'Historical' film primarily fiction

By Roujin Mozaffarimehr

Last month I couldn't wait to see the new film "300." The movie was under intense scrutiny, and I wanted to form my own opinion beyond the backlash that has engulfed newspapers and blogs around the world.

"300" is based on a comic book created by Frank Miller, also known for Sin City (which I loved). I thought I'd probably love this movie, too, but I was in for a rude awakening.

In terms of thrills and entertainment, "300" is an amazing feat; most of the film was done on blue screen, successfully matching images from the original comic book. But the depiction of the characters and the historical accuracy of the film was where my enthusiasm floundered. This movie is based on the historical battle of Thermoplyae, but I'm not sure how historical the film really is.

In "300," the King of the Persian empire, Xerxes, is depicted as a nearly naked, golden, hairless, thin-eye-browed man with multiple piercings all over his face. If you look at the carvings of Xerxes in Persepolis, the capital of the Persian empire which still stands as a tourist attraction today, Xerxes is depicted with a full beard, no piercings and fully clothed. Now, we must remember the film is based on a comic book. So then why are so many people in the world offended by it?

A plethora of blogs commenting on "300" include derogatory comments about Persians. If this film is just a piece of fiction, how has it created so much animosity?

In "300," Persian soldiers wear ninja masks, and they ride rhinos into battle -- these details should point viewers in the direction of entertainment, not historical accuracy. Obviously, a film with monsters and deformed men with sharp saws as hands cannot be taken seriously. Yet people are walking out of the theater with a negative image of Persians, despite the fantastical depiction.

Maybe it wasn't the intention of the creator of this film to stir such a backlash against Persians. I'm all for free expression, yet it saddens me that people fail to see the film as just a film; Persians aren't really dark barbarians comparable to Satan, as many believe "300" suggests. But I do think it a bit understated by both Warner Brothers and the creators of this film that the movie is, in fact, a work of fiction.

"300" is based on a comic book, but this is never mentioned in the movie. In contrast, the creators of Spiderman, a film also based on a comic book, made this clear in the beginning. In Spiderman, the first few scenes establish that the film originates from famed comic book publisher Marvel -- "300" lacks such acknowledgement. Only after I started researching the film did I realize its comic book origins.

Comments made by the creator of the comic book and the creator of the film also tend to have a flip-flop feel on historical accuracy. In an MTV interview, film creator Zack Snyder stated, "The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."

At the same time, Warner Brothers released a statement saying, "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." Sort of a contradiction in ideas, isn't it?

Much of the uproar against "300" stems from the overwhelming references to current events. Why was a film that depicts Persians as backward, barbaric and uncivilized released at a time of heightened tension toward Iran? Newspapers have questioned Snyder's intention to parallel his film to today's current events. He, of course, denies all of it.

Though I am Iranian-American and hated many parts of the film that I deemed racist and offensive, I was entertained by the amazing special effects when I stopped analyzing dialogue and depictions.

So here's my point: "300" is a very entertaining movie, and that's all it's supposed to be -- an entertaining, fictional movie. Yet people walk out of the theater with a distorted view of Persians. We need to ask ourselves why this is happening and why people aren't merely satisfied with the thrills and special effects.

Yes, the film is an example of freedom of expression, but we need to question why fiction is influencing such animosity among people today. Maybe Snyder and Miller didn't intend to depict today's Persians as barbaric and anti-Western. Maybe the release of this film at a time of heightened tension between Iran and the rest of the world wasn't planned. Yet I still find it interesting that this "piece of fiction" regarded as historically accurate or even loosely accurate has stirred this much animosity toward a group of people that were, in fact, historically civilized and still are very much so today.

Roujin Mozaffarimehr is a junior political science major.