Controversial yet Visually Stunning screen adaptation of Frank Miller
'300’
©Warner Bros
"A Thousand Nations of the
Persian Empire Descend Upon You ! Our Arrows
Will Blot out the Sun" - Persian King Xerxes' Emissary
"Then we
will fight in the shade." -Stelios the Spartan
Warrior
The timing for the latest Warner
Bros Epic battle movie 300 is clearly unfortunate but maybe not so. Based
on Veteran comic book artist Frank Miller’s gory depiction of the ancient Battle
of Thermopylae in 480 B.C, that is said to have opposed 300 Spartans to the
massive Persian Army of King Xerxes the Great, it is an action packed, sexually
provocative and bloody spectacle that clearly deserves its R-Rated label. In a particularly tense climate of
international politics where threats of an imminent US or Israeli attack on Iran ( once
known as Persia ) is on everyone’s mind it would be easy to see in this movie as
many bellicose metaphors as there are sand pebbles in the entire desert
landscapes of the Middle East. Before succumbing to what is our national sport
that is seeing conspiracy theories of monstrous proportions in any non
Iranian/Persian depiction of our land and history, let us take a closer look at
what would be considered, by any one with a minimum of film knowledge, as merely
a B-Rated Film albeit directed with
a visually stunning approach.
Zack Snyder’s 300 was initially a
project that was in the Vaults of Warner Bros since the late 1990’s. It was to
be a remake of a low budget Hollywood classic Sword and Sandals film entitled
the 300
Spartans ( which I had already reviewed for the Iranian.com in 2002 under
the title Battle
for the West ) directed by Rudolph Maté and starring Richard Egan and David
Farrar in the title roles of Spartan King Leonidas and Persian King Xerxes. The
remake was initially to be directed by Michael Mann ( Heat, Miami Vice, Last of
the Mohicans) and produced by George Clooney with Bruce Willis in the title role
of Leonidas and rumors that Spanish machismo Antonio Banderas would portray the
Persian King of Kings. The script was to be based on the Best Selling novel by
Stephen Pressfield entitled Gates of
Fire. However due to the fact that Mann went on to direct Ali a Bio Epic on Box Legend
Cassius Clay aka Muhammad Ali starring Will Smith who hoped for an Oscar
nomination in the title role, the Sword and Sandals project was abandoned. In early 2000 newcomer independent
Horror movie filmmaker Zack Snyder ( Dawn of the Dead) suggested the
adaptation of another version of this epic story based on Frank Miller’s dark
and graphically stylized depiction of the ultimate Spartan sacrifice. The 1962
version has been a cult film for all aficionados of a film genre that went
extinct after the mid 60’s due to the increasing appeal of the public for
realism on film as well as a more contemporary related stories which the
TV as a medium would also encourage and take credit for. James Bond Stunts with
a quick hygienic and stylish kill were to replace the massive realistic battle
scenes opposing foes in shining armour while Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry and Charles
Bronson’s Death Wish films
were to illustrate an unorthodox conception of Law and Order where the major
characters were to render personal justice in the name of self defense often
with a simplistic far-right conservative conception of how society should be
dealing with its so-called scums and outcasts. This realistic and
graphic approach to violence that were to rank such films as Francis Ford
Coppola’s The
Godfather sequels, or his equally violent Apocalypse Now as award
winning masterpieces at such well known film festivals as Cannes or the Oscars
were nevertheless far more violent with morally more ambiguous messages than
most Sword and Sandals Technicolor films of the previous era or even that
of the most recent Epic film: Ridley Scott’s excellent Gladiator that launched the film
genre to critical acclaim and Box Office success.
Interestingly the rising stars of
these “modern era films” like Marlon Brando, Al Pacino or the highly
acclaimed and in my humble opinion overestimated Robert De Niro (whose
role in Martin Scorcese’s Taxi
Driver was to inspire John Hinckley Jr. to
commit his failed assassination attempt on Former US President Ronald Reagan)
have become role models for many actors today.
Strangely I have come across several Iranian actors or directors in the Diaspora
including some of the most popular and talented in the Diaspora who clearly hail such performances
certainly for the good reasons but also most certainly because of the physical
identification that Al Pacino’s Scarface or De Niro’s Don Corleone
could have with lets say someone like the great Behrouz Vossoughi or the younger
and no less talented Houshang Touzie. There may also be another explanation to
this identification in that the inner violence that appears on screen through
their performances is also something their generation to some degree could
identified with.
There is nothing moral about
violence on film but it is undeniably photogenic and exciting to the viewer.
Directors know that and so do the actors. Was it not the great Hollywood Star
and Mr. Tough Guy Kirk Douglas (
Spartacus, The Vikings) also greatly admired by Iranian New Wave
director Mohsen Makhmalbaf ( I am Referring to a scene in his movie Nun va Goldoon ) who said:
"Virtue is not photogenic. What is
it to be a nice guy? To be nothing, that's what. A big fat zero with a smile for
everybody."
Or
"I've made a career of playing sons
of bitches." ?
To claim the contrary would be as
hypocritical as to imagine Western films without Cowboys & Indians and
equally Sword & Sandals without Persians fighting Greeks or Romans
not crucifying Christians or not feeding them to the lions in the Arena
…
Why should acknowledging this fact be interpreted as a
justification of violence or of a
denial of the negative consequences that violent depictions can have on young
and unstable adult viewers ? Should we see an obscure ideological message ( if
there is one) or an indulgence of real life sadism in what is meant to be a
tribute to a film genre ? Should
that mean that we have to adopt a partisan attitude towards a film we have not
even seen ? Any alerted viewer or
critic can see the movie’s subtle qualities in pushing the boundaries of the
Epic genre through the use of CGI effects like shooting the movie nearly
entirely on blue screen with little if no real Sets. Should Motion Pictures for
that matter be accountable for the unpredictable reaction of viewers ? In that
case NO ONE would make movies nor go to see films.
Personally there are two major
questions that intrigue me and which I think are at the core of the debate on a
“would be outrage” of the Persian Community ( spearheaded so vehemently by our
fellow compatriot and Satirist Siamak Baniameri and by the following petition ). I do
not have the answers to them but I would like to submit it to the readers
sagacity :
What is more shocking:
To be depicted as Villains in a film
that is supposed to be anything but a history lesson about an event that took
place 25 centuries ago?
Or
To be associated to an entity
that exists no more that is the Persian Empire itself ever since its removal by
a widely popular Islamic Revolution that put an end for ever to what its
supporters considered as an evil and corrupt
institution?
What the controversy about this film
reveals as in the case of Oliver Stone’s movie Alexander
is that the Persian Empire, with or without its King or legitimate heir, still
exists in the minds of all Iranians and probably transcends even political
convictions. It probably has more to do with our own Ego ( justified or not ) or
is it a Freudian sense of self preservation and of our role as a nation in the
History of Mankind ?
Do we as viewers have adopt a
partisan attitude towards a film we have not even seen ?
As an Iranian/Persian I would say
YES be it by the inevitable patriotic upheaval
such a movie will generate in us as descendants of a proud and civilized people
who would prefer to be seen for some of the values that define us in the
positive light and which are totally ignored in this movie such as for Cyrus’
Declaration of Human Rights or the great architectural and scientific
accomplishments that virtually civilized the ancient world. If criticism
of such a commercial film can indeed generate a debate on our role in the
history of mankind and that it can give us the opportunity to educate fellow
Americans then why not ?
As a Movie Buff I would certainly
say NO because there is nothing particularly
mature in the political statement made in Zack Snyder’s movie no more than in
most of fellow talented feature writer Siamak Baniameri’s The
Iranican Dream. It is meant to be a Pop Corn Entertainment to an American audience
who at best ( and sadly enough unless proven otherwise ) hardly even knows if
Persia even exists or existed
nor can they distinguish between Iran and Iraq.
Again from a purely non partisan
point of view I would even come to think that the Persians are even quite COOL
looking. The Merchandizing
of immortal masks or Persian and Greek figurines are no more shocking
or despicable than George Lucas’ Star Wars figurines and toys some of
which have become collector items today. The movie is visually far more
brilliant and attractive than Frank Miller’s original comic book that is overall
anything but beautiful. The movie’s SFX and sound effects and a music score that
uses the vocals of Iranian Singer Azam
Ali enhance the original comic book storyboard to more dynamic effect.
Another Iranian Stuntman Darren
Shahlavi also took part in the action scenes.
In short if you are looking for
entertainment and unrealistic 2nd or 3rd degree violence,
there is nothing to be afraid of but if you hope to find in this movie
historical truth albeit the fact that we won the battle and the Spartans lost (
But allowed Greece to win the Greco-Persian War), then you are going for a sheer
disappointment.
Were we to show the World a
different face then we should try to make our film version of the same battle. I
very much doubt that we would deliver a more objective and propaganda devoid
version. An interesting example is that of the Turkish War movie Valley of the
Wolves shot with an international cast including Hollywood Stars Billy Zane (Titanic) and
Garey Busy ( Shut Up and
Shoot) as the movie’s villains. The film was a huge success in Turkey and
Germany, shot with the same production value as a Hollywood Block Buster and
received outrageous critics in the Western Press for describing the Americans
soldiers in Iraq as sadistic and blood thirsty (as if that was a stretch of an
imagination ?) and for its anti-Semitic tones which was the reason the film did
not get a Visa for a wider Theatrical release in France, Britain and the
US.
Sword and Sandal
movies never
claimed to be masterpieces or monuments of Art no more than Western Spaghettis
so why treat them for what they are not ?
Zack Snyder’s 300 as much as
Ridley Scott’s Gladiator are
first and foremost entertainments that tease the little kid in us: Go and be
a Man my Son !
In a recent press conference given
after the movie’s Premiere in Hollywood some journalists questioned its
director on the movie’s metaphors. Some saw in Xerxes and his Empire an analogy
with George Bush and the American invasion of Iraq. Others
claimed on the contrary that Bush was actually Leonidas who fights to the near
end to defend the democratic values of the West. As interesting and predictable
a comparison as they may seem, non of these arguments truly convince me that
this movie even has a message other than go and buy a ticket and have some fun.
The movie can very well be exploited as a propaganda tool by both the White
House and why not Iran’s President Ahmadinejad in
trying to rally the most reluctant citizens in seeing subliminal metaphors in a
Box Office success. If so it would mean that their own political agendas are so
weak and fragile that they need to have recourse to motion pictures to self
promote themselves or their ideologies.
If you wish to do yourself and your
community a favor then start by supporting your actors, directors and artists
who throughout our own history have so often been either instrumentalized by
political power, censored when questioning authority or simply disregarded by
their fellow compatriots as being of no importance or even useful to
society.
©photo composition Darius KADIVAR (*)
Maybe a good start would be to
support filmmaker Cyrus KAR and his bio Epic documentary In Search of Cyrus the
Great or the equally interesting film project Xerxes
by writer Ren A Hakim both of which offer an alternative and positive outlook on
the founding fathers of our ancient and noble Land …
VIVE LE
CINEMA!
Author’s Notes:
(*) Disclaimer, the items of the
Movie 300 are properties of © Neca and 300 logo is ©Warner
Bros
300 Official Website: http://300themovie.warnerbros.com/
Recommended Readings
:
-
300: The
Art Of The Film by Frank
Miller , Zack
Snyder
- Persia ?
Ancient Persia’s Virtual absence in Hollywood by Darius KADIVAR
(Iranian.com)
-Battle
for The West The Original 300 Technicolor cult movie shot in 1962 by Darius
KADIVAR (Iranian.com)
- That
Film’s Real Message? It Could Be: ‘Buy a Ticket’ By MICHAEL CIEPLY ( NY Times)
- Beyond the
Valley of the Wolves on the Turkish controversial blockbuster by Cem Özdemir ( Der Spiegal)
Recommended Viewing:
History Channel
documentary titled Comic
Book Superheroes Unmasked with an analysis of Frank Miller’s work notable on
Batman, Superman and Robin
About the Author:
Darius
KADIVAR is a freelance journalist and Film Historian born to an Iranian father
and French mother. He works and lives in France
