A lot can be said regarding ascription of meaning, more than one could fit in this posting. I think it's fair to say that meaning is always---not just in the case of propaganda---created in the mind of the viewer or listener. As for the present case---a movie which I will not be watching because, honestly, there is so much more to life---I would not be so quick to dismiss the "ancient Persia equals modern Iran" connection, as silly as it may be to think of Hollywood carrying water for the Bush/Cheney wing of the Republican party. Think about it. Iran might be the underdog in a dust-up with the U.S., but they are the regional power: they have a young, exploding, and restive population, tremendous oil wealth, and ambitious leaders. The Persia=Iran analogy which looks so goofy to us probably makes a lot of sense to tiny, underpopulated, economically-stagnant Israel. Political meaning is of course the meaning the viewer ascribes: impoverished, weak, even devastated Palestinians in the Gaza strip will probably watch those overwhelming Persians and think of Israelis. Thanks to Ben for his perspective.

Yo although I think the movie was really ill, and i'll probably see it again, I think there were undeniable political undertones. There was just one or two too many speeches about "freedom not being free" and "defending freedom from the evil of tyranny" that detracted from the overall movie going experience. While i'm not going to say it was specifically anti-persia/iran (I mean the bad guys were for the most part zombie like creatures afterall), it could still be commenting on the situation in the Middle East during 2003 and at points seemed like a military recruitment video.

That's a very valid point, Sarah, but timing also plays a role. When the Passion of the Christ came out, the U.S. government was not in the middle of any attempt to launch military action against the government of Israel, and certainly not in the name of avenging Christ. In fact, our government has been (disgustingly) shining Israel's shoes for quite a while now. There's just something about this movie being released NOW of all times, when the Bush administration is trying to drum up support for an assertion of (gasp) western superiority.

I haven't seen the movie either (seems like one of those things that's cool for a while until you realize you just wasted a couple hours), but it definitely seems wrong to me. If not propagandistic, I think it's kind of irresponsible to show something in such an absurdly one-dimensional fashion. If you want an action film, fine, but don't cast it as a serious depiction of a historical event.

When was the film ever cast as a "serious depiction of a historical event"? The official website of 300 calls it a "ferocious retelling", a phrase which I'm not sure could ever be misconstrued as "serious depiction". The site's "About the Film" page goes on to talk about director Fred Miller's "distinct vision of this ancient historic tale", again a description that leaves plenty of room for interpretation by the filmmakers. The only people that view the movie as a serious depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae are the ones who use that premise to argue against its supposed politcal undertones. It is just an action film. The types of people who want to go see good guys slashing through bad guys for two hours are most likely not the kinds of people who want to draw political conclusions from what they've seen. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers don't even make the connection between Persia and Iran. Not to demean those people -- I'm one of them, and still at least a little politcally conscious. I'm just willing to suspend that consciousness for a while as I enjoy the gratuitous violence.

Another thing - forgetting skin color is not an easy task, especially in today's very race-conscious world. People make harmful associations whether you see it happen or not.

Kumars, I wasn't trying to imply that your information was wrong or invalid, I was just curious as to what you knew, because I'm very uninformed about the financiers of the movie. That some of the main money men do have neocon ties is interesting, but, as you say, a closer look at the money behind other Hollywood movies is necessary before drawing conclusions. Forgetting skin color may not be trivial, but 300 is by no means the only movie of its type in the past few years to potentially foster harmful associations. For instance, in the LOTR trilogy, Aragorn repeatedly rallies the good "men of the west," all of whom are white, against armies of dark ogres and orcs and whatnot. I didn't hear anybody object to that, and I think 300 is essentially of the same genre as LOTR. The Persians were overwhelmingly non-white, and the Greeks were, to the best of my knowledge, overwhelmingly white. That's one fact this fanciful fictionalization of a true event does choose to preserve, and if it's possible to perceive this as implicitly racist, then there is an infinite landscape of racist influences in popular culture everywhere.

Did you all hear about how the U.S. military went to Fox (or whatever TV channel it is) and told them to tone down the torture scenes in the TV show "24" because many of their soldiers had been modeling or wanting to model their torture tactics off of what they saw on the show??

I think what everyone is missing here is that if there is any tinge of intentional political propaganda inherent in the film "300", the situations portrayed are much more analogous to the United State's previous and current invasion of Iraq than anything that the administration is planning now (although I do realize that geographically, Iran is part of what Persia once was). After all, as one of the posters stated, this film was in pre-production in 2003. I just saw the film last night, and while it was stunning visually and cinematically, well acted and directed, and just extremely lush and vibrant, and while I thoroughly enjoyed the film as a story on it's own, it was undeniable as the film wore on that the filmmakers were drawing clear comparisons to what has occurred in this nation in the last several years, and not so subtly implying that we as a country need to continue fighting for "freedom" and "our way of life". Let me begin by saying that I realize this is a film based on history, and so of course the details will not all be the same because obviously the director and producers did not set out to make a stunning picture and put their hearts into it, so I will not say it is like the war propaganda films of old because, unlike those films, this one was made for the sake of art as well, but thematically, I'd like to point out the comparisons that I couldn't help but notice as the film wore on (I'd also like to state that I had not read one review of "300" before seeing it, and had no idea there was any controversy over this film being perceived as propaganda; these conclusions were mine and mine alone, not influenced by others): 1) the side we are meant to (and so skillfully made to) root for is Sparta, a city of tough, beautiful (here, I'll just get it over with: yes, race is a factor) white men and women who are defending their freedom. The side we are made to look upon with disdain and root against is Persia, an overwhelmingly non-white population of cruel, weak people made into mindless slaves for their king (whereas the soldiers of Sparta would die for their king out of love and respect, and he for any of them) so many of whom happen to be wearing what we today recognize as traditional Arab head coverings (although whether they were Arabs is up to debate (See this article: http://argus.theorem.ca/view.php?aid=38792 ). The Persian women are portrayed as (albeit willing-looking) sex slaves, nothing but flesh to please the warriors. Whereas the Spartan women were tough, beautiful, graceful and intelligent, much revered by the men. These things could all be historically true, but I'm just pointing out the similarities, when you look at the impression of Sparta and Persia next to popular conservative impressions of the United States and the Middle East. 2) One of the opening scenes, after the introduction of King Leonidas, is of a Persian messenger coming to propose a deal with the King to avoid bloodshed ("Earth & Water" is what the Persian says he's there for), to give up some of his land and succumb peacefully to Persian rule, in order to retain some of their freedoms. One of the Spartan Councilman fetches Leonidas for the meeting, and immediately we see there is scorn for this councilman from the beautiful Queen. The Persian makes his offer, or request, and Leonidas immediately responds with fury, and defiance (none of which I disagree with, actually). The Councilman tries to jump in and say "Leonidas, we need to be cautious!" (United States Congress before the invasion of Iraq, anyone?), but Leonidas shakes him off and ends up killing the messenger and all of his group right there. He then goes to the top of a mountain to consult with the elders of Sparta (United Nations before the... well, you get it), monks of sorts who live atop the mountain, as it is their final say on whether Sparta goes to war with Persia). They are diseased and misshapen, with boils all over their faces and bodies. Leonidas constantly describes them as "hideous inbred swine" and things of that nature. The elders say they want to consult the Oracle, which turns out to be a pre-pubescent girl, presumably drugged and clothed only with a see-through white shroud, and she dances and levitates and jerks around for awhile before one of the "disgusting pig men who have needs) goes over and licks the girl's neck, at which point she tells him that Sparta will burn if they go to war, and for them to stay home for their usual celebration (I didn't catch what the name of it was, but it revolved around the full moon). So Leonidas sends his captain to gather three hundred of their best soldiers, and only ones who've borne a son to carry on their name, to assemble and come to him. The Councilman who has advised against being impulsive to begin war, came and asked what he was doing with all of these men. Leonidas replied he was just going for a walk, and that these 300 men were simply his personal bodyguards. He marches these men to war without the permission of the elders or the council. (Hmm..) 3) This councilman who advised caution, inevitably turns out to be a lying, cheating, woman-hating traitor, found with Persian coins in his robe late in the movie. He is killed after the Queen gives a speech to the council asking, wait for it... for MORE TROOPS to be sent to assist the 300 already fighting. The speech includes such beautiful statements as "We have to pay for freedom with our blood" and "Our way of life has to be protected" and "I come to you not only as a Queen, but as a wife, and a mother, and as an Americ.. er, Spartan woman, just one of 300 families who are paying for their freedom today with their men out there fighting alone" (this is not all verbatim, but you get the drift). The Councilman, who had the previous night promised to endorse her request of more soldiers (under umm... dubious circumstances), then proceeds to lay her open in front of the room, accusing her of all sorts of unmentionables, while painting himself as a saint, and denouncing her request for assistance. She guts him with a sword and they all cheer after seeing the Persian coins, intoning "Traitor! Traitor!" I just thought this was a bit over the top, that's all. The thing is, in this instance, I AGREED with the request for more troops, because (and this is the singular difference between the film and reality that no amount of flowery freedom speeches can cover), the Persians were ATTACKING them, were banging on their back door. They brought the full might of their military upon this city, with the expressed intent of taking it over. Might there be a small difference between going forth to protect your land from imminent attack, and actually going far away from home to attack a country that never once threatened your way of life? But I digress, because this really isn't about my political views, and it's not even about whether people will be affected or "brainwashed" by this movie, as some fear (although, in response to Isaac's earlier post, I submit that you may be selling short your "average American" by stating that they will not notice this flagrant attempt at garnering sympathy for a war gone bad; I think the "average American" who does NOT notice this is the most susceptible to falling prey to its' ideas), it's about the freedom of speech. The freedom of these filmmakers and investors and everyone involved in this film to shape something to fit their outlook on politics, on life. It's about the "average American's" right to watch this film and take from it what they choose, to enjoy it for its beautiful sequences, or hate it for its violence, or revere it as allegory of their political beliefs, or dislike it as an allegory of beliefs that to some have stifled the very freedom this war has intended to protect (see: Patriot Act). The freedom for me to write such things as this review, and lay it out there for people to take from it what they will as well. "300" is something to be happy about BECAUSE it invites such debate.

In reply to Ms. Reese: I want to publicly state that I rescind my comments discouraging participating in USEA and plan to attend myself this Friday. I still stand by a lot of what I said in past arguments between myself and certain other prominent Uni individuals, but in this case I think cooperation and unity is in the best interests of everyone. Keeping minorities mad at each other is exactly how suffocating white influence finds a place in today's multiracial society. One love.

Sorry, I didn't mean to implicate whites as a race. I was referring to the system of white power that America's big shots use to keep ethnic minorities from becoming too influential. That was my bad.

Great article Ben, I know it is hard to talk some sense into conspiracy theorists who see almost every occurence as some evil plot of some vast right wing conspiracy, but you've done a good job. I find it simply ridiculous that people are claiming that this is an allegory for what is happening now between the US and Iran. Mary Burnett did a nice job fictionalizing some kind of allegory between 300 and the war in Iraq, but she missed a key fact: The film is directly based off (and follows somewhat closely) a comic book which was published in 1998. Friends, these were the days of the Kosovo bombings and the Clinton scandal. Most people arguing here are probably too young to remember these days, but I can tell you that the Middle East and Iraq were very far from anyone's minds. The Iraq war was years away. The fact that the film came out now is mere coincidence, it has been in the works for years. This very fact alone should put to rest any claims of the film being an allegory for contemporary events. I also don't agree with the claims that the film promotes racism and negative stereotypes of Persians. The Persian Empire made many contributions to human civilization, for example Cyrus the Great made one of the first declarations of human rights, or the many contributions made in poetry and architecture, but this does not change the fact that in 480 BC the Persians were the bad guys in the Greco-Persian wars. The Persians were attempting to conquer an independent and free people. The Greco-Persian Wars are a seminal event in Western history. What I like about this movie is that it celebrates there events in history, which many Americans would be ignorant about as the average man on the street does not read Herodotus. The story of the 300 Spartans really is a beautiful story of honor and resistance in the name of freedom, and I urge people to take this story for what it is, a central part in our historical narrative and not as some facetious modern allegory.