In his article "Iranian's' political fury on stylized '300' misplaced" (April 9), writer Joe Indvik '10 illustrates his ignorance not only on the subject of Iranian history and culture, but also the role film and art can play in American society. The idea that "the Persian Empire of 480 B.C. can barely be compared to modern Iran at all" is preposterous, seeing that any culture or nation that has spanned so long is bound to have some deviations over the course of 2,500 years.
While there have been significant changes in Iranian society (something that tends to happen after two and a half millennia), what Indvik does not seem to understand is that there are still strong cultural aspects of Iranian society that continue to play a significant role in Iranian culture today, including the ceremonial observance of the Nouruz (Iranian New Year) and also some of the prized literature that has thrived since the earlier centuries of Iranian history. To characterize a nation like Iran only in the context of its past 30 years is akin to compartmentalizing the history of the United States solely into its era of slavery and simply identifying it with that.
Additionally, while the film "300" does take the artistic liberty to ridiculously exaggerate and embellish aspects of the battle at Thermopylae, this "stylized and commercialized" approach does not justify the blatantly insensitive depiction of the Persians as ruthless monsters, whose empire has been lauded by historians as one of the most innovatively benevolent regimes of all time (one example being Cyrus the Great's key role in liberating the Jews in 539 B.C., returning them to Jerusalem and helping them rebuild their temple). If one were to make a popular movie today portraying Native-Americans as preposterously monstrous savages scalping white men, I would not be shocked if there was some sort of rallying outcry in reaction to a "stylized and commercialized" depiction of a people, even if it was made "to tap a market of young moviegoers looking for a bloody graphic novel adaptation on the silver screen."
The fact that the current Iranian regime, one for which I have absolutely no sympathies, has risen as an international rogue in the past 30 years should not stain the thousands of years of Iranian history, and thus make it okay to film a movie as absurd as "300." In a society where many people can be influenced by the images they see on the silver screen, especially when actual historical figures are used to interpret an event in history, Hollywood must display a sense of cultural and historical respect, thus refraining from advertently or inadvertently inculcating movie-goers with blatantly false views of a whole people. To display an opinion on a historical event through artistic representation is one thing, but to turn history on its head and insult a whole people and their history for the sake of appeasing movie-goers is a whole different story.
