300 Strong for W?
Many have noted that 300 contains--intentionally or unintentionally--a number of Bush-friendly political messages. So here are some questions for discussion:
1. Is 300 pro-war?
2. Is 300 pro-Bush?
3. Is 300 anti-Islamic?
4. Is 300 homophobic?
5. If 300 is any of these things, do you think it is intentionally?
1. Is 300 pro-war?
2. Is 300 pro-Bush?
3. Is 300 anti-Islamic?
4. Is 300 homophobic?
5. If 300 is any of these things, do you think it is intentionally?
posted by Dr. Worm at 11:44 PM
5 Comments:
Well, I haven't seen 300, which makes me a good candidate for commenting :)
I would just point out that the story has been around before Bush, and the intentions of the movie makers are clearly to make something "cool" not "political."
Just my 2 cents not having seen it.
Well, I was going to let others jump in on this first, but since only #3 has taken the bull by the horns, I'll post.
I'll concede Three's point that the story of the Battle of Thermopylae occurred before Bush, but that doesn't mean a modern rendition of it can't comment on his presidency. In argument by analogy, the events in The Crucible occurred well before Joseph McCarthy was born, but Arthur Miller's play is clearly a comment on McCarthyism.
That said, I'll fully agree with 3's second point, that the filmmakers wanted to make something "cool" and not "political." It wasn't their intention to make anything pro-Bush.
That said, Bush and his supporters can't be upset at the message of the movie, which basically boils down to "sometimes you have to go to war, even if it's not a popular decision, and even if you're not really sure if/how you're going to win."
So to answer my own questions on the -22 to 22 scale (where -22 represents "no, absolutely not, quite the opposite," and 22 represents "absolutely, 100% true," and 0 represents "eh, not really"...
Is 300 pro-war? 11
Is 300 pro-Bush? 5
Is 300 anti-Islamic? 2
Is 300 homophobic? 1
I'm interested to see all y'all's take on this, though.
My answers are not really, no, no, and no. IIRC, 300 was published before 9/11, which more or less rules out criticism of Bush.
Plus, the idea of going to an unpopular fight is a very, very small part of the main idea. It's more about fearlessness and valor in battle, even against overwhelming odds. And, keep in mind that had the weakness of the terrain not been brought to the attention of the Persian Army, the Spartans would have killed an even more ridiculous number than they already did, and arguably would have forced a retreat, with the
help of eventual reinforcements.
i think YRF is generally right. the source material (and thus the movie, because it sticks pretty closely) is really about the Spartans, and how that society worked. it's also about valor and courage, and brings out that anything can be overcome. people are just connecting it to Bush and the Iraq war because that is in the forefront of most people's minds right now. if the Iraq war weren't happening, the messages that 300 carries would be just as strong; they would just be directed in a different direction.
Post a Comment
<< Home