300 (The Second Part ?)

[CLASS]

I will be boycotting this film.

No one gets my money and insults my people with slanders and lies..

They can go to hell..

[mike435]

i know what you mean man
but from an artistic point of view the movie is beutiful

[indian_blues]

the movie is a s***hole... i dont even praise it even from artistic point of view...dissappointed me a lot... maybe i will give credit to frank miller wonderful creativity for his graphic novel.

[Rasputin]

اين فيلمی نيمه-تاريخی بر اساس جنگ ترموپيل که در 480 سال قبل از ميلاد رخ داده ساخته شده است.
طرح اصلی داستان فيلم اين است:
کشور پارس می خواهد برای گسترش امپراتوری اش به اروپای مدرن حمله کند ولی اسپارت ها با آن مخالف اند و مجبور می شوند با ارتش پارسيان بجنگند اگرچه نمی توانند چون حق ندارند مزاحم فستيوال مقدس Carneian شوند.
با اين حال لئونيداس پادشاه اسپارت 300 نفر از بهترين جنگجويان اسپارت را جمع می کند تا جنگی را با يک ميليون ارتش قدرتمند پارسی شروع کند. جنگ های زيادی بين آنها درمی گيرد و پارسيان تلفات زيادی می دهند و اسپارت ها نيز سرانجام در نقطه اوج داستان همگی کشته می شوند.
به نظر می رسد که اين هم يک فيلم حماسی جنگی ديگر از محصولات هاليوود است ولی اين فيلم بحث و جدل های زيادی را در داخل ايران برانگيخته و من می خواهم ببينم که آيا اين فيلم اصلا ارزش اين بحث و جدل ها را دارد یا نه؟
پس از خريد بليط هايمان و بحث با پرسنل سينما در مورد اين*که به يکی از رفقايم اجازه ورود به سالن را بدهند(چون فيلم برای افراد بالاتر از پانزده سال درجه بندی شده و ما همگی 14 ساله بوديم ولی من با زبان بازی توانستم آنها را راضی کنم) و بعد از خريد اسنک*هايمان وارد سينما شديم. وقتی نشستيم تبليغ فيلم*ها پخش می*شد و پس از قدری حرف زدن و جوک گفتن فيلم شروع شد.
با ديدن اولين تصويرها با خودم گفتم: « به! چه تصاوير فوق العاده ای. از پس زمينه و کارگردانی فيلم خوشم می*آد» و اين درست بود. به نظر من فيلم قطعا جايزه بهترين کارگردانی را خواهد گرفت. فيلمبرداری فيلم بی*نقص است اما اين تنها نکته خوب فيلم برای 30 تا 60 دقيقه اول آن است. ولی فيلم همچنان ادامه يافت و سعی کرد به پلات آن عمق بيشتری بدهد اما بی فايده بود. ديالوگ ها خسته کننده و داستان آن کلا ضعيف بود و در مجموع فيلم توهينی بود به حقوق من. احساس انزجار کردم و حس کردم حقوق ام نقض شده است. کارگردان تکنيک روايتی ای را تا آخر فيلم به کار می گيرد که خيلی موثر است و با نمايش بزرگ شدن پسر بچه اسپارتی شروع می شود.
به طور خلاصه می گويم، پسر بچه*های اسپارتی از زمانی که متولد می شوند تنها برای يک هدف تربيت می شوند و آن اين است که به يک سرباز ماهر تبديل شوند و اگر نتوانند و چنانچه فيلم می گويد« نحيف و مردنی» باشند، وسط اسکلت*های بچه*های مرده پرت می شوند. آنها پس از آنکه توانستند روی پای خود بايستند، ياد می گيرند که چگونه بجنگند. آنها با مردان بزرگسالی که آنها را وحشيانه کتک می زنند می جنگند تا مراحل بعدتر که به مخلوقات توخالی، بی روح و وحشی تبديل می شوند.


فيلم در واقع داستان لئونيداس را تعريف می کند که در سن 5 سالگی بچه ديگری را می کشد.
عالی است. بياييد بچه هايمان را طوری بزرگ کنيم که اصلا درد يا هيچ احساس ديگری از خود نشان ندهند.
بعد از اين باز هم حقوق انسانی ديگر من نيز نقض می شود. صادقانه بگويم که نزديک بود در جايی از فيلم سالن را ترک کنم. انگار که اين فيلم برای توهين به من درست شده بود. احساس کردم 11 پوند هدر دادم که يک فيلم ضعيف ببينم.
در صحنه بعدی لئونيداس را می بينيم که تبديل به مرد بزرگی شده است و سرانجام تصويری از يک مرد پارسی نشان داده می شود. اصلا تحت تاثير قرار نگرفتم. آنچه که ديدم تصويری از يک پارسی بود که قبلا هرگز نديده بودم بلکه من هميشه تصويری باشکوه از يک مرد پارسی ريشو ديدم که بر ديوارها حک شده بود. اما مرد پارسی اين فيلم با حلقه هايی که بر صورت و لباس اش داشت هيچ شباهتی به يک پارسی نداشت. به علاوه ريشو هم نبود.
خب من می فهمم. شما طوری آنها را لباس پوشانديد( يا در مورد اسپارت ها نپوشانديد) که فيلمتان فروش کند اما آن حلقه های بی معنی چه؟
بعد البته اسپارت*ها را داريم که اساسا چيزی تنشان نيست جز يک شنل و شورت چرمی که تا حدی مبهم مفهوم اروتيسم همجنس گرايانه را می دهد که بعد با حرف های لئونيداس که به نژادی از يونانی های بچه باز اشاره می کند، خنثی می شود و مخالفان همجنس گرايی خيالشان از فيلم راحت می شود.
پس از آن فيلم چند آدم اسرارآميز را به ما نشان می دهد که صورت هايشان بی دليل از ريخت افتاده است و به لئونيداس می گويند که اين جنگ انتخاب خوبی نيست و مزاحم فستيوال مقدس Carneian خواهد بود. و بعد صحنه ای را می بينيم که در آن دختری که پستان*هايش را نشان می دهد، طوری چرخ می زند که انگار مواد توهم زا مصرف کرده است.
لئونيداس سرگردان از اينکه مانع از رفتن او به جنگ شده اند به خانه برمی گردد و بعد صحنه سکس او با زنش(ملکه) نشان داده می شود که خيلی خوب و با سليقه درست شده است.
سپس برای کوتاه کردن اين داستان خسته کننده و غيرقابل تحمل، پادشاه 300 نفر از جنگجويانش را برمی*دارد و به جنگ ارتش ايران می رود. در طول راه تعدادی از تس پين*ها(Thespians) هم به آنها می پيوندند اگرچه آنها چندان در فيلم حضور ندارند بلکه صرفا به عنوان دليلی برای صحت وقايع تاريخی در فيلم قرار گرفته اند اما بی فايده است چون تس*پين ها که در کنار اسپارت ها جنگيدند در اين فيلم قبل از آنکه به وسيله نيروهای فناناپذير ايرانی ازبين بروند فقط 5 دقيقه می جنگند. به علاوه تعداد آنها فقط 20 نفر است در حالی که واقعا 700 نفر بودند.
بعد صحنه های جنگ نشان داده می شود. اينجا بود که تصميم گرفتم سالن را ترک نکنم. عليرغم نبود يک خط داستانی خوب و داستان واقعا خسته کننده، صحنه های جنگ تماشايی است. اگرچه در قدرت 300 نفر اسپارتی خيلی اغراق شده است و آنها به عنوان نيروی برتر نشان داده شده اند در حالی که ايرانی ها به هم ريخته، شيطانی، و کج و کوله نشان داده شده اند که حتی ذره ای از قدرت اسپارت ها را هم ندارند.


بعد از کشتن اولين و دومين دسته از ايرانیها، اسپارت ها حتی يک نفر تلفات هم نمی دهند.
بعد خشايارشا را می بينيم. در اين جا سطح فيلم واقعا پايين می آيد. خشايارشا به عنوان يک مرد دوجنسيتی که بيشتر حالت زنانه دارد تصوير شده است. او خط چشم و سايه زده و برق لب دارد. در کنار ناخن های زنانه، صورت او با حلقه*های بی شماری پوشيده شده که بسيار مسخره و ساده لوحانه است.
ايرانی*ها در اين فيلم خيلی ابسورد نشان داده شده اند. آنها يا دوجنسيتی و هموسکسوئل اند يا از ريخت افتاده و معلول.
آنها همين*طور مثل يک ويروس تشنه قدرت نشان داده می شوند و هرچه را در برابرشان می بينند برده می*سازند که در تضاد شديد با اسپارت ها قرار دارد که به عنوان مردمی عاشق آزادی و دمکراسی معرفی می*شوند در حالی که در واقعيت اين ايرانيان بودند که بخشنده ترين امپراتوری های جهان بودند. آنها آدم ها را بدون در نظر گرفتن نژاد و جنسيت آنها استخدام می کردند و به آنها مزد می دادند. اسپارت ها حتی يک حکومت دمکراتيک نبودند. آنها يک حکومت سلطنتی نظامی بودند و صاحب برده*های زيادی بودند که به آنها هلوت(Helots) می گفتند.
در ادامه فيلم، يکی از اسپارت های بدقيافه به نام افيل تس(Ephialtes) که قبلا لئونيداس با جنگيدن او در ارتش اسپارت مخالفت کرده بود با خشايارشاه ملاقات می کند و به او راهی را نشان می دهد که آنها می توانند راحت وارد خاک يونان شوند. در اين صحنه تعدادی از زنان همجنس باز پارسی را می بينيم که به طرز اروتيکی می رقصند و خود را به هم می مالند. برهنگی زيادی در اين صحنه است و هنگامی که دو زن همديگر را می بوسند قيافه شان خوب به نظر می رسد اما وقتی برمی گردند می بينيم که نصف صورتشان باز هم بی دليل از ريخت افتاده است.
بعد دوباره به صحنه جنگ می رويم و تعدادی از موجودات فنا ناپذير را می بينيم که با ماسک هايشان خيلی ترسناک به نظر می رسند اما وقتی ماسک هايشان را برمی دارند می بينيم که صورت آنها هم از ريخت افتاده است. بعد دسته ای از سربازان کج و کوله ايرانی را می بينيم که کاری جز جيغ زدن و کتک زدن از دستشان برنمی آيد.
پس از آن به صحنه جنگ نهايی می رسيم. در اين صحنه خشايارشا به لئونيداس می گويد که اگر در مقابلش زانو بزند او و سربازانش را خواهد بخشيد. لئونيداس خم می شود ولی ناگهان فرمان حمله می دهد و يکی از سربازان اسپارتی بر پشت او جسته و نيزه اش را در بدن سرباز ايرانی که در کنارش قرار دارد فرو می برد. آنگاه لئونيداس برمی خيزد، نيزه اش را برمی دارد و به سمت خشايارشا پرت می کند اما نيزه فقط صورت خشايارشا را می خراشد و خونی می سازد. به دنبال آن بارانی از تير بر سر سربازان اسپارتی فرو می ريزد و آنها را از بين می برد. بعد فيلم يک سال بعد از آن جنگ را نشان می دهد که در واقع شروع جنگ پلاتيو است.
حالا آيا اين بحث و جدل ها موجه است؟ بله. قطعا. دوستان من نيز با من موافق بودند که تصوير ايرانی ها در اين فيلم مسخره است و کل فيلم آميخته با جهل و نژادپرستی است. ايرانی ها شيطانی و کج و کوله نشان داده شده اند در حالی که اسپارت ها جنگجويانی ماهر و سربازانی برترند. تصوير خيالی هر دو در فيلم نقطه مقابل تصوير آنها در زندگی واقعی است.
خط داستانی ضعيف و داستان در بهترين حالت اش متوسط است. اگر کارگردانی فوق العاده و پس زمينه های فيلم نبود، نتيجه يک شکست کامل بود.

[Rasputin]

Ridiculous, plain and simple

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.

[Rasputin]

Death to Sparta, Death to Sparta, Death to Sparta ...

It is time we mighty Persians unite and avenge our honour and pride. We shall smite the Spartans, they shall feel our wrath. I am ready to fight and will make each and every last Spartan feel the sharp edge of my sword. Actually that is a tad extreme, perhaps I will make them feel the sharp edge of my tongue instead as I do not own a sword and have an aversion to physical activity. We should protest outside the Spartan embassy and burn effigies of King Leonidas.

Death to Sparta, Death to Sparta, Death to Sparta ...

We shall slaughter the Spartan infidels and soak the earth with their blood. We will launch a nuclear attack against the Spartan nation ... well at least we would if we believed in enriching uranium for anything other than peaceful purposes. We shall capture the Spartans and hold them hostage. We shall torture them and force feed them rice and chelo kebab, until their six-packs disappear. We will deprive them of wax, so that their body hair will grow.

Death to Sparta, Death to Sparta, Death to Sparta ...

Of course the only problem with condemning Sparta to death is that it doesn't actually exist anymore and, while it is refreshing to be chanting death to somewhere different (America and Israel are so last millennium); it does pose something of a practical problem. Fortunately, we have never let pride, self delusion or any of the other charming Iranian idiosyncrasies get in the way of rational behaviour.

Having read so many angry words about this film from offended "Persians", I went to watch 300 with a sense of righteous indignation, hurt national pride and of course an open mind. I genuinely wanted to be offended by this film so that I could spew vitriol about the anti-Iranian sentiment which is so prevalent in the media at present. Sadly, no matter how hard I tried to read between the lines and push the giant chip off my shoulder and over the edge, I just couldn't.

How on earth 300 managed to offend so many Iranians is beyond me. Presumably those who refer to themselves as "Persians" were forced to relive painful memories of relatives that they lost at the battle of Thermopylae.

There is plenty of anti-Iranian material out there, in fact you would be hard pressed to find anything positive in the current climate, but this film is not anti-Iranian or anti-"Persian" for the more ancient among us. I understand the heightened sensitivity and injured national pride, but it is none the less misplaced.

That is not to say that I have a high opinion of this film, for what it is worth I thought it was rather terrible but for completely different reasons. There's an inherent racism in the symbolic use of light or white to portray good and dark or black to portray evil. The film is full of clichés and stereotypes but it is hardly specific to Iranians. The Persian side is portrayed as evil, which in the small minded world of 300 translates as black, brown, ugly and homosexual. The Spartans on the other hand represent good, freedom, democracy and the American way.

The film does portray the Persians as barbarians but the Spartans are hardly portrayed as civilised. Frankly Xerxes comes across as a far more reasonable chap than Leonidas, whose poor Bond inspired repartee is cringe worthy. Spartans clearly like going to the gym and I am fairly certain that if they were subjected to current Olympic standards they would most certainly be found guilty of indulging in performance enhancing drugs. They come across as no less barbaric than the Persians and are clearly a few soldiers short of an army. If some members of the rather bizarre ensemble that made up the Persian army did resemble suicide bombers, as some of the more paranoid reviews I have read suggest, then surely the Spartans happily marching to their death for a deluded and flawed ideology, while celebrating just how glorious it is to die, isn't such a far cry from blowing yourself up.

The Spartans are masculine and virile, while their enemy is portrayed as effeminate and homosexual. There is an intrinsic unabashedly homophobic quality to the film but at the same time the Spartans come across as incredibly - though unintentionally - homoerotic. The main reason that I can't take the film seriously, apart from it being based on a comic, is that it is the campest film that I have seen in quite some time. It is the artistic spiritual bastard love child of Kenneth Williams, Walt Disney and Charlton Hesston.

Certainly it is worrying that such a violent film with such heavy reliance on stereotypes and clichés may influence young, impressionable, prepubescent boys, who I assume must be the target audience for this film. However the film is so tongue in cheek that it fails to be malicious and, if it really was a piece of anti-Iranian propaganda, it fails spectacularly. So apart from teaching us that it is good to do lots of sit-ups, wax your body hair, despise homosexuality while repressing your own urges until you join the army and march to your inventible death, the true moral of the story is that while it is good to take pride in your history and culture too much pride and patriotism is a dangerous thing.

Take this film the way you take your food, with a large Persian sized pinch of salt...

[Rasputin]

Even though the film 300 by US director Zack Snyder has just released, poor quality pirated copies are already available in the Iranian capital and other parts of the Middle East.

Yet as many in the region criticise the film for its poor depictions of ancient Persians, it is becoming quite a sell out!

In the visual feast Persians are given a less than favourable role. They play the menacing antagonists and outnumber the Greek heroes - led by Spartan King Leonidas - who form a measly 300 troops.

Iran recently slammed the movie, calling the famous fight scene in 480 BC "a result of cultural and psychological warfare".

But moviegoers in another Gulf state had praise for the film. 300 had the biggest opening weekend in the United Arab Emirates this year. Ticket sales toppled more than 129, 000 in the first 10 days alone.

"I didn't really like how they portrayed the Persians but I don't think it's such a big deal for them to make such a controversy on TV about it but it was a really good movie," said Onome Emami, Iranian-American.

"I know that they (movies) have a lot to do with politics but I don't think that was the goal of the movie, not at all," said Ricky Frampton, Danish citizen.

Iran says the movie is an insult to their heritage. But their Gulf neighbours ignoring the controversy are expected to boost box office sales in the Emirates for the second week.

[abadani69]

«300» را فردا ساعت 20:30 از شبکه 4 ببینید

فیلم ضد ایرانی «300» یکشنبه ـ 26 فروردین ماه ـ در قالب برنامه*ی «پشت پرده» به بحث وبررسی گذاشته می*شود. به گزارش یسنا، فیلم سینمایی «300 » که در زمان پخش برنامه*ی «سینماماوراء» و در قالب برنامه*ی «پشت پرده» به نقد کشیده می*شود، از حضور مجری – کارشناسان این دو برنامه برای تحلیل بهره برده است.
این فیلم را زاک سنایدر در سال 2006 ساخته است ونبرد ترموپیل در سال 480 پیش از میلاد که در آن 300 سرباز اسپارتی با خشایار شاه و لشکر او روبرو می*شوند به تصویر کشیده شده است.
بر ای اساس فیلم آمریکایی 300 با حضور دکتر اکبر عالمی (کارشناس – مجری سینماماوراء) و نادر طالب زاده (کارشناس – مجری پشت پرده) ساعت 20و30 دقیقه یکشنبه نقد و بخشهایی از آن از شبکه چهار پخش خواهد شد. وی همچنین با بیان اینکه در جریان حق پخش تلویزیونی یا سایر امورحقوقی فیلم نیست، اظهار کرده بود: اگر فیلم خلاصه روی آنتن برود، حدود 40 دقیقه از آن ارایه می شود. بر همین اساس محمود قنبری، مدیر دوبلاژ فیلم 300 نیز با تکذیب دوبله*ی این فیلم به صورت کامل صحبتهای فرجاد را تایید و به ایسنا گفت : فقط حدود 40 دقیقه از این اثر را که مربوط به تحریف تاریخ ایران است، دوبله کردم.
این مدیر دوبلاژبا اشاره به قانون کپی رایت گفت: براساس این قانون می*توان آثار سینمایی را در مدت زمان 5 دقیقه بدون پرداخت حق رایت پخش کرد؛ براین اساس بخشهایی از فیلم بدون نیاز به خرید آن برای پخش دوبله شد. * در این فیلم علاوه برمحمود قنبری، گویندگانی چون پرویز ربیعی، منوچهر والی*زاده، ناصر احمدی و مینو غزنوی صداپیشگی کرده*اند. به گزارش ایسنا،«پشت پرده» کاری از گروه ادب و هنر شبکه چهار است که به تهیه*کنندگی علی*اکبر فرجاد (همان تهیه*کننده سینماماوراء) مدتی است با موضوع رسانه*های غربی و هالیوود و بررسی فیلم*های هالیوودی به روی آنتن می*رود.

[Rasputin]

Finally I watched the film 300. Such a poor piece and a total waste of time! But it sold and it sold well. The obvious reason is that it took advantage of an opportunistic moment in which there is talk about Iran (modern Persia) confronting the West. America is a free country and businessmen are free to be smart and take advantage of various business opportunities. America is not Iran where conspiracy is practically synonymous with action. Although the film was obviously nothing but a poor and quickly-made science-fiction (it was definitely made quickly in order to benefit from the momentum), it did upset many Iranians (or most probably Persians of Iran who make up about half of the population).

The upsetting is not necessarily rational because the film did not refer to the people of Persia, or Iran, at that time (or today) but simply to Xerxes and his massive army. The film should have actually been taken as flattering. Xerxes (Kouroshe Kabir as the Pahlavi propaganda used to say) was shown as a man who actually defeated his enemy. Xerxes was shown as the emperor of a hundred nations and he was almost four times the size of a normal man (even the good looking ones of Sparta), and he spoke like a wise and understanding, but also ruthless and cunning, Persian king Persians take pride for. So, what is the point about getting angry about that film? Was it because Xerxes's army was made of some monster-like soldiers? Was it that he was missing some nice beard? Was it the piercing? This is all science-fiction.

Surprisingly some of the soldiers were actually black! The Spartans received a messenger from Xerxes who was himself black and the king of the Spartans called the messenger "Persian" so obviously Persian was not meant to be Iranian but simply a member of Xerxes's army, who could have been African. The film also showed Xerxes in a good light by the fact that the Persian king of more than two millennia ago was so open-minded that he would actually send a black messenger to represent an Asian land with Caucasian people!

Beside all this it is interesting to see that so many Iranians find mocking Xerxes and his army as offensive! Does Xerxes represent what the Iran of today stands for? What is the big deal about mocking a dictator and mass murderer of more than two thousand years ago? It would have probably been offensive if Xerxes was indeed the founder or one of the founders of the modern Iran, or was he? And this is actually where the whole issue collides with my reality and the realities of many other Iranians who find themselves often in the minority. Many Iranians, who are probably the strongest voice of the Iranian diaspora, see the likes of Xerxes as symbols of what they see as a proud Iran.

If Iranians would make a film in which they would mock Queen Victoria of Great Britain more than one and a half century ago, and her army, as monsters and savages, the British (or the English) would most probably ignore the film, but in case they wouldn't ignore it they would not get so much upset either, because although Queen Victoria was an important (also shown as positive) personality of Great Britain she does not represent what today's Brits consider themselves to be. George Washington though is an American personality who actually represents the foundation of a nation that has since continued and prospered the way George Washington and his followers and comrades thought and designed. Mocking George Washington and showing him as a monster is indeed a direct attack on America and its fundamental values.

The Pahlavi regime of Iran tried to build a modern Iran tracing back its foundations to the times of Xerxes and his ancestors, and the results of the Pahlavi propaganda and schooling can now be read all over the Internet on weblogs and articles created by angry Iranians who find themselves offended because their symbol of greatness and historical glory has been so unjustly (as these Iranians claim) tarnished.

The fact of the matter is that Xerxes, Darius, Cyrus and others of the Iranian pre-Islamic dynasties, were simply a bunch of tyrants who cared for nothing but their own power and glory (as the film also showed in an exaggerated fashion). They killed and oppressed not for the sake of any good, but simply for their own satisfaction. As it is today nice to be powerful, so was it nice back then to rule over half of the world.

But let's not get this wrong! It was not the Persians (or wrongly stated the modern Iranians) who through their supposedly superior science, culture, craft and knowledge, conquered half of the world, but it was simply the Persian king, as one individual, who undemocratically (this may sound modern and fashionable but at those times democracy was an established fact in Greece and the Greek people wanted to defend their democracy) ruled over a large number of nations. So what is the point of defending this dictator? The only point is psychologic. There has been a massive attack on a personality who used to represent a sick ideology promoted by the Pahlavi. And this meaningless ideology still resides among many Iranians (especially Persians) who hide their inner short-comings and weaknesses through empty and irrelevant references to the past.

The inferiority complex of Reza Pahlavi toward Britain, Russia and Turkey probably started it all. But it may have been less or more ominous than that. So instead of accepting the facts, that he was just another opportunistic tyrant who had simply taken over a poor and relatively irrelevant country, he decided to suppress the facts by promoting a fallacy. The fallacy that modern Iran was built by Xerxes. And as every nation is the product of its rulers, so the Iranian nation is indeed at least partially a product of Reza Shah who instead of building his nation according to his own personality decided to find a historical reference and so appeared (all over schools and state controlled media) the pre-Islamic glorious Iran (Persian Empire) that most Iranians hardly knew about at that time.

The modern Iran up until that point was built by Shah Ismail and it was based on Shia Islam. And Reza Shah forgot all about the fact that first of all the pre-Islamic Iran had been buried more than 12 centuries earlier, and secondly that neither the Iran of the 20th century was the Persia of Xerxes nor the world of the 20th century the world Xerxes found himself in. And this is all just a little bit beside the fact that Xerxes was a Persian who ruled over the Persian Empire while Reza Shah himself was not even a Persian!

Having been through a little bit of history it would be a good decision for the Iranian community to take a fresh look at the issues and see the stupidity of considering Xerxes and his army as representative of Iran. Even ethnic Persians of Iran would better look for more modern values based upon freedom and respect rather than a historic murderer and tyrant who never intended to do any good at his time, let alone for those who today see themselves as the descendants of the old Persians.

[Rasputin]

A Racist and Insulting Film


I always take in the Hollywood period dramas set in ancient Greece or Rome. My film-buff son is into this too, so we went last week to see 300, the Warner Brothers' blockbuster produced by Zack Snyder and based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller about the epic battle of Thermopylae between the Greeks and Persians. It had by that time grossed over 100 million dollars and no doubt influenced a lot of minds.

The film tells a familiar historical tale. (Rather, it ought to be familiar, but history instruction in our public schools is not necessarily comprehensive.) In 480 BCE, Greece was threatened by an invasion by the Persian army, the greatest war machine of its day. The empire of King Xerxes extended from the Indus River to Egypt, and drew its troops from the ends of the realm. The king personally led them in battle against the Greeks.

Or rather, some of the Greeks. Greece at the time was a collection of city-states, politically disunited, divided as much as unified by dialect and culture. Some city-states, including Argos and Thebes, actually aligned themselves with Xerxes. Herodotus, the "Father of History" and perhaps the world's first professional historian, paints a picture of a "free" Greece united against an oppressive "Asia." But that is a chauvinistic simplification. The fact is, Persia and the Greek city-states were all slave-based societies whose notions of "freedom" had little in common with our modern conception.

According to Herodotus (our sole source), 300 Spartan warriors alongside 700 Thespian volunteers defended the pass of Thermopylae against the invaders, inflicting heavy losses on Xerxes' forces. Led by Spartan King Leonidas, they went down in defeat but gave rival Athens time to prepare the fleet that decisively defeated the Persians at Salamis a few months later.

The story has been dramatized before, notably in the 1962 Hollywood production 300 Spartans starring Richard Egan as Leonidas and David Farrar as Xerxes. This new version is distinguished by what one critic calls the "monochromatic, cartoonish quality of [its] computer-generated special effects"---and by its timing. Warner Brothers had been planning a remake of the 1962 film since the late 1990s, based on a novel by Stephen Pressfield entitled Gates of Fire, with Bruce Willis in the role of Leonidas. But that project fell through, paving the way for 300---just in time to help subliminally shape the movie-going public's perception of Persians prior to the attack planned on today's evil empire by Vice President Cheney and his neocon staffers.
Persia is Iran. (I want to say, "Persia, of course, is Iran." But I can't assume that all or even most Americans make the connection.) The word comes from "Fars," a region of modern Iran, while "Iran" is related to the word "Aryan" and connotes "land of the Aryans." In 1935 the Persian shah opted to use the name "Iran" but the two terms are basically interchangeable. "Persia" just doesn't have the emotional baggage of "Iran." During the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979-81, many dealers in Iranian rugs decided to call them "rugs from Persia." Persia on occasion has thus served as the good Iran, the historical cultural Iran, as opposed to the modern evil enemy. But 300 makes Persia evil too.

The Iranian government has protested the film; last Wednesday President Ahmadinejad in his Iranian New Year's address called it part of a "psychological warfare" campaign against his country. Javadd Shamaqdare, a cultural advisor to the Iranian government, also denounced the film as "psychological warfare," accusing its producers of "plundering Iran's historic past and insulting its civilization" Editors of the Iranian newspaper Ayandeh-No declared that the film "seeks to tell people that Iran, which is in the Axis of Evil now, has long been the source of evil and modern Iranians' ancestors are the dumb, murderous savages you see in '300'." Iran's UN mission has stated that the film is "so overtly racist, so overflowing with vicious stereotyping of Persians as a dangerous, bestial force fatally threatening the civilised 'free' world", that it encourages "contemporary discourses of hatred ... [and] a 'clash of civilisations'."

Some western film critics have echoed Iranian objections. Dimitris Danikas notes that 300 depicts Persians as "bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies" and feeds "racist instincts in Europe and America."

Slate's Dana Stevens calls it "a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war."

On the other hand film critic Dale McFeatters calls the Iranians "picky, picky," alleging (quite falsely), "Well, your leader did threaten to wipe Israel off the map." And Stanford history professor Victor Davis Hanson, reportedly admired by Cheney and his (professional historian) wife, posts his opinion on the right-wing "RealClearPolitics" website: "We rightly consider the ancient Greeks the founders of our present western civilisation ¬ and, as millions of movie-goers seem to sense, far more like us than the [Iranian] enemy who ultimately failed to conquer them."

Even if Zack Snyder and Frank Miller had no intention of making an anti-Iranian film, or promoting any sort of "psychological warfare," they've made a film in which Iranians are indeed generically depicted in the worst possible light. A Warner Bros. spokesman says, "The film 300 is a work of fiction inspired by the Frank Miller graphic novel and loosely based on a historical event. The studio developed this film purely as a fictional work with the sole purpose of entertaining audiences; it is not meant to disparage an ethnicity or culture or make any sort of political statement." But it does disparage.

Herodotus depicted the Persian ruler positively enough: "Among all this multitude of [Persian] men," he wrote, "there was not one who, for beauty and stature, deserved more than Xerxes himself to wield so vast a power" (Persian Wars, Book VII, 187). But the Miller-Snyder Xerxes is not even an Iranian-looking man but (like some other Persians in the film) a distinctly African figure, who happens to be effeminate and wholly vicious. Leonidas in contrast is white and manly and wholly heroic in his fight for "freedom."

[Rasputin]

Color is kept to a minimum in the film; the warriors appear in shades of black and white, with the Greeks' red cloaks standing out provocatively around the uniformly chiseled abs of the heroes. The Persians in contrast are ugly or deformed.

"The Greeks will know that free men stood against tyrants," says the cartoonish Leonides (Gerard Butler) preparing for his suicidal defense against the evil Persians. Greece is the "world's one hope for reason and justice" versus the "dark will of the Persian kings." "We rescue the world from mysticism and tyranny," he declares. "No retreat, no surrender. That is Spartan law. A new age has dawned, an age of freedom, and all will know that Spartans gave their last breath to defend it."

The message is indeed clear. Sparta = Greece = the Western World = freedom. Persia = slavery and oppression. This was perhaps the gist of Herodotus' message; he did write that while the Greeks knew that men were free, the "Asiatics" knew only that one (the ruler) was free. But that was a skewed notion in his time and can only dangerously circulate in our own, while Iran is in the neocons' crosshairs. Again, I think the Iranians might be over-concerned, since much of the film-viewing crowd won't even associate the ancient Persians with the modern Iranians, but the "clash of civilizations" theme is definitely there.

I would propose that those exposed to it imagine a different Xerxes that the nose-pierced caricature in the film. Imagine a Xerxes who addresses the American audience, including the Christian fundamentalist audience, as follows:

"I am Xerxes, Emperor of Persia, son of Darius, grandson of Cyrus. My grandfather Cyrus liberated the Jews from their Babylonian exile and let them return to Judea and rebuild their temple. My father Darius urged our people to revere the 'God of Daniel.' I myself married Esther, a Jew."

"I come from a long line of believers in the One God preached by Zarathustra, our Persian prophet whose teachings have influenced the Jews during their exile among us. I refer specifically to their concepts of Satan, Heaven and the future Messiah which weren't part of their pre-exile belief system and are clearly borrowings from our Persian religion.

"I am now embarking on the conquest of Greece, a backward region populated by primitive polytheists who worship capricious amoral deities and practice absurd religious rites. But my ancestors and I, having already conquered many Ionian Greeks, respect Greek philosophers and indeed have many of them in our employ. We have established a multi-ethnic empire. In that empire, Greeks fill important roles from the Mediterranean to India.

"These Spartans confronting us at Thermopylae are cruel men who annually--for sport!-- make war on the defenseless helots that live around them. They have nothing to tell us Persians---or the world in general---about 'freedom.'!"

The writer of such a script could claim Biblical authority. In Isaiah 44:28, the God of Israel declares through his prophet that Cyrus "is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose." Throughout Chapter 45 of Isaiah he speaks directly to Cyrus---"his anointed"---calling him "righteous" and informing him that "the wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia" will "come over to you, and be yours." The Book of Ezra opens with King Cyrus issuing an edict declaring, "The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah." In Daniel 6:26 a King Darius issues a decree that "in all my royal dominion people should tremble and fear before the God of Daniel." Esther 2:15-18 describes Xerxes' marriage to the Jewish maiden Esther. None of this is historically reliable; Daniel and Esther are indeed novelettes rather than history. The point is, these texts revered as Holy Writ by many if not most Americans depict Persia positively.

The Greeks, on the other hand, cause "many evils on the earth." They build a gymnasium in Jerusalem, for example (1 Maccabees 1 :8 . The Jews don't approve of that sort of Greek thing, so Judah rises up in rebellion against Seleucid rule in the second century BCE. Their rebellion against the "free," "rational" Greeks is depicted as heroic.

The Greco-Roman world continued to make war on Persia off and on up to the end of the Roman Empire. But Alexander the Great, having defeated the Persian King Darius a century and a half after the battle of Thermopylae and acquired his vast empire, admired Persian ways and actively promoted the cultural synthesis we call Hellenism. Roman troops brought the worship of the Persian god Mithras back to Rome from their Persian campaigns; the cult of this god born on December 25 was a formidable rival of Christianity to the fourth century. The greatest of the late Roman philosophers, the second century Neoplatonist Plotinus, admired and sought to learn from the Persians. Manicheanism, founded by the Persian prophet Mani, was another religious rival to Christianity from its inception in the third century. The knowledge of the Persian Magi (Zoroastrian priest-astrologers) was respected in Rome and Magi of course appear in the New Testament (Matthew 2:1-12).

In short: 300's depiction of the battle of Thermopylae is not merely inaccurate, as any film adaptation of a graphic novel has the perfect right to be. It's what the Iranians say it is: racist and insulting. It pits the glorious Greeks with whom the audience must sympathize against a "mystical" and "tyrannical" culture posing an imminent existential threat. It is, de facto, an anti-Persian/anti-Iranian propaganda film, and should be rated appropriately: not just R (for racist) but X---for extremely stupid and vicious and dangerously ill-timed.

* Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

[Rasputin]

300 MOVIE TRIGGERS ROYAL

The movie blockbuster 300 about the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C that opposed an army of 300 spartans to the massive army of King Xerxes of Persia has already triggered a great deal of reactions from the Iranian Diaspora and the circulation of a petition condemning the film by some members of the Persian Community including academicians who regard the film as a distortion of history. Paradoxically even International politics has to some degree taken the movie more seriously than what it may have intended to be initially with a sheer condemnation by the Islamic Republic of Iran through the spokesman of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian President is already known for his own radical rhetoric’s against the West and his call to wipe out the Stare of Israel from the Surface of the Map. Given the fact that the 25 century old Persian Monarchy was ousted by a popular revolution back in 1979, the reaction of the Islamic government in defense of the “image” of King Xerxes and the Ancient Persian’s seem’s paradoxical in the light of the current Iranian regime’s own poor record in terms of protecting Iran’s ancient archeological sites and its past denials of Iran’s pre-Islamic heritage and particularly of anything linked to the Persian Monarchy in general. That a Hollywood film like 300 may appear as a Washington led conspiracy against Iranians would certainly be exaggerated, however its release in the context of the tense international crisis in regard to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and a rising tension between the US, Iran and Israel, the epic film has at worst provoked a genuine curiosity for ancient Persian civilization and history beyond the Persian community and has encouraged debate over Iran’s historical legacy in the West. It has also encouraged Iranian filmmakers and artists to suggest projects that could in their mind rectify Hollywood’s recurrent mistakes in depicting Persians/Iranians on screen. Beyond the cinematic phenomenal success of 300 in the lines of George Lucas’ Star Wars back in 1977 and the groundbreaking style and technology that may explain it, it is undeniable that the Iranian reaction is also partly justified by a patriotic upheaval of Iranians in general when confronted to attack’s on their culture and civilization. Should it be reminded that another Hollywood movie “Not without my Daughter” based on the autobiography of American Betty Mahmoudy had triggered a similar outrage including from Iranians of the Diaspora who had fled the Islamic regime in Iran. As a movie 300 has certainly offered ground for debate amongst Iranians of all circles and backgrounds. The political reactions it has triggered seem more motivated by principle and concern for our cultural heritage than by a serious adrenalin driven political recuperation that would be short-lived anyhow including if it were spearheaded by supporters of the Persian monarchy. However in the face of the inevitable controversy and comparison’s that could be made between Iran today and Pre-Islamic or Pre-Revolution Iran one would have expected a reaction from one of the living representatives of the former monarchical era in the person of Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi the last Queen of Iran (still very popular in the Persian Diaspora Community) who was questioned in this regard by Iranian journalists at the KRSI Radio (LA/USA). The former Shahbanou gave the radio program a surprise call to thank one of the guests (Amir Bahadori) for an invitation she received to come to LA and inaugurate a Foundation honoring the Founder of the Persian Empire “Cyrus the Great”.

Farah Pahlavi (FP): Hello Mr. Sadighi and Mr. Amir Bahadori



KRSI: Your Majesty you have surprised us by this call and we are honored by it.



FP: I simply wanted to say how much I was happy to see that a compatriot Mr. Bahadori has taken such a noble initiative and I was truly honored by his invitation when he contacted me, but of course I heard something on the program that I did not expect for I am coming to assist to this evening ceremony in honor of the Foundation of Cyrus the Great, aimed to help Iranian youngsters but I heard that Mr. Bahadori also intended something more important ( Notes from Translator: Apparently the Founders wanted also to honor the Queen during this ceremony) but I want to insist that I simply want to come and encourage your Foundation in your mission to help students in getting scholarships and well deserved opportunities to pursue their studies. Obviously the name of the Foundation ( Kourosh Bozorg aka Cyrus the Great ) is an honorable one that fills me with pride as well as I am sure all our compatriots. I hope indeed that we can all help Mr. Bahadori in his endeavors in favor of scientific and cultural research and in reaching out to young Iranians as to their host countries.



KRSI: Your Majesty, we are all very touched by your generosity and have always appreciated your kindness. May I ask your opinion on the current debate in our community surrounding the fictional historical film 300 that has had both good and negative consequences for our culture and its image in general as perceived in the West ?



FP: Before I answer your question, I would once again want to thank Mr. Bahadori in relation to his NowRuz invitation and for offering me a portrait of His Majesty the late Shah which touched me and my family as well as I am sure many of my compatriots to see your attachment to us and the late King’s memory. I hope to be able to join you soon and see this portrait that you have preserved with great attention.



Amir Bahadori (AB): Your Majesty, I just would like to say that I am very touched and emotional to hear your voice and I am very honored to find out that you are attending this ceremony tomorrow tonight.



FP: I just want to say that I am extremely proud to see that many successful compatriots like you in the US are active in promoting our Arts and Sciences and I truly hope that more similar initiatives will allow more of our youngsters to benefit from and I hope that one day this will also benefit our compatriots back home.



In regard to this film, I have heard many things about it and unfortunately I do not find too much time myself to go to the movies but I most probably won’t go and see this film either. That said I would like to say that I am happy that our compatriots have reacted in great numbers and that even some foreign historical experts have reacted to denounce the historical fallacies in this movie. It saddens me to see that such a negative image of our history is portrayed instead of reminding fellow Americans here that several years ago an exhibition on 7000 years of Persian History was displayed to great success as well as in Europe. However it is also unfortunate that in the past 28 years the current leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have not done anything to improve Iran’s image in the world nor that of Iranian people and in that context such a film cannot really be welcomed in improving this image. That said I do not think that our rich and ancient culture can be ever destroyed or belittled by just one film or by the attitude of a government in power that is against our heritage and history in general. I just think that it is an irony that deserves attention that a regime that for the past 28 years has struggled against Iran’s historical heritage and culture has suddenly reacted to in defense of this heritage. Well … Its good.

[Rasputin]

Obviously I think about the past and the 2500 years Celebrations at Persepolis and of course on all the criticisms that were made by opponents to the Persian Monarchy but more importantly by the Foreign Press particularly in the West. At the time most of these media’s ignored many of the most important aspects of this ceremony and its true intentions such as the numerous exhibitions, events to promote the culture of our homeland and the hundreds of organization committees that were created worldwide and held under the patronage of Kings, Queens and Presidents of these countries to promote and exhibit our culture and countries heritage to their own people. There was a time indeed when one would for example mention the Persian Gulf it would be respected as such and not confounded and distorted in its name as it is today where it is invariably called the Persian-Arab gulf or Arab gulf or Gulf to name a few … I have to say that this is one of the many negative consequences of the policies of the current regime in Iran. But I am confident that this will not remain as such for ever. Our country has experienced setbacks in the past and difficulties and has always overcome these obstacles and restored our national identity.



KRSI: Thank you very much your Majesty. I would like to say that many compatriots in LA expect your visit in the City of Angels and we wish you a very nice trip.



FP: I just wanted to ask Mr. Bahadori a favor and I say this with all gratefulness for his invitation and would like to say that it is with great pleasure that I come to your town. I would just want to say that I hope that this event will first and foremost honor the Iranian students and not me and that it will allow in the future to see students from Iran get your scholarships. I should say that I was a little surprised to hear on your radio that the event was meant to honor me first and foremost when in fact it should be an occasion on the contrary to honor all our compatriots and particularly our talented students. Please take this as a heartfelt reaction and not a criticism. Hopefully other similar occasions will allow us to get together again but please let’s use this opportunity to collect funds for your foundation so as to allow more students to benefit from your endeavors. I would like to note a personal anecdote of a recent letter I received from an Afro-American fan who had read my book (An Enduring Love: My Life with the Shah) and who wrote a kind note followed by the words of the great Martin Luther King “Everyone cannot be famous but everyone can be an honorable person” so I truly hope that the students who will benefit from you scholarship will one day become both famous and most importantly honorable people I am sure.



AB: Thank You your Majesty.



KRSI: Polite comments and Goodbye to the listeners.

[Rasputin]

Just got back from seeing the highly promoted movie “300,” and my only thought is how Pentagon generals must love it to death.
Playing in 2,700 theaters and grossing $70 million the first weekend, the movie is being pushed hard, in the hope that many will see it as a “chill-out” movie after a hard day’s work. The movie is a Pentagon fantasy.

“300” is about the battle at Thermopylae in 480 B.C., where 300 outnumbered Spartan soldiers delayed the Persian army for some time before being wiped out. But this movie has little to do with history and everything to do with war propaganda.

The movie uses all the racist myths that glorify Greek (Spartan) society as defenders of “Western Civilization” and denigrate Persia (current-day Iran) as Eastern and barbaric. In scenes remindful of the racism of Joseph Goebbels, the old Nazi propaganda minister, there are countless references to “endless Asian hordes,” “Persian beasts” and a “new age of freedom.” The Spartans are said to descend from Hercules himself. The severely racist theme of this movie makes it almost unbearable to watch, and has prompted the Iranian government to issue a protest.

I can picture the Pentagon warmakers salivating all over themselves watching this movie. They must so love an army where all the “good guy” Spartan soldiers say, “Yes, my Lord,” to everything the generals order, and whose only ambition is to die in battle. Meanwhile, the bad guys wear monkey-like masks (yes they do in this movie), and generally appear even worse looking than the rhinos, elephants and monsters they use in battle.

Following an old and worn-out U.S. war movie formula that flies in the face of reality, many thousands of the “bad guys” are killed en masse (even in slow motion), then one Spartan is killed and the “good guys” get really mad and swear revenge. To the director, one of them is worth more than many thousands of the “enemy.”

Another offensive stereotype taken out of the garbage can of Hollywood formulas and dusted off is presenting an “evil” person as disabled. The one traitor among the Spartans just happens to be a man with a severely disfigured back and face—who happens to look just like the Persian bad guys.

[Rasputin]

فيلم 300 كه اخيرا بر پرده سينماهاي جهان به نمايش در آمده و به طرز گسترده اي نيز در شبكه ويدئويي زير زميني ايران انتشار يافته است، به دليل نحوه به نمايش در آوردن ايرانيان در زمان هخامنشيان مورد اعتراض برخي از ايرانيان در سراسر جهان قرار گرفته است.
300، ظاهرا بر اساس روايت تاريخي هرودوت از نبرد "تروموفيل" بين سپاهيان خشايارشا و گارد سلطنتي لئونيداس، پادشاه اسپارت، شكل گرفته است اما همزماني اكران آن با موضوعات روز پيرامون ايران سبب شده است كه بسياري از ايرانيان با ديده و شك و ترديد نسبت به زمان توليد و اكران آن بنگرند.

در اين فيلم آشكارا پارسي ها در هيئت بدمن ها و نماينده مطلق شر و اسپارتي ها به عنوان مدافعان خير و دمكراسي و آزادي به تصويركشيده شده اند، طبعا با چنين تيپ سازي از دو سوي اين نبرد و اغراق هاي فراواني كه فيلم با توجه به اقتباس از كميك استريپ فرانك ميلر در بردارد، شايد جدي گرفتن آن از نظر نقد فيلم، چندان دليل موجهي نداشته باشد.

صرفنظر از ترديدهاي بسيار جدي كه در باره اين روايت و ساير روايت هاي هرودوت در باره نبردهاي ايرانيان و يوناني ها وجود دارد و برخي از مورخان معاصر از وي به عنوان قصه پرداز و نه تاريخ نگار ياد كرده اند، فيلم بيش از آن كه بخواهد بر يك روايت يا قصه شبه تاريخي استوار باشد، مي كوشد تا به كتاب مصور فرانك ميلر وفادار بماند.

در نتيجه تمام فضا، تيپ ها و روايت هاي فرعي بر مبناي همين وفاداري محض بازنمايي شده است، با اين حال اگر براي يك كتاب مصور اين شيوه روايت قابل توجيه باشد، براي يك فيلم سينمايي حاصل چيزي جز مضحكه اي به نام فيلم نيست.

بيهوده نيست كه در اغلب صحنه هاي جنگ و مقابله اسپارت ها با پارسي ها، صداي قهقهه خنده تماشاگران جوان سالن سينما را پر مي كند، زيرا به نظر مي رسد كه اين سيصد نفرجاوداني عينا همان كاراكترهاي كارتوني با همان منطق كودكانه آن هستند.

تيپ لئونيداس تركيبي است از سوپرمن، كابوي و هركول كه در صحنه گاز زدنش به سيب و كشتن مجروحان ايراني اوج اين تركيب غريب را به نمايش در مي آورد.

با وجود تمام تلاشي كه فيلمساز به خرج داده است تا همدلي مخاطب را با جنگجويان اسپارتي برانگيزد، به دليل آنكه اين پرسوناژها كارتوني و فاقد عمق هستند و روايت در بيان خود دچار پريشان گويي هاي بي مورد و ضعف هاي فراوان مي شود، عملا اين اتفاق كمتر قابل تصور است.

هر چقدر اسپارتي ها به عنوان مدافعان آزادي و دمكراسي جلوه داده مي شوند، از منظر اخلاق گرايي محافظه كارانه خود هر چه زشتي و پليدي است به جبهه مقابل نسبت داده مي شود، از همجنس گرايي خشايار شا گرفته تا ادعاي برده داري آنها و ديكتاتوري و به خدمت گرفتن ديوها و غول ها و حرمسراهايي با زنان گوناگون و...

اسپارتي ها مدافعان آزادي و دمكراسي جلوه داده مي شوند،اما هر چه زشتي و پليدي است به جبهه مقابل نسبت داده مي شود، از همجنس گرايي خشايار شا گرفته تا ادعاي برده داري آنها و ديكتاتوري و به خدمت گرفتن ديوها و غول ها و حرمسراهايي با زنان گوناگون و...
با چنين سياه و سفيد نمايي هاي افراطي واغراق هاي فراوان بديهي است كه فيلم بيشتر از آنكه به قالب سينما نزديك باشد به بازيهاي ويدئويي نزديك است كه در آن منطق روايي و شخصيت پردازيهاي رايج در سينما چندان مرسوم نيست.
با اين حال اسنايدرقصه را از زبان تنها بازمانده نبرد روايت مي كند تا به خيال خود از اين مطلق گرايي صرف پرهيز كرده باشد* و در واقع گناه اين روايت يك جانبه را بر گردن او بيندازد اما عملا اين تمهيد نتوانسته است منطق كارتوني فيلم را ارتقا بخشد.

اگر منطق روايي كتاب مصور بر مبناي كاراكترهاي تك بعدي ، داستان سر راست و اغراق و سياه و سفيد نمايي هاي يكسويه استوار باشد؛ در سينما كه عناصر ديگري چون فرهنگ، تاريخ و ايدئولوژي خواه ناخواه وارد حيطه خودآگاهي مخاطب مي شوند، اقتباس صفحه به صفحه از يك كتاب مصور، فيلم را به يك اثر سطحي و آنچنان كه منتقدان از اين گونه فيلم ها ياد مي كنند: فيلم بنجل(Trash Movie) بدل مي كند.

در باره فيلم:

300 بر اساس اقتباس نما به نمايي از كتاب مصور فرانك ميلر كه در سال ١٩٩٨ منتشر شده، ساخته شده است. ميلر خود هم به عنوان مشاور و هم تهيه كننده اجرايي در توليد فيلم نقش داشته است.

براساس معيارهاي زيبايي شناسي ميلر در اين كتاب، اسپارت ها به غربي ها و پارسي ها به اعراب زمان خود شباهت داشته اند و در نتيجه معيارها و قواعد حاكم بر زندگي آنها نيز متاثر از همين پيش انگاره ها ست: براين اساس، ايراني ها برده داري و حرمسرايي را رواج داده و زنان را در امور جاري مشاركت نمي داده اند و جنگ افروز و ويرانگر بوده اند، در مقابل اسپارت ها تنها مدافعان دمكراسي در جهان متمدن بوده اند.

چنين ايده كارتوني بي شباهت به تئوري هاي توتاليتر غربي و جنگ تمدن ها نيست، تئوريهايي كه دمكراسي غربي را مبناي ارزشگذاري در باره موضوعات و مسائل مختلف مي دانند.

بي دليل نيست كه اين فيلم در اغلب موارد با نقدهاي تمسخرآميز و نيش و كنايه دار منتقدان و يا بي توجهي مطلق آنها روبرو شده است و يا صفاتي چون: "فاشيستي، نژاد پرستانه و مبتذل" به آن اطلاق شده است.


منطق روايي فيلم 300 به كتاب مصور نزديك است و از اين همه رو تمسخر مخاطب را برمي انگيزد

كمپاني برادران وارنر اما در اطلاعيه خود در باره فيلم مي گويد كه اين فيلم يك روايت تاريخي نيست بلكه قصه اي است به منظور سرگرم سازي بر مبناي يك كتاب مصور و مشكل دقيقا از همين جا ناشي مي شود كه اصرار به اين شيوه بازنمايي از شرق در برابر غرب با وجود آگهي هاي آن كه در آن همواره از آزادي و دمكراسي ياد مي شود، چه دليلي دارد.

اما در همين حال، زاك اسنايدر دردر تازه ترين مصاحبه اش با شبكه تلويزيوني MTV گفته است كه نود درصد رخدادهاي اين فيلم بر مبناي واقعيت تاريخي است در حالي كه مدتي پيش كمپاني برادران وارنر بر داستان سرايي فيلم و نه واقع گرايي بودن آن تاكيد كرده بود.

300، دومين فيلمي است كه براساس روايت هرودوت از نبرد تروموفيل ساخته مي شود، اولين فيلم در اين باره سيصد اسپارتي در سال1962 بود كه در همان زمان در ايران هم به نمايش در آمده بود.

تنها بخشي كه اسنايدر به درونمايه كتاب ميلر افزوده است، بخش هاي مربوط به تلاش ملكه براي همسويي مجلس با خود براي اعزام نيرو به جنگ ايرانيان است كه چندان هم به غناي خرده روايت ها در متن منجر نشده است.

300با بودجه 60 ميليون دلاري در استوديويي كوچك در برابر پرده هاي آبي و با ياري جلوه هاي رايانه اي در مدتي كمتر از 9 ماه ساخته شده است.

گذشته از استقبالي كه در آمريكا از فيلم در هفته هاي اول نمايش آن شد و فروش آن تاكنون به مرز سيصد ميليون دلار رسيده است، بيشترين استقبال از اين فيلم در يونان صورت گرفت كه همچنان پس از گذشت شش هفته در صدر فيلم هاي پرفروش قرار دارد و ركورد فروش فيلم در اين كشور را شكسته است.

300 در روز اول فروردين ماه در لندن به اكران در آمد و براي سه هفته پرفروش ترين فيلم اين شهر بود. فروش كل فيلم در سراسر جهان تاكنون بالغ بر نيم ميليارد دلار شده است كه بنا به اعلام كمپاني برادران وارنر دو برابر بيش از ميزان پيش بيني شده بخش بازاريابي كمپاني بوده است.

تنها نمايش فيلم در يك جشنواره در جشنواره بين المللي فيلم برلين بوده است كه برخي از تماشاگران آن را هو كردند.

با آغاز نمايش اين فيلم، ايرانيان به اعتراض عليه آن پرداختند، ايرانيان داخل كشور با تجمع هاي مختلف و نوشتن مطالبي در سايت ها و وبلاگ ها گام نخست را براي مخالفت با آن چه تصوير سازي هيولاوار از ايرانيان در اين فيلم ناميده مي شد، برداشتند.

در ادامه اعتراضات به فيلم، ايرانيان خارج از كشور نيز با طومار اينترنتي و ساختن بمب گوگلي وارد ميدان شدند و سرانجام برخي از دولتمردان جمهوري اسلامي نيز نسبت به اين فيلم واكنش نشان دادند.


زاك اسنايدر گفته است كه 90 درصد اين فيلم بر اساس واقعيت تاريخي توليد شده است

در تعطيلات نوروزي همزمان با اكران فيلم در اروپا، نسخه هاي ويدئويي اين فيلم نيز به طرزي وسيع در ايران به صورت مخفيانه توزيع شد كه برخي از اين نسخه ها داراي زيرنويس فارسي بوده است و به گفته برخي از مشتريان فيلم هاي خارجي زيرزميني، اين فيلم پر مشتري ترين و در عين حال گران ترين فيلم ويدئويي خارجي در اين شبكه توزيع مخفيانه در ايران بوده است.





در باره كارگردان

زاك اسنايدر متولد 1966 در ايالت ويسكانسين آمريكا است كه كارش را با ساخت ويدئو كليپ هاي موسيقي و تبليغاتي از جمله براي كمپاني هاي معروفي چون آئودي، جيپ و بستني مگنوم آغاز كرد.


فيلم، نيم ميليارد دلار فروش كرده و در ايران نسخه هاي ويدئويي مخفيانه آن در دسترس است

وي تحصيلات دانشگاهي خود را در لندن با تحصيل در رشته نقاشي آغاز كرد و خيلي زودي به كتابهاي مصور علاقمند شد.

به علاوه، وي در توليد مواد تبليغاتي براي ورزشكاران برجسته اي چون مايكل جردن براي كمپاني هايي چون نايك و ري بوك مشاركت داشت و براي يكي از آگهي هاي تلويزيوني ش براي كمپاني جيپ جايزه اي از جشنواره كن ربوده است.

نخستين فيلم بلند او در هاليوود در سال 2004 سحرگاه مردگان نام داشت كه با فروش خوبي در آمريكا روبرو شد كه با توجه به درجه بندي آن براي افراد بالاي هفده سال فروش موفقي ارزيابي شد.

وي براي همين فيلم نامزدجايزه دوربين طلايي در جشنواره فيلم كن شد كه به اولين ساخته فيلمسازان تعلق مي گيرد.

300، دومين فيلم زاك اسنايدر در مقام كارگردان محسوب مي شود كه بر اساس علاقه ديرين كارگردان به كميك استريپي به همين نام ساخته شده است.

وي در حال حاضر در حال توليد فيلم ديگري به نام نگهبان است كه باز هم براساس يك كميك استريپ ديگرساخته مي شود.

مشخصات فيلم:

خلاصه: هنگامي كه لشگر عظيم خشايار شا به يونان هجوم آورده است، سيصد سرباز اسپارتي به همراه پادشاه خود در برابر آن مقاومت مي كنند اما در نهايت با خيانت يك گوژپشت اسپارتي محاصره شده و از پاي در مي آيند اما اين مقاومت اسطوره اي مي شود براي گرد آوردن سپاهي بزرگتر در برابر پرشين ها (ايراني ها) و نبرد هاي ديگر براي بيرون راندن آنها از يونان.

كارگردان: زاك اسنايدر، فيلمنامه: زاك اسنايدر، كرت جانستاد و مايكل گوردون، براساس داستان مصوري از: فرانك ميلر و لين وارلي، مدير فيلمبرداري: لاري فونگ، موسيقي: تيلر بيتز، تدوين: ويليام هوي، طراح صحنه: جيمز بي. بيزل، بازيگران: جرالد باتلر( پادشاه لئونيداس) ، لنا هيدي ( ملكه)، رودريگو سانتورو (خشايارشا)، پيتر منسا (سفيرپرشيا)، محصول 2006 كمپاني برادران وارنر 117دقيقه