300

[Gromnir]

I'm not sure about Miller's intentions just yet, but it is out there in the open that the main villain in the movie happens to be a brown-skinned ****, and the hero is an aggressive heterosexual and such a patriot that he defies his democratic government to defend his nation. The hunchback (the weak, malformed hunchback) betrays his country after witnessing the evils of lesbianism and promiscuity, and thinking "hey, that ain't so bad". Frank Miller didn't write the 300 as a pro-Bush piece, obviously, he wrote it before Bush, but he is still quite fond of fascist iconography, of strong, tall white men who stand up against the foreigners when no one else will (think Rambo) and the women who fellate them / get raped / whore themselves out. The compass of the movie is most definitely an American neoconservative one.

 

 

for chrissakes...xerxes was brown-skinned 'cause the rl xerxes was brown-skinned. no other reason. in TDKR, all of the adversaries is white. and the notion that a hero is heterosexual should warrant considerable reflection, 'cause how rare is it for heroic male characters in lit and film to be hetero? obviously miller gots some kinda agenda. and yeah, leonidas looks like the ubermensch, but that too is a rarity in a freaking comic book, eh?

 

miller the fascist... HA!

 

you people is a hoot. miller creates a comic book in which a handful of idealists rush off vigilante style to oppose a tyrant, The Man, knowing full well that in so doing they is gonna die... and somehow you clowns see bush propoganda?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Musopticon?]

I got to agree, middens and mayflies.

[Aram]

I'm not sure about Miller's intentions just yet, but it is out there in the open that the main villain in the movie happens to be a brown-skinned ****, and the hero is an aggressive heterosexual and such a patriot that he defies his democratic government to defend his nation. The hunchback (the weak, malformed hunchback) betrays his country after witnessing the evils of lesbianism and promiscuity, and thinking "hey, that ain't so bad". Frank Miller didn't write the 300 as a pro-Bush piece, obviously, he wrote it before Bush, but he is still quite fond of fascist iconography, of strong, tall white men who stand up against the foreigners when no one else will (think Rambo) and the women who fellate them / get raped / whore themselves out. The compass of the movie is most definitely an American neoconservative one.

 

So if Leonidas had been a gay or bisexual Cablinasian and had made sure his carefully written bill to defend the city had passed congress before taking off with only 300 of his fellow short, flabby, gay Cablinasians for some reason anyway, and Xerxes and all of the Africans, Asians, and Iranians that made up his army had been upper-class middle-aged white men invading in order to illegalize stem cell research, and Ephilitas had been seduced by such imagery as wealthy people driving gas guzzling SUVs, and the women were all chastise, single, and also on the battlefield, then you would have thought this was a much better movie?

Edited March 12, 2007 by Aram

[Pop]

You know it.

[Hell Kitty]

I just think people are seeing what they want to see.

 

From an article I read linked from the IMDB, it seems there are as many people saying this movie is pro-Bush/America as there are saying it's anti-Bush/America.

 

As much as people like to claim that the films political agenda is obvious, they can't both be right, so yeah, people are seeing what they want to see.

[Tale]

Personally, I think it's pro-Green party. If nothing it's about political corruption and the need for reform.

[Gromnir]

10 years ago a woman in florida made a grilled cheese sandwich... claimed that she could see the image of the virgin mary in the toasted bread. next thing you know, thousands o' people is suggesting that the grilled cheese is Proof o' God. heck, in ten years the tasty luncheon morsel never went moldy... is obviously proof of God's will.

 

...

 

people wanna see God's divine power in a sandwich? fine. how much easier is it to see pro-bush propoganda in 300?

 

take whatever message you want to from 300. Gromnir liked the action sequences well enough... but am not sure if the film managed to indoctrinate us with pro or anti bush sentiment. am s'possing that if a good old fashioned brain washing were the goal, then 300 were a bit of a failure. too bad, 'cause we really did likes the cinematography and on-screen mayhem.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[GreasyDogMeat]

I can't help but wonder if Star Wars Episode 3 recieved even HALF the attention for it's 'You're either with me or against me!' jab. I thought it was a cheap shot but it didn't kill the movie for me. It was about... well... star wars. Whether or not 300 has any political message hidden in it shouldn't detract from it being an entertaining movie... or not (I haven't seen it yet). One thing I do know is that the 'with me or against me' was an obvious and admitted jab while all of the talk of political agendas in 300 seem to be highly suspect/debated.

 

Either way the battle of Thermopylae was perhaps the greatest 'alamo' moment in history and I'm looking forward to seeing it, even if it is full of historical innacuracies and stylized to heck. The old John Wayne Alamo movie was hardly realistic either.

 

My only real worry about seeing it is the possible lame dialog. Sin City reeked of horrible dialog and lowered the enjoyment of the movie for me. I think a previous poster mentioned that Miller's words are better read on the comic page than heard on the big screen. Cheesy dialog might be a bit more acceptable in a movie about a last stand in 480 BC than a noir type comic adaption. Oh well, I'll find out eventually.

[Gorgon]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thefed/v3/volum...yodavbush.shtml

 

I laughed anyway-

[Oerwinde]

I can't help but wonder if Star Wars Episode 3 recieved even HALF the attention for it's 'You're either with me or against me!' jab. I thought it was a cheap shot but it didn't kill the movie for me. It was about... well... star wars. Whether or not 300 has any political message hidden in it shouldn't detract from it being an entertaining movie... or not (I haven't seen it yet). One thing I do know is that the 'with me or against me' was an obvious and admitted jab while all of the talk of political agendas in 300 seem to be highly suspect/debated.

 

Either way the battle of Thermopylae was perhaps the greatest 'alamo' moment in history and I'm looking forward to seeing it, even if it is full of historical innacuracies and stylized to heck. The old John Wayne Alamo movie was hardly realistic either.

 

My only real worry about seeing it is the possible lame dialog. Sin City reeked of horrible dialog and lowered the enjoyment of the movie for me. I think a previous poster mentioned that Miller's words are better read on the comic page than heard on the big screen. Cheesy dialog might be a bit more acceptable in a movie about a last stand in 480 BC than a noir type comic adaption. Oh well, I'll find out eventually.

 

I found the dialogue much better in 300 than in Sin City. Though I didn't really mind it much in Sin City either, I thought it fit with the ridiculous style of the film.

 

300 was super awesome. Can't wait for it to come to the IMAX here.

[Fenghuang]

Millar has written for the Authority, and they're about as Neocon as you can get, or Neolib or something. Basically they say "We're superheroes. why are we busting muggers when genocide is going down?" So it would make sense for him to be at least in favour of some Bush tactics.

 

 

The Authority is awesome. If you liked that you'd probably enjoy Wanted Wals. Kind of the same dealie, only more what if. Basically a whole bunch of generic but clearly inspired by DC and Marvel supervillians decide to team up and get rid of the superheroes, also inspired by DC and Marvel, once and for all. Then they erase the public's knowledge of them and make themselvesthe puppetmasters behind the figureheads and run a secret one world government. Gratuitous violence, drug use, profanity, and nudity; a good time.

[Azarkon]

the senate stuff were tacked on to give the female lead something to do... try not to read so much into it. the queen obviously were gonna be a non-combatant, so how could writers/directors has her actively fight for freedom? have her sew more red capes? has her rally the peoples directly? sure, coulda' gone that way, but you still gotta work sacrifice into the mix. you see the tree and miss the forest.

 

That's the issue, isn't it? Why make the queen a symbol of freedom (and *American* freedom, at that, based on her choice dialogue) in the first place? The female lead needed something to do, sure, but the whole unpatriotic senate/patriotic queen cliche just came off as corny. It's like Thora Birch's role in that Dungeons and Dragons movie - pointlessly anachronistic and, thus, hollow.

 

Like I said - it's not that critics are reading too much into it, but that it's too obvious not to read anything into... Unless we assume that the director/screenwriter is so incompetent as to be unconscious of what he's inserting.

 

as for miller... you is again reading far too much into what little you has read from him. miller is all 'bout fighting for Personal Freedom. do yourself a favor and actually read some miller stuff, 'cause if you did you should be aware that there is a running theme in all his works... an individual gots to stand up to and against an unjust establishment and fight for liberty and justice. the establishment may change, but the message is always the same. Ronald Regan Cold War US, the Church, The Police, Xerxes, etc. The Man takes many forms, and miller uses each symbolically rather than literal.

 

miller's stand on terrorism is understandable, 'cause terrorism takes choice away from folks, which makes it 'bout as anti-liberty as you can get... 'least that is what he told Gromnir way back in 1989.

 

*shrug*

 

I don't know how you came to associate pro-Bush with pro-establishment, but that's not what I mean by it.

 

Your basic point is correct. Miller is, as you say, most concerned with personal freedom. But see, you don't have to be a neocon to be pro-Bush or pro-Iraqi War. Many people who support Bush and the Iraqi War would never support the neocon agenda, and that in some sense attests to the futility of a partisan view of politics.

 

Miller is a supporter of personal freedom, but he's also an idealist. The neocons use the superhero motif to justify American dominance; Miller believes in it. To him, and he's stated this in no uncertain terms, this is an existential war for American civilization that we're in. This is a war for freedom, and Iraq attacked us first. He's casting this whole issue in the mold of a Manichean conflict - he made an analogy in the link I provided between Iraq and Nazi Germany, saying that 9/11 was basically the Pearl Harbor of our age. Read it yourself.

 

Miller is no neocon, and he's definitely the very opposite of a fascist. But, like many Americans who support the war, he's a believer of their ideological line - the idea that we're in the midst of an existential conflict between Western liberalism and Islamofascism. Unsurprisingly, Miller is exactly like the superhero vigilantes of which he writes. Guess what, so is Bush (or at least, the image that the Bush administration is trying to cast itself as). I concede, though, that this does not necessarily make Miller a supporter of Bush. He's more of a supporter of what Bush supposedly supports. And who wouldn't be, if Bush's professedly simplified view of the conflict was all there was to it?

 

I guess what I'm saying is: I don't know Miller as well as you, but from what I've read of his political opinions, he seems to think in comic book terms.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Azarkon

[Gromnir]

"Like I said - it's not that critics are reading too much into it, but that it's too obvious not to read anything into... Unless we assume that the director/screenwriter is so incompetent as to be unconscious of what he's inserting."

 

*chuckle*

 

is SO obvious that half the people at aicn an imdb is findinding opposite conclusion you did... and Gromnir is thinking that you is all nuts.

 

queen stuff is not American freedom or euro freedom or middle-east freedom. you is simply looking at the grilled cheese sandwich and seeing what you wish to. the queen's stuff were added to give a non-combatant female an ative role and to be making a sacrifice similar to leonidas... sacrifice body and soul. could just as easily make parallel to any other political body.

 

wanna exploit minor details to make a point? Gromnir can do too.... maybe 300 is actually pro terrorist, after all, the 300 is a small group o' freedom fighters that essentially go on a suicide bombing run against a Tyrant, a tyrant far from his own lands, with vast resources and improved technology. the suicide fighters die so as to mobilize their countryment to eventual victory... and the queen stuff, well that is obviously more middle-eastern than american... 'specially as the writers make a big deal 'bout how women is not allowed to join in male politics. gives the middle-eastern women a role-model inspite o' their relative impotence in me politics, a more photogenic hannan mikha'il-ashrawi?

 

...

 

is a freaking grilled cheese sandwich.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Azarkon]

wanna exploit minor details to make a point? Gromnir can do too.... maybe 300 is actually pro terrorist, after all, the 300 is a small group o' freedom fighters that essentially go on a suicide bombing run against a Tyrant, a tyrant far from his own lands, with vast resources and improved technology. the suicide fighters die so as to mobilize their countryment to eventual victory... and the queen stuff, well that is obviously more middle-eastern than american... 'specially as the writers make a big deal 'bout how women is not allowed to join in male politics. gives the middle-eastern women a role-model inspite o' their relative impotence in me politics, a more photogenic hannan mikha'il-ashrawi?

 

The difference between your interpretation and that of the people you deride is that your scenario *is* made up of minutiae, whereas the East vs. West, freedom vs. oppression, etc. motifs are about as subtle as the council scene in Star Wars, Episode III. There the jab at modern politics was intentional. Now, just because the allusion is no longer so one-dimensional, it's suddenly reading too much into the story?

 

That half the people at aicn and imdb reach the opposite conclusion is not proof that the film is absent of present day allusions, but that it's capable of multiple representations. I could make a film where for one and a half hours you saw an American flag being burnt, again and again, in slow motion - and be completely ambiguous about whether my message was "America is evil and should be destroyed" or "look, Americans, the Muslims are burning our flag - aren't you outraged?" Hell, I could be satirizing the whole idea of political symbolism - maybe my "message" is just a non-descript piece of cloth being burnt. But does any of these intentions, on my part, mean that my film is apolitical and that you should *only* view it as a non-descript piece of cloth being burnt?

 

Hardly.

 

All films are inevitably seen through the lens of contemporary history, but you didn't see many critics whining about former blockbusters like Titanic. LOTR got a couple jabs, yes, but nowhere nearly as bad as 300. The reason 300 is seen as it is is because it set itself up for such interpretations through its obvious allusions to modern politics, just as Kingdom of Heaven did. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that it has a consistent political message - but it does mean that critics are not "nuts" to interpret it through those lens. To you, maybe the film *is* just 300 buff dudes beating up on less buff dudes interweaved with nipple shots and cliche lines about freedom. But there's a huge, Atlanic Ocean-wide difference between people interpreting the same piece of work differently, and people reading too much into said work.

 

I don't think it's a logical stretch to say that Xerxes and Leonidas can, variably, both represent Bush. People will find their own meanings to what they see - especially when they're asked to do it, as 300 most definitely does. Ironically, these days it's neither the people who claim that the film is pro-Bush propaganda nor anti-Bush critique that are most adamant in their claims. Rather, it's the people who argue, with all the snobbery and elitism of academic critics, that the film can only be about exactly what it's about. The anti-expressionist backlash from too much bull****ing in literature class, is my guess.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Azarkon

[Gromnir]

"I don't think it's a logical stretch to say that Xerxes and Leonidas can, variably, both represent Bush."

 

well, so much for your conclusions being based on the OBVIOUS, eh? again, as you yourself has noted above, miller is clearly not a pro-terrorist, and it is highly unlikely that he would create a graphic novel encouraging terrorism. nevertheless, Gromnir's pro-terrorist interp of 300 is at least as likely as your pro-bush nonsense... more so in point of fact.

 

keep staring at the grilled cheese sandwich and you will find whatever the hell you wish, and you pretty much concede that point with the bit we quoted in this post. regardless, it is hardly OBVIOUS that miller or the director o' 300 had any sort o' political motivations in making 300. you wanna keep staring at the grilled cheese sandwich to find proof of pro or anti bush images? go for it. might as well look for parallels to the smurfs... and Gromnir can do that too if you wish... use select images from 300 to Prove that miller simply were ripping off the smurfs.

 

nuts.

 

we can see one bit o' material added to movie to makes leonidas seem more sympathetic and less the suicide bomber, but oddly 'nuff nobody here seems to mention. go figure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Azarkon]

keep staring at the grilled cheese sandwich and you will find whatever the hell you wish, and you pretty much concede that point with the bit we quoted in this post.

 

That's not what I said. Some interpretations are naturally more logical and apt than others. If you didn't believe this you wouldn't be arguing. I'd also caution against equating 300 to a sandwich, unless it's a very special sandwich, like the last sandwich Leonidas ever ate, in which case if I put up an image of the sandwich, some would believe that the sandwich is just a sandwich, and others will believe that it's actually a tribute to Leonidas.

 

...

 

Come off it. Critics sometimes read too much into films and come up with absurd interpretations that defy common logic, but here we have a film where even the average netizen is seeing parallels. Maybe the director (as I said, this has nothing to do with Miller unless he screenwrote the fillers) didn't intend it, but he sure as hell should've expected it. As with Kingdom of Heaven, the film was okay'd and made the way it was likely for the *sake* of tapping into the current political climate - so that people would feel a greater sense of personal connection with it. None of this necessitates a political motivation behind the film. You're acting like I'm blaming the director for being a Bush propaganda machine, when in actuality what I'm saying is that it's hard to escape the accusation that he made the film intentionally political. Now, did he intend it to have a pro-Bush outlook? Maybe - I certainly think there's evidence for it. But he could've just as well done as follows:

 

Screenwriter: So then we have the queen say, "I learned that one man must sacrifice himself so that others may live."

Director: Good, good. But I think it'd be better if she said "I learned that freedom is not free." Ya know? That way people would think the film is politically relevant and we'd get alot of press about its political message

Screenwriter: But-

Director: It's settled, then! We'll also rip off every romance epic in the book by including a shared pendant between Leonidas and his wife. You know, for that feminine touch.

 

Is that so hard to believe?

 

we can see one bit o' material added to movie to makes leonidas seem more sympathetic and less the suicide bomber, but oddly 'nuff nobody here seems to mention. go figure.

 

Only one? I could name about a dozen of them, starting with the entire addition of the domsetic scene. Every addition to the film makes Leonidas more sympathetic. Heck, they even justified the pit scene by adding Leonidas's little spiel about how the messenger was responsible for everything he said, and subsequently naming each one of his offenses to the king (and adding one to the queen, no less).

 

What do you expect? It's Hollywood.

 

I still don't see how you can even begin to argue that Leonidas was a terrorist without resorting to pin finding. How is a king and three hundred of his best trained soldiers standing against an enemy army in any way comparable to terrorism? Freedom fighters, sure, but there isn't a shred of evidence that Leonidas or his buddies did anything that might be comparable to attacking innocent civilians in their home country.

 

Which, consequently, defeats the whole idea that you could see anything in a grilled cheese sandwich.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

Oh, and this movie makes me want to go back to the gym.

 

Why is that?

I believe he's referring to all the rockin' manbods on display. Loincloths and capes, son, all over the place. Makes it kind of funny that the Spartans unironically refer to Athenians as "boy lovers" in the film. It's a movie about soldiers, and there is no greater lover of the male physique than the military, if you catch my drift. And this ain't just any military, it's a Frank Miller military, so rock-hard abs and monstrous biceps are standard issue. I know a lot of girlies who are seeing this solely to experience Gerard Butler naked.

The Spartans at Thermopylae are remembered not least because they spent most of the prelude to the battle oiling themselves (and their long manes of hair) up, like the Ancient Greeks did for their Olympic Games.

 

who claimed that he did not set out to analogize either side, added so much support for the Leonidas-as-Bush idea.

 

He did? Because I left the movie with a group of people who entered into just such a discussion and came away virtually split. I thought no meaningful connections could be draw, at least, none that were intentional. Maybe because I have read 300 well before the movie, so when I saw a scene I thought of the comic rather than modern day comparisons.

I thought the modern day inspired dialogue gave it away. "Freedom is not free." "We bring a new world where freedom will triumph over tyranny and mysticism." Etc.

 

Not that Miller wasn't of the same mind. Rather that the added dialogue was especially analogical to current politics.

Haven't seen this yet (Thursday for Britain) but the comparisons are usually with the first Global Super Power (Persia) trying to knock out a small group dissenters in the backwater of the world ...

 

I'm not sure about Miller's intentions just yet, but it is out there in the open that the main villain in the movie happens to be a brown-skinned ****, and the hero is an aggressive heterosexual and such a patriot that he defies his democratic government to defend his nation. The hunchback (the weak, malformed hunchback) betrays his country after witnessing the evils of lesbianism and promiscuity, and thinking "hey, that ain't so bad". Frank Miller didn't write the 300 as a pro-Bush piece, obviously, he wrote it before Bush, but he is still quite fond of fascist iconography, of strong, tall white men who stand up against the foreigners when no one else will (think Rambo) and the women who fellate them / get raped / whore themselves out. The compass of the movie is most definitely an American neoconservative one.

 

So if Leonidas had been a gay or bisexual Cablinasian and had made sure his carefully written bill to defend the city had passed congress before taking off with only 300 of his fellow short, flabby, gay Cablinasians for some reason anyway, and Xerxes and all of the Africans, Asians, and Iranians that made up his army had been upper-class middle-aged white men invading in order to illegalize stem cell research, and Ephilitas had been seduced by such imagery as wealthy people driving gas guzzling SUVs, and the women were all chastise, single, and also on the battlefield, then you would have thought this was a much better movie?

One of the most impressive defeats of the formerly invincible Spartan Hoplites by the 200 gay couples that made up the Sacred Band of Thebes. ^_^

[Gromnir]

"Come off it. Critics sometimes read too much into films and come up with absurd interpretations that defy common logic, but here we have a film where even the average netizen is seeing parallels. Maybe the director (as I said, this has nothing to do with Miller unless he screenwrote the fillers) didn't intend it, but he sure as hell should've expected it."

 

who said they didn't expect it? point is that it were not the intent of the writer or director to do as you thinks they is doing. what you see as pro-bush propaganda were clearly not the intent of anybody involved in the project, and in point o' fact, we suspect that their fear were something quite different, 'cause miller has been fighting the same battle for a long, long time.

 

and no, you can't name a dozen instances in which material were added to make leonidas more sympathetic... your one example is pretty darn weak and we wouldn't even bother to include as making leonidas genuinely sympathetic.

 

"I still don't see how you can even begin to argue that Leonidas was a terrorist without resorting to pin finding."

 

and yet you do find bush parallels? HA! by the way, we never said that leonidas were a terrorist, but his cause and actions is far more likely to draw parallels to the terrorists than to bush. a handful of vigilantes, acting outside the bounds of the law, killing heralds and maiming ambassadors, fighting a suicidal battle 'gainst a tyrant from across the sea, in hopes that their deaths will inspire a nation and a people to action will resonate more with those we call terrorists, or with the bush cabinet? you not see how such a story could be held up as being sympathetic for those freedom fighters in palestine and afghanastan and iraq who never actually thinks of themselves as terrorists? heck, even your claims that the queen lobbying the legislature were a bush parallel works better for the terrorists. after all, bush had congressional support for his invasions o' afghanastan and iraq. is the terrorists who feel compelled to act w/o the sanction of legitimate governing bodies.

 

HA!

 

miller has been fighting the anarchist/pro-terrorist label long for 300 were printed, and as you has observed, miller's personal pov is clearly anti-terrorism. nevertheless, you jokers looks at the sandwich and see what you will. if you were now arguing that miller were pro-anarchy or terrorism we could at least understand where you is coming from, but the notion that the guy who created TDKR would be involved in a pro-bush propaganda vehicle is patently ludicrous.

 

and the only reason Gromnir argues with you is 'cause Gromnir is sympathetic to miller's plight... and to other artists. is painful to watches wacky people try to turn their works into some kinda allegory in favor/against war, abortion, conservation, or whatever else the topic o' the hour is. you wanna see some additional 'cause to dislike the bush administration and those evil peoples who support him? fine. just eat the freaking sandwich 'stead 'o trying to seeing imagined patterns int the toasted bread.

 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Azarkon]

and no, you can't name a dozen instances in which material were added to make leonidas more sympathetic... your one example is pretty darn weak and we wouldn't even bother to include as making leonidas genuinely sympathetic.

 

Off the top of my head:

 

* Leonidas wrestling with a boy and patting him when we first meet him, not in the comic

* Leonidas having romantic sex with his wife, not in the comic

* Leonidas being troubled about what he must do and being encouraged by his wife, not in the comic

* Leonidas having a son, not in the comic

* Pendant between him and his lover, not in the comic

* That whole scene with the burning village and the dying child, not in the comic

* That whole captain and his son thing, not in the comic

* Leonidas comforting the captain before the last battle, not in the comic

* Leonidas telling the cripple that he could still aid in a Spartan victory, not in the comic

* Leonidas justifying his actions against the messengers, not in the comic

* The speech at home glorifying him, not in the comic

* The *removal* of the scene in the beginning of the comic where Leonidas enforces discipline among his soldiers

 

Please. Feel free to call them weak if you want, but you're not convincing anyone that they don't exist.

 

and yet you do find bush parallels? HA! by the way, we never said that leonidas were a terrorist, but his cause and actions is far more likely to draw parallels to the terrorists than to bush. a handful of vigilantes, acting outside the bounds of the law, killing heralds and maiming ambassadors, fighting a suicidal battle 'gainst a tyrant from across the sea, in hopes that their deaths will inspire a nation and a people to action will resonate more with those we call terrorists, or with the bush cabinet? you not see how such a story could be held up as being sympathetic for those freedom fighters in palestine and afghanastan and iraq who never actually thinks of themselves as terrorists? heck, even your claims that the queen lobbying the legislature were a bush parallel works better for the terrorists. after all, bush had congressional support for his invasions o' afghanastan and iraq. is the terrorists who feel compelled to act w/o the sanction of legitimate governing bodies.

 

So in your mind terrorists = Iraqi freedom fighters? Bleh. We've had this discussion before.

 

who said they didn't expect it? point is that it were not the intent of the writer or director to do as you thinks they is doing. what you see as pro-bush propaganda were clearly not the intent of anybody involved in the project, and in point o' fact, we suspect that their fear were something quite different, 'cause miller has been fighting the same battle for a long, long time.

 

miller has been fighting the anarchist/pro-terrorist label long for 300 were printed, and as you has observed, miller's personal pov is clearly anti-terrorism. nevertheless, you jokers looks at the sandwich and see what you will. if you were now arguing that miller were pro-anarchy or terrorism we could at least understand where you is coming from, but the notion that the guy who created TDKR would be involved in a pro-bush propaganda vehicle is patently ludicrous.

 

and the only reason Gromnir argues with you is 'cause Gromnir is sympathetic to miller's plight... and to other artists. is painful to watches wacky people try to turn their works into some kinda allegory in favor/against war, abortion, conservation, or whatever else the topic o' the hour is. you wanna see some additional 'cause to dislike the bush administration and those evil peoples who support him? fine. just eat the freaking sandwich 'stead 'o trying to seeing imagined patterns int the toasted bread.

 

Wait, what? If I argued that Miller was pro-terrorism you'd understand? Have you not kept up with Miller in recent times?

 

This is the guy who said that we're in an existential war against an enemy analogical to Nazi Germany. He's labeled as pro-terrorist? WTF? Maybe back when he published Sin City and Give Me Liberty. But that was a long time ago.

 

And I don't understand why you being sympathetic to Miller means that you have to deny any political motivation in his work. Miller's current political stance is so subtle that he's gone off and written a Batman vs. Al Qaeda comic, for god sakes. I'm simply observing his political viewpoint from his OWN STATEMENTS, and talking about the film's conspicuous political angle (which doesn't even involve him directly, last I checked). That you feel this is out of line reveals alot, because nowhere did I apply any judgment to Miller or Snyder based on their political stances, nor did I say they were involved in any propaganda vehicles. I simply said, and I stand by it, that Miller himself seems to have become pro-Bush after 9/11 based on his support of Bush's foreign policy (since that's essentially the summation of Bush's political platform) in the interview they conducted with him, and I'm hardly the only one who thought he sounded like a rightist there: http://hangrightpolitics.com/2007/01/26/fr...-of-our-nation/ . Course, I also said later that it maybe that partisan politics is insufficient to characterize Miller's political stance, which seems to be pro-Iraqi War abroad and anti-Bush at home, but you apparently missed that one, too.

 

You're looking at the wrong sandwich, I'm afraid.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Azarkon

[Azarkon]

Oh and just a note - you cannot see this movie and not realize its political context. Everything about its release time reeks of capitalizing on the conflict in the Middle-East. Of course, this has little to do with the story of 300 itself - and I've said as much (but you seem to like ignoring what I said), but you simply cannot ignore the reason the film was made and released at this juncture in time. Any director - Snyder or otherwise - should know what he's getting into, and I'd be surprised if they didn't adjust the film accordingly. Heck, Snyder took the liberty of adding feminism into a story that demanded none. A line or two of dialogue reminding us of 300's relationship to our own contemporary politics is almost a given.

[Gromnir]

now you has finally gone over the edge. go back and review thread and observe how many times Gromnir has conceded that miller IS NOT pro-terrorist. (we will give you a moment to do so now.) more than once or twice? good. the POINT, which you keeps missing, is that before miller came out and specifically said that he were anti-terrorist, there was a large % of critics and fans who believed that miller's writing were pro-anarchist and pro-terrorist. his writing is repetitive in sense that there is always some idealist who finds himself forced by fate to confront the Establishment, THE MAN!

 

what is so darn hilarious is that azarkon goes and does 180. because miller admits that he is anti-terrorist, azarkon ignores miller's actually Pro-Liberty, Vigilante v. The Man writing... ignores that in previous miller works the hero fights the police and the church and the US Government, ignores fact that this is the same miller who had batman kick superman's arse while superman is acting as ronald regan's pawn, and sees that bush and miller is both anti-terrorist... so somehow azrkon sees 300 as pro bush.

 

HA!

 

the insanity of it all really gets Gromnir in the funny bone

 

"So in your mind terrorists = Iraqi freedom fighters? Bleh. We've had this discussion before."

 

how did you get that? again, we don't subscribe to the argument that miller is pro-terrorist, and Gromnir is clearly anti-terrorism, but for those people who is sympathetic to terrorists, as many people suspected miller to be, the argument is invariably made that the gap 'tween freedom fighter and terrorist is small. in no way is Gromnir suggesting that freedom fighters= terrorists, just as we clearly were not saying that miller ripped off the smurfs to make 300. how obtuse is you gonna try and be?

 

"Everything about its release time reeks of capitalizing on the conflict in the Middle-East. Of course, this has little to do with the story of 300 itself-"

 

oh for chrissakes. more freaking conspiracy theories? maybe the release and production o' 300 has something to do with the popularity o' sin city. hollywood is not real imaginative. frank miller only got so many movie appropriate works that can be turns into movies... 'less you wanna pay huge monies to dc. sin city made money. THAT is the most obvious motivation.

 

 

"Please. Feel free to call them weak if you want, but you're not convincing anyone that they don't exist."

 

*chuckle*

 

firstly, Gromnir never suggested that no material were added to 300, but you really should not walks into such pitfalls so blindly. let us assume that you is correct for a second. and let us assume that all the examples you give 'bove were, we 'spose fro your comments, attempts to makes leonidas seems more cuddly so that people would swallow pro-bush propaganda. right, 'cause hollywood is ssssooooo pro-bush. didn't gore get an academy award, and the dixie chicks gots all kinds of awards at the grammies this year? hollywood, at the moment, is so damn patriotic that they is making a whole slew of the gung-ho war movies like... oh, well, we guess that we don't go to the movies often 'nuff, 'cause "flags of our fathers" were the last big budget war movie we recall and it were hardly gung-ho, was it?

 

 

oh, and if you were to make a pro-bush propaganda movie, the obvious thing to do would be to take a movie that seems to glorify the outnumbered vigilante freedom fighter protecting his homeland against an impossibly powerful tyrant from across the sea, and use THAT story to make a pro-bush propaganda film. sneaky? stoopid? hey, is your conspiracy theory, you explain.

 

its a grilled cheese sandwich. the movie is 'bout heroism and sacrifice and the fight for freedom. miller makes some sweeping generalizations 'bout society (though clearly not so much as he did with TDKR,) and he uses themes that has been 'round since beowulf. material were added to give characters a back story and to give a female role meaning, but the flick is exactly what it appears to be... is a grilled cheese sandwich. your conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Azarkon]

now you has finally gone over the edge. go back and review thread and observe how many times Gromnir has conceded that miller IS NOT pro-terrorist. (we will give you a moment to do so now.) more than once or twice? good. the POINT, which you keeps missing, is that before miller came out and specifically said that he were anti-terrorist, there was a large % of critics and fans who believed that miller's writing were pro-anarchist and pro-terrorist. his writing is repetitive in sense that there is always some idealist who finds himself forced by fate to confront the Establishment, THE MAN!

 

So a large % of critics and fans misjudged Miller before. Boo hoo. I'm not judging Miller. I'm restating what he himself stated in an interview. It seems awfully futile to defend a man from his own words.

 

what is so darn hilarious is that azarkon goes and does 180. because miller admits that he is anti-terrorist, azarkon ignores miller's actually Pro-Liberty, Vigilante v. The Man writing... ignores that in previous miller works the hero fights the police and the church and the US Government, ignores fact that this is the same miller who had batman kick superman's arse while superman is acting as ronald regan's pawn, and sees that bush and miller is both anti-terrorist... so somehow azrkon sees 300 as pro bush.

 

What's 180 about it? My first post in this thread was to the effect that Miller seemed pro-Bush in his political statements and I've never wavered since. Sure, Miller's pro-liberty, vigilante, versus The Man in his works, but he's also deadset on Bush's ideological line in his interview with the NPR. In fact, he was the only person on the show who demonstrated full support for the Iraqi War. Since Bush has basically made his administration a platform for the Iraqi War ("you're either with us or against us"), that gave me the impression that Miller supports Bush. Now, I can see how you could argue that what Miller is actually saying is that he supports Bush's policies in Iraq but that's it - in everything else he's anti-Bush. Sure. But we got no evidence for that. For Miller to do a 180 after 9/11 (he was living quite close to the place where it happened, as I recall) is not unthinkable, Gromnir, though I didn't even argue that. I argued that Miller's thoughts on foreign policy mirrored that of Bush's official line. He's obviously not looking for gray areas when he calls for the American people to fight for their existence against an enemy that would bomb us back to the 6th century (his words, not mine).

 

oh for chrissakes. more freaking conspiracy theories? maybe the release and production o' 300 has something to do with the popularity o' sin city. hollywood is not real imaginative. frank miller only got so many movie appropriate works that can be turns into movies... 'less you wanna pay huge monies to dc. sin city made money. THAT is the most obvious motivation.

 

Or maybe Hollywood decided 300 would make more money because it's politically relevant? It's not a conspiracy theory to push out a film of public interest in order to make more doe. See Munich, Kingdom Under Heaven, etc..

 

firstly, Gromnir never suggested that no material were added to 300

 

and no, you can't name a dozen instances in which material were added to make leonidas more sympathetic...

 

Point made, and stop arguing strawmans. Hollywood's not patriotic - when did I say it is? Hollywood's out to make money via satisfying the public interest - and what is the public most interested in right now? The War on Terror, of course. So they release a bunch of movies about the West, the Middle-East, and the West vs. the Middle-East, make them politically relevant by inserting a few allusions/key phrases, and voila - mission complete. It's no recent ploy, Gromnir - rewind your VCR and you'll find dozens and dozens of old war/action films made in the same vein as 300.

 

oh, and if you were to make a pro-bush propaganda movie, the obvious thing to do would be to take a movie that seems to glorify the outnumbered vigilante freedom fighter protecting his homeland against an impossibly powerful tyrant from across the sea, and use THAT story to make a pro-bush propaganda film. sneaky? stoopid? hey, is your conspiracy theory, you explain.

 

Get off it. I've been entertaining this straw man since the beginning of your retort and it's not getting any better, so let's settle it straight out:

 

I never said 300 was a pro-bush propaganda movie.

 

I said:

 

"People complain that critics read too much into the movie, but after seeing it myself, I can't say I disagree with them. When the director/screenwriter uses lines like "freedom is not free" (in what is probably the weakest link in the movie - the domestic scenes that were added in as filler), you know he's intentionally angling for modern politics."

 

-and-

 

"But Miller being a bit right-wing in his present political perspective on Iraq (and he seems to be, see this article: http://raggedthots.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20300) does not explain why Snyder, who claimed that he did not set out to analogize either side, added so much support for the Leonidas-as-Bush idea."

 

Both of which I stand by. The most I could see myself adding ontop of what I already said, in the interest of clarification, is to change the first quote to:

 

""People complain that critics read too much into the movie, but after seeing it myself, I can't say I disagree with them, though I don't agree with the accusation that the film is supposed to be a government-sponsored propaganda piece, either...."

 

The film is not propaganda. There is no coterie of faceless, cigar-smoking neocons sitting besides Miller and Snyder as they discuss how to win the American public. Miller is not a right-wing nut. There, I said it - the answers to all your strawmans. Discussion over?

Edited March 13, 2007 by Azarkon

[Gromnir]

this is getting wacky. you is still dead-set on the notion that there is an obvious angling twoards modern politics... when in point o' fact all you got is a freaking grilled cheese sandwich. for chrissakes, brown-skinned enemies were one o' your so-called points. HA! go on and on and on 'bout the obvious use o' modern political dogma, when it ain't there less you try to convince self.

 

*sigh*

 

and Gromnir will once more try to explain miller to you, and where a 180 took place... 'cause our only claim is that you tooks a logical 180 rather than that your pov reversed. you see black, and then try to argue that you is actually showing us white. see, miller's writing DOES INDEED suggest various pro-liberty and pro-vigilante view points, which is why so many critics thought he were pro-terrorism and pro-anarchy. the critics and fans who thought that miller were pro-terrorist were not wacky and out in left feld, even if they were trying too hard to add politics into miller's works. IF miller had been making a political statement with his writing, then it would clearly have been an anti-establishment message. 300, written pre-bush and war on terrorism, is clearly having much similar themes and characters to previous miller works, same fight for liberty and freedom message. same anti-authority stuff. same old miller that gots him the wacky lefty liberal label.

 

so, azar comes along and knows of miller pov on the war on terrorism stuff (which is just a small issue as far as personal politics is concerned,) and he sees or hears of 300 and how some white looking guys is spouting off 'bout freedom and they is fighting brown-skinned enemies, and azar complete ignores all the repeated miller content likes liberty and vigilante justice, and how a single person or small group is pitted in a fight 'gainst a super-power in 300, and somehow agrees with notion that yeah, 300 is a pro-bush vehicle. bravo. another triumph of reason.

 

cospiracy nuts see conspiracies everywhere. congrats. you prove once again that a good conspiracy is bestest when it has as little fact as possible to support.

 

"Or maybe Hollywood decided 300 would make more money because it's politically relevant? It's not a conspiracy theory to push out a film of public interest in order to make more doe. See Munich, Kingdom Under Heaven, etc.."

 

the most circular absurdity we has seen today. is NOT politically relevant 'less you imagine in all kinds o' crap as azar has done... stuff which the director and writer has both said ain't there, and stuff which would clearly be 180 degrees opposite of EVERYTHING miller has ever done in past. "Fight for freedom" is not changing 300 to pro-establishment. brown-skinned enemies? HA! a legislature that lacks patriotism? you gotta be kidding. these middling details (one of which proves opposite of what you suggest,) in no way changes fact that 300 is a tale of how a vigilante king ignores corrupt laws and goes forth on a suicide mission to fight a Tyrant/Superpower from a foreign land, a Tyrant/Superpower that seeks to conquer and enslave his people. no doubt the producers/directors/and writers had some fears that the reasonable but inaccurate argument would be raised that miller's tale were pro-terrorist and anti-american, 'cause unlike azar gymnastics, it ain't hard to see 300 as anti-establishment at the very least.

 

sure, ignore fact that the obvious and simple explanation for 300 production were the success of sin city... 'cause that makes too much sense. instead you gotta somehow imagine that 300 is actually a middle-east-war-on-terrorism allegory to explain why it were made. and further ignore the fact that it seems like most people ain't seeing no political allegory at all, and those that does is split as to whether it is pro or con on the issue. that 'bout right?

 

...

 

sure, that makes perfect sense.

 

nuts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Azarkon]

Eh, there's no end to this argument, because you're not even following logic now (not to mention completely misrepresenting my points - "for chrissakes, brown-skinned enemies were one o' your so-called points" - WHERE?) You're just denying everything I say by suggesting that the only, even mildly credible political angle (which you don't even believe in, since you think there is no political angle) is that of Leonidas/Terrorist vs. Bush/Xerxes - despite the fact that so many people interpreted it otherwise. Not to mention, your insistence on arguing about Miller and the original 300 comic book makes no sense, given that my argument all long have been with the movie. I guess it just proves your point that two people could look at the same thing and each see something completely different - and yet, I should add, each believes in his own version of the truth so strongly that he can only see the dissenter as a nutjob. I'll address one thing, though:

 

and Gromnir will once more try to explain miller to you, and where a 180 took place... 'cause our only claim is that you tooks a logical 180 rather than that your pov reversed. you see black, and then try to argue that you is actually showing us white. see, miller's writing DOES INDEED suggest various pro-liberty and pro-vigilante view points, which is why so many critics thought he were pro-terrorism and pro-anarchy. the critics and fans who thought that miller were pro-terrorist were not wacky and out in left feld, even if they were trying too hard to add politics into miller's works. IF miller had been making a political statement with his writing, then it would clearly have been an anti-establishment message. 300, written pre-bush and war on terrorism, is clearly having much similar themes and characters to previous miller works, same fight for liberty and freedom message. same anti-authority stuff. same old miller that gots him the wacky lefty liberal label.

 

so, azar comes along and knows of miller pov on the war on terrorism stuff (which is just a small issue as far as personal politics is concerned,) and he sees or hears of 300 and how some white looking guys is spouting off 'bout freedom and they is fighting brown-skinned enemies, and azar complete ignores all the repeated miller content likes liberty and vigilante justice, and how a single person or small group is pitted in a fight 'gainst a super-power in 300, and somehow agrees with notion that yeah, 300 is a pro-bush vehicle. bravo. another triumph of reason.

 

300 having a political angle is a commentary on the film. Miller following Bush in his political perspective on Iraq is a commentary on his person. Nowhere did I suggest a logical connection between the two (in fact, I said that one did not explain the other). Heck, I even pointed out the absurdity of involving Miller in the discussion because like it or not, 300 is not a completely faithful adaptation of the book. The lines that stood out the most as political angling were the lines that were added by Snyder. My only argument, with respect to the book, was that it being adapted in the current political context might very well have been a ploy designed to sell more tickets, which would then call for Snyder to add more political angling (and he did.)

 

Furthermore, 300 being anti-establishment is only relevant insofar as Bush can be symbolically cast as The Man. Is Bush the Man? Not if he's Leonidas. Kings and presidents are not automatically representations of The Man, especially when they violate international law to attack a foreign country and are politically isolated at home. Yes, Miller did get flak in the past (due to 300, even) for being pro-terrorism, so it might seem ironic that his work's adaptation is being criticized for the opposite, now. But that, as I said, is only because a work can stand for different things to different people at different times - this is perfectly valid and unproblematic in the interpretation of art. It does not mean the interpreter is nuts, because it's got nothing to do with the work's INTENTION, and everything to do with its SIGNIFICANCE. In no way can Miller be blamed for propaganda (and you're nuts for thinking that I ever claimed this) because that is an accusation of intention and since 300 was written in 1998 he could never have had that intention. Snyder, now, CAN be blamed for propaganda in his adaptation - even so, that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that Snyder introduced blatant political angles and dialogue in order to make the film more relevant to the contemporary context, and that these added content makes Leonidas more similar to Bush. If that's where we agree to disagree, I'm satisfied.

 

But don't act like I'm a nutjob because of your strawmans and misrepresentations.

 

Let's view the chronology to make sure we're on the same page:

 

* In the beginning, ~300 Spartans + many more Greeks die at the Battle of Thermopylae

* More than two thousand years later, Frank Miller the comic book artist is inspired by the event and creates 300, combining the story with his own anti-establishment, pro-liberty themes

* Almost a decade later, Snyder adapts Miller's work and adds his own filler content ontop of what Miller wrote

* Critics see it; many criticize it for having a pro-bush stance, some think that it's a propaganda piece designed to justify Bush's stance towards Iran

* Audiences see it; some decide that it's pro-Bush, some pro-terrorist, and many nothing at all

* Gromnir sees it, and thinks that the first two groups are stupid, but especially the first group, since they don't know Frank Miller is anti-establishment

* Azarkon sees it, and thinks that Snyder's additions make the film more political and more pro-Bush than it would otherwise be, and sympathize with the critics who read it as such, though he doesn't recognize it as propaganda

* Gromnir and Azarkon have a long, heated, and ultimately futile discussion over who's right

* (Present Time)

Edited March 13, 2007 by Azarkon

[Gromnir]

"But don't act like I'm a nutjob because of your strawmans and misrepresentations."

 

don't forget your circular reasoning and your own reliance 'pon straw men... though we concede that some o' your strawman routine were simply poor reading. am particularly a fan of the conspiracy theory 'bout timing of 300 release. of course 300 is political pro-bush, just look at how/when it were released, right? but to get there we gotta accept 300 as being viewed as a movie 'bout the middle-east conflict, which requires us to accept on your initial premise that 300 content were politically motivated. classic, really.

 

"Furthermore, 300 being anti-establishment is only relevant insofar as Bush can be symbolically cast as The Man"

 

actually, no. 300 had an anti-establishment message long before bush became President and that message actually exists beyond politics. even miller has admitted that his works got a strong pro-liberty and anti-establishment message... but assume for a moment that xerxes is representative of no more than xerxes. great. how does that change our observations o' 300 insofar as basic themes is concerned? not at all... which is exactly why the anti-establishment folks love miller. you still got the vigilante freedom fighter flaunting the law to go off and get himself killed in a fight with a seemingly unbeatable tyrant. freedom is worth fighting for. freedom is worth dying for. change the names and dress up bush in xerxes garb or bush garb (HA!) and the core story not change a bit. heck, change the title to TDKR and you still got same message. you quibble over which character symbolizes what nation or leader, but you ignore the gosh darned story.

 

so yeah, in that sense we thinks you is a nut job... a nut job like so many other folks who works so damned hard to plant political motivations and causes into a piece o' literature or in a film, you work overtime to show how some detail makes 300 looks like pro-bush propaganda, while complete ignoring the actual gosh darned story.

 

and yeah, we gots no doubt that some audiences and critics has seen pro-bush propaganda in 300. as we noted above, thousands o' people saw the virgin mary and proof of God's existence in a gosh darned grilled cheese sandwich. People will see what they wish to.

 

HA! Good Fun!