Moved here.
Post 83:
Ramana, it is most interesting that you brought up 300. I've only watched the trailer and I was going to comment on it yesterday: about how the actors chosen for the Greeks are generally always Anglo-Saxon or Celtic (as also in the recent Troy and Alexander; and in this case too Gerard Butler is a Scott I think). The same is true about so many movies about Rome, even Russia: western-Europeans play them all. When today there are so many from all over the world who can actually speak English, the argument no longer holds that they were searching for famous actors who are from English speaking countries.
After so many films on Ancient Rome in the technicolor era, everyone even today imagines the Romans were all fair-haired people who looked like modern-day WASPies (except for Sophia Loren who at least is Italian).
Anyway, you raised far more important points.
There is an older movie on the topic of the 300 Spartans, a technicolor movie in fact. The current '300' is based on, as you said, a graphic novel - by the same dude who wrote Sin City which was filmed a year or two back.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What was interesting was the films view of the Persians as some sort of overlords of the East who were bent on imposing their will on the free Greeks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In reality, there was mutual friction. Persia started becoming an empire faster, and it was vaster. Inevitably competition between two would-be superpowers ensued. Well, one was a transcontinental superpower and the other became one eventually.
According to the Ancient Greeks, Persia had a lot of spies and did a lot of bribing and subversion to control the Greeks - the 'Alexander' movie may have made more of this, or not, but this is a fundamental aspect of the Greek argument. The Persians denied starting aggressions - they always stated that the Greeks were the ones that went around sneaking. And then the Greeks claimed they won several battles, while the Persians claimed they had won these. These ought to still be regarded as disputed battles today.
But no one contests them, because the west believes - who else - the people they imagine they descended from. For them, the Ancient Greeks must be protected at all costs, else all of the carefully built western 'history' would come crumbling down.
However, the Greeks at least wrote several times that the Persians never lied. Whereas I read somewhere that the Persians found the Greeks peculiar in that they sometimes told falsehoods, which was seriously forbidden the Persians.
One thing that is true is that the Greeks are not the ancestors - neither the physical nor mental - of the rest of the west. Not of the UK, not of Germany, not of France, certainly not of the US. And much the same applies for Rome.
There is only Greece and Rome through which the modern west can claim antiquity. (And in doing so, they keep slighting presentday Greeks: 'you're not real Greeks' blablabla. Quite infuriating, of course.)
To this day, I am surprised that the history of Europe in any western country begins with the Greeks and then moves to the Romans... Rather peculiar when Greece and Rome had nothing to do with any Europe.
There were ancient societies in Germany and other parts (recently a 7000 year old dwelling mound has been found in Germany), and these were respectively the ancestors of German and other present-day European peoples, but Rome and Greece really had well-nigh zip to do with the ancestry and direct-heritage of the rest of Europe. Better to put it another way: the ancestors of non-Greek and non-Roman populations had zip to do with Ancient Greece and Rome.
Only present day Greeks and Italians can claim them without the shame of false appropriation. And then only the non-christians among them, as the christians willfully destroyed Ancient Greece and Rome.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->With recent scholars like VDH claiming the West and the US in particular inheriting all that is good in Greek culture there were murmurs of approval in the audience at some dialogs asserting the superiority of Greek culture.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They go from west to east in this respect: Greco-Roman > Persians > Indians > non-Oryans
where > is 'better than'.
And yet some Greek thinkers were not so narrowminded as the self-deluding American audience of the present, but were convinced that other cultures were rather grand too. This was also true of the Romans. They fought with Persia and when they fought it, there was a lot of self-aggrandisement and denouncing the Persians, but otherwise they really admired Persia. And of India too, they had good words to say.
It is only these delusional people of today that understand so little of the Ancient Greco-Roman mind. They are happy with their Oryan fantasy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One thing peculiar was having Xerxes be borne on palanquins with rams' head motif. For those who know Biblical stories that is the iconography of Baal. This is a unwarranted cross linkage for the Jews were taken to Persia from captivity by Nebuchadnezzar and it was in Persia that the idea of light and darkness etc came into the Bible. So depicting Persians as Baal worshipers or followers is an unwarranted inaccuracy might have other reasons to show that. And the Greeks had their own gods whom they worshiped and they are shown formless a la Hebrew theogony. Yes there is a female oracle but is disparaged by the King Leonidas and the oracle priests are shown in grotesque form again implying disparagement.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't know anything about the comic on which '300' is based. Possibly these things might have been in there as well. But in any case, it reminds me of what they did to Troy: no Gods. Where are the Gods, where is Discord throwing the Apple, where are Hera, Athena and Aphrodite who each tell Paris to choose them as the most beautiful and give the Apple to them? Where are the Gods divided over their faithful in Greece and in Troy? That would be the absolute minimum mention of the Gods that is required to make it the Iliad.
It is strange to swap Greek and Persian iconography: the Persians were far more self-restrictive in depicting the sacred, whereas the Greeks were like Hindus in making statues of their Gods (and heroes) wherever they could.
If it's not in the original Frank Miller's comic of '300', then I think such changes are to prevent shocking the christo audience and the oryan fans, and let them continue to believe they are proof of continuity from the Ancient Greeks.
It's also subtle rewriting of history, as most people in my generation don't read books anymore. They watch movies. And that means they don't bother confirming facts and sorting out the fictions in films based - if only slightly as in this case - on history.
Post 83:
Ramana, it is most interesting that you brought up 300. I've only watched the trailer and I was going to comment on it yesterday: about how the actors chosen for the Greeks are generally always Anglo-Saxon or Celtic (as also in the recent Troy and Alexander; and in this case too Gerard Butler is a Scott I think). The same is true about so many movies about Rome, even Russia: western-Europeans play them all. When today there are so many from all over the world who can actually speak English, the argument no longer holds that they were searching for famous actors who are from English speaking countries.
After so many films on Ancient Rome in the technicolor era, everyone even today imagines the Romans were all fair-haired people who looked like modern-day WASPies (except for Sophia Loren who at least is Italian).
Anyway, you raised far more important points.
There is an older movie on the topic of the 300 Spartans, a technicolor movie in fact. The current '300' is based on, as you said, a graphic novel - by the same dude who wrote Sin City which was filmed a year or two back.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What was interesting was the films view of the Persians as some sort of overlords of the East who were bent on imposing their will on the free Greeks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In reality, there was mutual friction. Persia started becoming an empire faster, and it was vaster. Inevitably competition between two would-be superpowers ensued. Well, one was a transcontinental superpower and the other became one eventually.
According to the Ancient Greeks, Persia had a lot of spies and did a lot of bribing and subversion to control the Greeks - the 'Alexander' movie may have made more of this, or not, but this is a fundamental aspect of the Greek argument. The Persians denied starting aggressions - they always stated that the Greeks were the ones that went around sneaking. And then the Greeks claimed they won several battles, while the Persians claimed they had won these. These ought to still be regarded as disputed battles today.
But no one contests them, because the west believes - who else - the people they imagine they descended from. For them, the Ancient Greeks must be protected at all costs, else all of the carefully built western 'history' would come crumbling down.
However, the Greeks at least wrote several times that the Persians never lied. Whereas I read somewhere that the Persians found the Greeks peculiar in that they sometimes told falsehoods, which was seriously forbidden the Persians.
One thing that is true is that the Greeks are not the ancestors - neither the physical nor mental - of the rest of the west. Not of the UK, not of Germany, not of France, certainly not of the US. And much the same applies for Rome.
There is only Greece and Rome through which the modern west can claim antiquity. (And in doing so, they keep slighting presentday Greeks: 'you're not real Greeks' blablabla. Quite infuriating, of course.)
To this day, I am surprised that the history of Europe in any western country begins with the Greeks and then moves to the Romans... Rather peculiar when Greece and Rome had nothing to do with any Europe.
There were ancient societies in Germany and other parts (recently a 7000 year old dwelling mound has been found in Germany), and these were respectively the ancestors of German and other present-day European peoples, but Rome and Greece really had well-nigh zip to do with the ancestry and direct-heritage of the rest of Europe. Better to put it another way: the ancestors of non-Greek and non-Roman populations had zip to do with Ancient Greece and Rome.
Only present day Greeks and Italians can claim them without the shame of false appropriation. And then only the non-christians among them, as the christians willfully destroyed Ancient Greece and Rome.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->With recent scholars like VDH claiming the West and the US in particular inheriting all that is good in Greek culture there were murmurs of approval in the audience at some dialogs asserting the superiority of Greek culture.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They go from west to east in this respect: Greco-Roman > Persians > Indians > non-Oryans
where > is 'better than'.
And yet some Greek thinkers were not so narrowminded as the self-deluding American audience of the present, but were convinced that other cultures were rather grand too. This was also true of the Romans. They fought with Persia and when they fought it, there was a lot of self-aggrandisement and denouncing the Persians, but otherwise they really admired Persia. And of India too, they had good words to say.
It is only these delusional people of today that understand so little of the Ancient Greco-Roman mind. They are happy with their Oryan fantasy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One thing peculiar was having Xerxes be borne on palanquins with rams' head motif. For those who know Biblical stories that is the iconography of Baal. This is a unwarranted cross linkage for the Jews were taken to Persia from captivity by Nebuchadnezzar and it was in Persia that the idea of light and darkness etc came into the Bible. So depicting Persians as Baal worshipers or followers is an unwarranted inaccuracy might have other reasons to show that. And the Greeks had their own gods whom they worshiped and they are shown formless a la Hebrew theogony. Yes there is a female oracle but is disparaged by the King Leonidas and the oracle priests are shown in grotesque form again implying disparagement.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't know anything about the comic on which '300' is based. Possibly these things might have been in there as well. But in any case, it reminds me of what they did to Troy: no Gods. Where are the Gods, where is Discord throwing the Apple, where are Hera, Athena and Aphrodite who each tell Paris to choose them as the most beautiful and give the Apple to them? Where are the Gods divided over their faithful in Greece and in Troy? That would be the absolute minimum mention of the Gods that is required to make it the Iliad.
It is strange to swap Greek and Persian iconography: the Persians were far more self-restrictive in depicting the sacred, whereas the Greeks were like Hindus in making statues of their Gods (and heroes) wherever they could.
If it's not in the original Frank Miller's comic of '300', then I think such changes are to prevent shocking the christo audience and the oryan fans, and let them continue to believe they are proof of continuity from the Ancient Greeks.
It's also subtle rewriting of history, as most people in my generation don't read books anymore. They watch movies. And that means they don't bother confirming facts and sorting out the fictions in films based - if only slightly as in this case - on history.