasing economic, social and political suffering. No conscientious human being should or would, therefore, want to add to what we have endured under Khomeinism.

Thus, it is a fact that we tend to encounter, rather over-sensitively, books like “Not Without My Daughter” and / or films like “300” in which we feel the so-called officials of the Islamic Republic are identified, or mistaken for, what we Iranians are.

In his eliminating criticism of the film “300”, Mr Cyrus Kar casts great doubt upon Herodotus’s famous -- or, rather, notorious -- account of “The Battle of Thermopylae”. And to see how justified our critic is in so doing, it is enough for us to look at the ancient Greek historians account in the light of Vico’s Principia dell La Vitta .The great Italian philosopher of history teaches us that in the absence of counter-documents, the, or at least one, way to try to verify a dubious historical report of a past event would be to visualize the scene, i.e. to imagine ourselves present at the very time and place of its happening and see if we could with our own eyes see it is actually taking place.

For, the very “reportability “of any public, historical, event depends primarily upon it being or having been witnessed by human eyes. But, needless to add, human eyes are capable of witnessing actual events when, and only when, they receive their sense and data directly from the real world outside, and not through clever cinematic animations, special effects or so-called “virtual realities” that have made nonsense of the popular dogma “seeing is believing”.

I mean, try to visualize The Battle of Thermopylae: Imagine the Spartan defence to be a well-disciplined, “300”-strong regiment of cloned Herculeses, one and all armed to the teeth with the most murderous Spartan weapons; and -- just imagine! The 2.7 million Persian invaders to be an unruly mob of ignorant savages, and not a mighty Navy of well-trained and well-equipped marines advancing aboard thousands of well-built, technologically unequalled battleships. Would it be possible for you to see the battle won by the Spartans?

Of course, that was what happened eventually. The Spartans did win the battle.

But why?

Why?

Don’t you see the terrible storm raging against the Persian battleships, smashing and drowning most of them just as they are approaching Sparta’s rocky shores?

I mean, General Storm did for the Spartans and against the Persians what centuries later“General winter” did against Napoleon and for the Russians.

The Royal Astrologers’ prophecy of a “good day” for Xerxes to start his naval expedition turned out to be false. The sea became stormy that day and the proud King of King’s ordered his army to whip the sea waves for having risen against his royal will!

Now, this testifies to the truth of what Plato writes about Xerxes’s childhood and the educational milieu that eventually made him the arrogant fool that he was. But we are talking about the Persian Navy, not Persia’s Emperor. And what the anecdote shows is that the weather was not favourable for the Persian expedition from the start.

I mean, the Greeks, specially Athenians who always looked down on Spartans as culturally inferior, must have been primarily grateful to Zeus’s son, Poseidon, for having smitten the Persian Navy with his oceanic wrath.

Xerxes was the grand son of Cyrus the Great, who is greatly admired in the Bible for emancipating the Jewish people from their Babylonian yoke of slavery.

And that is why I find it astonishing that the main makers of “300” are Jewish Americans.

True: the theological tyranny in Iran today, the so called Islamic Republic, is a sworn enemy of Israel. IRI's murderous intention is wiping that country off the map of the Middle East if and when possible.

But the present Islamic Republic has noting to do with ancient Persia: a country that mothered the very first great proclaimer of human rights -- and that, in particular, with regard to the Israelites.

Besides, the greatest majority of us Iranians never identify ourselves with the present tyrannical theocracy -- a fact realized and emphasized even by President Bush, who has repeatedly said that he distinguishes the Iranian people from the Islamic Regime. But it seems to me that the director and producers of "300" have failed to grasp this rather obvious fact.

I mean, the Jewish people have every right to respond to the Islamic Republic’s president and his turbaned colleague’s criminally malicious propaganda by all means, including, and specially, via cinema.

But fighting the Islamic Republic is one thing, demonizing the Iranian people is quite another. The first is their national right .The second amounts to an almost criminal act, paving the way for a possible genocide in our country.

I mean, cinema, as a medium, is the most powerful means for moulding world-wide public opinion into accepting the justifiability of America's attack on barbarians in Iran:

Which if -- and god-forbid when -- triggered, it is apt not only to result in a total destruction of the socio-economic infra-structure of our country, but, and worse still, will lead to a terrible Iranian civil war:

Which if -- and again god-forbid when -- ignited, it will inevitably end in total annihilation of a country that once cradled human civilization and her people took great pride in calling themselves Persians.

The "300" film director has, in a TV interview, uttered words to the effect that his intention has been to make an entertaining movie, not to give present-day Iranians a bad image through picturing their ancient ancestors as ignorant, blood- thirsty barbarians -- indeed the primal “Axis of Evil”.

But actions speak not only louder than words; they are more truthful, too.

However, as a founding member both of The Iranian Writers Association and The Iranian Pen (in Exile), I cannot but remain an arduous defender of the basic Human Right to Freedom of Expression.

It is morally impossible for me, therefore, to ask anyone to refrain from seeing “300”. Just as words are to be answered by words, films are to be encountered by films.

Besides, human curiosity can, and often does, over-power human will.

All forms of banning or boycotting strongly tend to, and usually do, work against themselves. Salman Rushdie, whose Right to Freedom of Expression and Publication I have always been and shall always be a whole-hearted defender of, did not dream of his Satanic Verses to become an almost bestseller. But Khomeini’s edict against his life and work made it so.

But, then, what are we to do in response to a piece of ill-willed propaganda like “300”?

I fully agree with Mr. Kar: “History is no longer written by victors, it is written by filmmakers... Perhaps the movie '300' is a necessary wake up call. But Persia bashing will never disappear on its own .it is the main villain in Western Saga .The [or one] way it will change is through the power of film”.

And to utilize that “power”, we have the necessary potential, both inside and outside Iran, in terms both of talent and of capital. Our problem is the wide gap between talent and capital both inside and outside Iran.

Inside our country, the gap is created through the Islamic republic’s enmity with our Iranian national identity, especially with those historical elements that have to do with our ancient heritage, deeply rooted in pre-Islamic Persia.

Outside Iran, however, the gap is an inventible outcome of both immigrant and exiled Iranians' indifference towards their Iranianness. For example, and specially, the majority of Iranian-Americans are quite well-to-do people. Indeed official American statistics show the Iranian-American community as the most prosperous in USA today, altogether owning $600 billion in wealth and capital.

But it would be much easier -- and more satisfying -- for a great number of them to lose a great deal of money at a gambling table in a luxurious club in Las Vegas than to make a small donation when it comes to an Iranian cultural, social or political cause.

And thus it is that Alex Joey’s movie about Cyrus the Great, which, in the words of Cyrus Kar , "could have done wonders for the Iranian image ... sits idle for lack of money." And, more heart-wounding still, Mr. Kar’s own "documentary film about Cyrus the great has languished for the mere want of $400,000."

Dear Cyrus,

I wish I could help you. But I cannot. All I can do is to wish you good luck and Happy a Nowruz .

1/4/2007,
London

Esmail Khoi

[Rasputin]

«تيم برتون»، فيلمساز مشهور سينماي هاليوود گفت: بسيار متأسفم كه سينماي هاليوود اين روزها با وجود فيلمهايي مانند «300» كاملاً از وظيفه فرهنگي ايراني خود خارج و ابزار دست سياستمدارن دولت بوش شده است.

تيم برتون در گفتگو با باشگاه خبرنگاران تأكيد كرد: به نظر مي رسد هنرمندان هيچ نقشي در توليد اين گونه فيلمها ندارند و سازمان سيا با فشار دولت بوش در اين راه عمل مي كند.وي افزود: من از ايران و ايرانيان شناخت كاملي دارم و در مورد فرهنگ و تمدن ديرينه آنها مطالعات بسيار داشته ام و با ديدن فيلم 300، جز شرمندگي چيزي نمي توانم بيان كنم.

تيم برتون همچنين در مورد محتواي فيلم گفت: فيلم صحنه هاي خشن زيادي دارد، اما خشونت و احساساتي كه در كل اين فيلم جريان دارد، به قدري سطحي است كه نمونه هاي بهترش در كارتونهاي ژاپني پيدا مي شود.

[Rasputin]

Perhaps, it's only me, but to my screwy mind there seems to be something supremely ironic that so many people have been enraged by the cartoon 300. I, for one, don’t get it.



Blood pressures have been rising and boycotts have been organized in every major Iranian-American community from coast-to-coast decrying this most gross and callous injustice inflicted upon our ancient forefathers-in-animated-form. All the while, the rest of the country has been shaking its head in total bewilderment trying to comprehend our over reaction to a cartoon and at the same time trying not to burst out in laughter....as in my humble opinion they would be completely justified in doing under the circumstances. This whole 300 business is just the latest manufactured 'crisis' to hit our community. Just like many of the other created “crises” before it, everything about this latest crisis is nothing more that a bunch of blown-out-of-proportion-baloney.



I don’t understand all these people who would rather be angry, upset and indignant about a cartoon when this is the time of the year that they should be celebrating? Norooz has just ended after all! Instead of being thankful for all we've got in this country: freedom, success, money, what do many amongst us do? They rail against this frigging cartoon as if matters in the big scheme of things and try to whip the rest of us up emotionally by imploring us to join them in their rancorous rant. Is it any wonder that late night TV comedians have been having a field day watching us? Our community's reaction has, after all, looked quite comical in a Monty Pythonish sort of way as we’ve set out to make our 'Quest for the Unholy Rail.' Our petition-loving brothers and sisters haven’t done any of us any favors by raising so much hell about something so trivial. They certainly haven’t made us look dignified, well educated, or at the very least, normal. They have made every single, last one of us look like ridiculous, whining fools.



Ponder for a moment the fact that every other racial group, ethnic group, and regional group in America has been spoofed, stereotyped or made the object of tasteless satire throughout the history of cinematography. The list of groups that have been lampooned in the movies is endless. Some of the most politically incorrect movies of all-time include flicks like: Blazing Saddles. Airplane, There's Something about Mary, Caddyshack, Love and Death, Kentucy Fried Movie, American Pie I and II, Porky's, Team America: Worst Police, Song of the South, Bad Santa, and Borat. An incomplete list of those lampooned in these movies include: Japanese people, Chinese people, Koreans, Arabs, Mexicans, Armenians, Poles, the French, Jews, Christians, the mentally retarded, drug addicts, alcoholics, homosexuals, easy girls, and men with tiny weiners.



We in the Iranian American community have been spared, for the most part, up to now only because we’re a relatively new ethnic addition to the mish-mashed melting pot called American society. When the time comes that we are lampooned in the movies as savagely and hilariously as other groups in society, it will only be because our fellow citizens have fully accepted us. Knowing how we are though, we'll probably be insulted at having our Persian dignity laughed at and we'll have to churn out even more petitions. If there is any one thing that we do well, it has got to be petitions!



While we're more than happy to have a good laugh when other ethnic, racial or regional groups are being lampooned or stereotyped in some way, we get our panties in a wad when Hollywood has the audacity to portray, not real, flesh-and-blood Iranians, but animated caricatures of ancient Persians as giant, ***-kicking warriors. In my humble opinion, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we want to be accepted by others in American society, we've got to willing to accept that this means taking the good with the bad, just like every other segment and every other ethnicity in America does.



What our petition-pushing brethren really want is for us to be put on a pedestal above others. They are not interested in equal treatment for Iranians; they want special treatment. I could be mistaken, but for some reason I have a nagging suspicion that all the other groups in society aren't really going to enthusiastically jump on the 'Iranians are more special than everybody else' bandwagon. In an effort to convince us that we’ve been victimized, the anti-300 league has pulled out those two old, but tried and tested, drums called racism and discrimination to sound the alarm. They've been unmercifully pounding the hell out of those drums for weeks now trying to convince us that we've been mistreated. What a crock!



Our community doesn't have any right to accuse others of being racists until we clean up our own act first. I know that this may come as a startling shock to some, but as an ethnic group, we are amongst the most racist and ethnocentric people in American society today. Of course, we have many good souls that don't have a racist bone in their bodies, but we also have more than a few who think we're better than everyone else. Just a few evenings ago, I saw a video on Tapesh that lampooned Marylyn Monroe, Elvis, Native Americans as well as American culture in general. I wonder how many Iranians phoned in indignant protests about the culturally demeaning undercurrent of that video. Something, tells me that Tapesh's phones probably weren't ringing off the hook. When we are entertained at 'their' expense, we call it harmless and humorous entertainment. When 'they' are entertained at our expense, we cry and snivel like little wimps who've had their milk money stolen by the school yard bully.



Sacha Baron Cohen, /a.k.a./ Borat was hailed as iranian.com's, October 30, 2006, Iranian of the Day.

Niki Tehranchi went so far as to compare Cohen favorably to two of the greatest geniuses of satirical comedy, Peter Sellers and Andy Kaufman, in a November 16, 2006 movie review entitled “Love child of Peter Sellers and Andy Kaufman.” Everyone who has seen that movie knows that the central character of the film, Borat, was an

equal opportunity offender. He offended everyone.



Everyone, that is, except Iranians! It's interesting to note that the P.P.P.C. (Persian Police for Political Correctness) didn't wage a petition signing campaign when Borat offended blacks, women, homosexuals, Eastern Europeans, white Christian rednecks, Jews, and mentally retarded people in that recent Hollywood blockbuster.



Would it have been unreasonable for those in the groups Borat offended to jump to the conclusion that Cohen's uniquely offensive brand of humor is acceptable to the Iranian-Americans simply because Cohen is of Iranian descent through his mother's family? I think they would have been completely justified in jumping to that conclusion. The important thing, however, is that they did not jump to that conclusion. They took it all in stride.



How would we have responded if we had been accused of being racists because others were offended by Borat? We would probably have said that we just thought the movie was simply fun an harmless entertainment. How, then, is the cartoon 300 any different? If we're going to enjoy being entertained by the outrageous lampooning of others, then why shouldn't they have every right to be entertained by cartoon caricatures of our ancient forbearers waging war and kicking ***, even if the cartoon is historically inaccurate? People who go to see the cartoon 300 don’t want a history lesson; they want to be entertained for a couple of hours.



The issue at hand is not whether we've been made the victims of racism vis-a-vis this cartoon. The issue at hand is whether we as a community are going to purge from our collective psyche the last vestiges of the siege mentality that has gripped our community for far too long in North America. Certainly, many among us don't think that everything that happens in America is a conspiracy against Iranians, but, then again, many do.






People who happen to be afflicted with a siege mentality suffer from an overly ethnocentric imagination which makes them hyper-sensitive to anything and everything that has to do with Iran. They think that everyone else in America hates us and wants to harm us either individually, or collectively.



These are the kind of people who've lived in America for thirty years, or more and still don't know that the basic structure of an English sentence is subject-verb-object. Is it any wonder that they're afraid and distrustful of everyone else in society? They can't even communicate in any meaningful way with the 99.9% of the American population that can't speak Persian...and this is after three decades in some cases.



These are people who haven't tried to fit into the larger society. They've resented having to live in America and they've resented having to live amongst Americans. Every moment of every day, they're absorbed in thoughts about the life they once had in Iran. For many of these sad souls, it's as if their life stopped when they had to leave the life they once led. Instead of enjoying many of the wonderful aspects of life in America, these people are bitter that their life in America isn't identical to life they left behind. They are hurt and angry. For them, the only problem with America is that it is so damn full of Americans. Their ideal American utopia would be one that was packed coast-to-coast with Iranians and one where Farsi was the American lingua franca.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

مايكل مور در واكنش به اين مطلب كه «سازندگان 300، داستان اين فيلم را را افسانه دانسته اند» گفت: اين اظهارنظر، گناه و اشتباه [كمپاني] «برادران وارنر» را بزرگتر مي كند، چرا كه ساخت فيلمي خلاف واقع آن هم به شيوه اي اغراق آميز، در مورد يك كشور بر اساس داستاني افسانه اي، رفتاري به شدت غير حرفه اي است، اين اظهارنظر براي من آمريكايي هم پذيرفتني نيست.

مايكل مور فيلمساز منتقد و مشهور آمريكايي و برنده جايزه اسكار بهترين فيلم مستند در سال 2002 كه در آثارش سياست هاي دولت بوش را به باد انتقاد مي گيرد، در پاسخ به سوالي در مورد فيلم ضد ايراني «300»، گفت: اين روزها سخت مشغول كارهايم هستم و اصلاً اين فيلم را نديده ام! هر چند جنجال اين فيلم و سر و صداي ايرانيان را شنيده ام.

مايكل مور در گفت و گو با مصطفي فقيهي مدير و سردبير خبرگزاري «انتخاب»، پس از توضيح موضوع و برخي از جزئيات فيلم 300 ، گفت: به خاطر وجود فيلم سازان نادان در هاليوود متاسفم، هر چند توقع ديگري از [كمپاني] «برادران وارنر» ندارم.

وي تصريح كرد: گرچه وجود انواع تفكرات در هاليوود را لازم مي دانم، اما تنها مي توانم بگويم متاسفم به خاطر وجود فيلمسازان و كمپاني هايي چون «برادران وارنر»، كه بدون استناد به تاريخ و تنها از روي عصبانيت اقدام به تهيه فيلم هاي تاريخي عليه كشورهاي صاحب هويت مي كنند.

كارگردان «بولينگ براي كلمباين» افزود: بر خلاف بيشتر مردم آمريكا كه از تاريخ ايران مطلع نيستند، من به دليل مخالفت دولت جرج بوش با ايران، سعي كرده ام حداقلي از تاريخ اين كشور را بدانم.

اين مستندساز به سازندگان 300 توصيه كرد، پيش از ساخت هر اثري، بدون غضب و موضع گيري هاي بچه گانه، تاريخ واقعي كشورها را منعكس كنند.

وي در واكنش به اين مطلب كه «كمپاني برادران وارنر در بيانيه اي، فيلم 300 را افسانه دانسته است»، گفت: اگر تعريفي كه از ماجراي فيلم كرديد درست باشد، اين اظهارنظر، گناه و اشتباه [كمپاني] «برادران وارنر» را بزرگتر مي كند، چرا كه ساخت فيلمي خلاف واقع آن هم به شيوه اي اغراق آميز در مورد يك كشور بر اساس داستاني افسانه اي، رفتاري به شدت غير حرفه اي است، اين اظهارنظر براي من آمريكايي هم پذيرفتني نيست.

مايكل مور گفت: من به عنوان يك آمريكايي به جاي سازندگان 300 و مشخصاً برادران وارنر، از مردم ايران عذرخواهي مي كنم. ايرانيان باور كنند كه همه آمريكايي ها مثل بوش، چني و سازندگان فيلم 300 نيستند.

او اضافه كرد: متاسفانه گاهي تفكري كه در اقليت است، به عنوان تفكر غالب نشان داده مي شود، همانطور كه تندروهاي ايراني با برخي اظهارنظر ها وجهه كشورشان را متفاوت جلوه مي دهند.

كارگردان فيلم جنجالي «فارنهايت 11/9»، در پايان اين گفت و گو، ضمن تشكر از «انتخاب»، گفت : فكر مي كنم تنها دو بار با رسانه و خبرنگاران ايراني گفت و گو كرده باشم كه هر دوي آنان، «انتخاب» بوده است و از اين بابت بسيار خوشحالم.

وي گفت: سلام مرا به همه ايرانيان برسانيد.

اين مستند ساز مشهور آمريكايي، سال گذشته نيز در گفت و گو با «انتخاب»، در مورد ايران، چنين گفته بود: «با اين كه خيلي دوست دارم ايران را ببينم، اما تا به حال نتوانستم به ايران بيايم.گرچه به خاطر فيلم «بولينگ براي كلمباين» يك قطعه فرش زيبا از سوي «فستيوال فجر» برايم ارسال شده كه در مقابل درب داخلي منزلم انداخته ام. هر كسي هم به خانه ام مي آيد از زيبايي اين فرش تعريف و تمجيد مي كند و البته به او مي گويم، اين فرش حاصل دسترنج مردماني است كه به گفته ي يك احمق رواني، اين روزها جزء كشورهاي «محور شرارت» است»

[Rasputin]

Iranian Community Offended by Film's Take on Ancient Battle

Spring is a time of festivity and rebirth for Iranian Americans. The vernal equinox brings Nawroz, the Persian New Year -- an occasion to celebrate Iran's ancient, civilized culture with poetry readings, musical concerts and banquets.

Enter the wicked King Xerxes and his brutish armed hordes, who for the past several weeks have been stomping across a thousand U.S. multiplex screens, beheading brave Greek soldiers and besmirching 3,000 years of Persian history.

The opening of the Hollywood action film "300" -- a wildly exaggerated portrayal of the battle of Thermopylae between the mighty Persian army and a small band of Spartan troops in 480 B.C. -- has stunned and angered Iranian Americans in the Washington area and across the country.

A few have laughed it off as an adolescent, Nintendo-like glorification of gladiatorial gore, too remote to have relevance today and too silly to harm either the prestige of their large, well-established community -- more than a half-million nationwide -- or damage Iran's cherished heritage as the cradle of Persian civilization.

But these are sensitive times. Today's Iran is a pariah state, ruled by Islamic fundamentalists with nuclear ambitions and famously tarred by President Bush as part of an "axis of evil." For many Iranian Americans, a caricature such as "300" is no laughing matter.

"In this new world, a lot of people get their education from movies, and only a tiny fraction of Americans read about such history in serious ways," said Trita Parsi, president of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council. "One can say this is just a cartoon, but it would be wrong not to take it seriously, and it is extremely unfortunate for the Iranian American community."

Parsi and others said that as relations between Iran and the United States have deteriorated -- an arc of hostility that began with the 1979 Islamic revolution and has intensified under the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- many Iranian immigrants have clung to their history and traditions as sources of pride and sentiment, isolated from politics.

In the Washington region, home to tens of thousands of Iranian Americans, dozens of groups have sponsored art exhibits, dance performances and cultural programs on college campuses and in community auditoriums this Nawroz season.

Until now, moreover, Iranian Americans -- an affluent community that includes many scientists and business leaders -- have largely been spared the negative media stereotypes that have been attached to Arabs, whom many Americans have come to associate with Islamic terrorism. Arabs are a distinct ethnic group and speak a different language.

Recent Hollywood films have treated the community sympathetically. In "The House of Sand and Fog," for example, Ben Kingsley plays a dignified, exiled Iranian military officer. A number of political and cultural films about Iran have also been distributed in the United States and received widespread acclaim.

But "300" tramples thunderously over Iranians' cherished notions of a noble and benevolent past. King Xerxes, widely portrayed in history books as a wise warrior-ruler, becomes in the film a simpering, cruel sybarite who employs a marauding force of masked monsters. His Spartan adversaries, in contrast, are handsome musclemen who fight bravely against hopeless odds and die for justice and honor.

"Some people say it is just a comic book, and no one with a basic understanding of history would take it seriously," said Goli Fassihian, 36, an Iranian American who works for a health-care program in the District. "But for the average American today, there is a fine line between reality and perception of the Middle East and its people. We have to be very careful about how we portray history, because it can become fact."

Since the film's debut last month, Iranian community Web sites have blistered with outraged comments. Some suggest that the real goal of the film, produced by Warner Brothers, is to demonize Iranians and bolster support for a U.S. attack on Iran. Others worry that it will play into the hands of Tehran's anti-American policies. There have been calls for boycotts and petitions to ban "300" from theaters.

But some Iranian Americans call the reactions overly defensive and say there is no need for alarm. Pointing to the caricatures of Americans on Iranian TV and the media manipulation by its current rulers, they caution against falling into a similar trap.

"There has been a lot of fuss, but the Iranian community needs to remember that this is a free country and that misrepresentation is one of the risks of a free culture," said Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, a professor of Persian studies at the University of Maryland in College Park. "There are terrible stereotypes and problems of ignorance, but the remedy is education, not constraint."

Rouzbeh Shams, 23, an Iranian American student leader at College Park, said he shrugged off the offensive film and focused on organizing Nawroz events, including a huge cultural program in a soccer complex that drew more than 2,000 people.

"I think it is something we should laugh at and put behind us," said Shams, who was bombarded with indignant e-mails from friends in Tehran about the film.

"A lot of students here were upset, too, but the real news from Iran harms our identity more than a movie. My pride is not about one event or one king; it is about thousands of years of culture."