Frank Miller’s “300” and the Persistence of Accepted Racism

When Frank Miller’s “300″ film was released, I was absolutely outraged by the racist content of the film and more so at the insensitivity of movie-goers who simply argued “it’s just a movie.” Later on, I would hear these same individuals say, “The movie makes you want to slice up some Persians.” I wrote an article about the film almost immediately after it was released, and now that I’m still noticing people quoting the movie or listing it as their “favorite movies,” I’ve decided to update my original post and discuss some points that will hopefully shed some new light.

“300” not only represents the ever-growing trend of accepted racism towards Middle-Easterners in mainstream media and society, but also the reinforcement of Samuel P. Huntington’s overly clichéd, yet persisting, theory of “The Clash of Civilizations,” which proposes that cultural and religious differences are the primary sources for war and conflict rather than political, ideological, and/or economic differences. The fact that “300” grossed nearly $500 million worldwide in the box office may not be enough to suggest that movie-goers share the film’s racist and jingoistic views, but it is enough to indicate how successful such a film can be without many people noticing its relentless racist content. As Osagie K. Obasogie wrote in a brilliant critique of the film, “300” is “arguably the most racially charged film since D. W. Griffith’s ‘The Birth of a Nation’” – the latter being a 1915 silent film that celebrated the Ku Klux Klan’s rise to defend the South against liberated African-Americans. Oddly enough, both films were immensely successful despite protests and charges of racism.

Media imagery is very important to study. Without analyzing and critiquing images in pop culture, especially controversial and reoccurring images, we are ignoring the most powerful medium in which people receive their information from. A novel, for example, may appeal to a large demographic, but a film appeals to a much wider audience not only because of recent video-sharing websites and other internet advancements, but also because the information is so much easier to process and absorb.

According to the Cultivation Theory, a social theory developed by George Gerbner and Larry Gross, television is the most powerful storyteller in culture – it repeats the myths, ideologies, and facts and patterns of standardized roles and behaviors that define social order. Music videos, for example, cultivate a pattern of images that establish socialized norms about gender. In a typical western music video, women are portrayed wearing the scantiest of clothing and dancing in erotic and provocative ways that merely cater to their heterosexual male audiences. These images of women appear so frequently and repetitively that they develop an expectation for women in the music industry, i.e. in order to be successful, a woman needs to have a certain body type, fit society’s ideal for beauty, and dance half-nakedly. Stereotypical images of men in music videos, on the other hand, include violent-related imagery, “pimping” with multiple women, and showing off luxury. Such images make violence and promiscuous sexual behavior “cool” and more acceptable for males. As we can see from two studies by Greeson & Williams (1986) and Kalof (1999), exposure to stereotypical images of gender and sexual content in music videos increase older adolescents’ acceptance of non-marital sexual behavior and interpersonal violence.

Cognitive Social Learning Theory is another social theory which posits, in respect to media, that television presents us with attractive and relatable models for us to shape our experiences from. In other words, a person may learn particular behaviors and knowledge through observing the images displayed on television. A person may also emulate the behavior of a particular character in a film or television show, especially if a close-identification is established between the viewer and the character. Both theories – Cultivation Theory and Cognitive Social Learning Theory – apply in my following analysis of “300.”

In order to deconstruct “300,” I will start by (1) discussing its distortion of history, then (2) contrast the film’s representation of Persians and Spartans, (3) correlate Frank Miller’s Islamophobic remarks on NPR with the messages conveyed in “300,” and (4) conclude with the importance of confronting stereotypical images in mainstream media and acknowledging the contributions of all societies and civilizations.

Distortion of History

Initially a graphic novel written and drawn by Frank Miller, who is best known in the comic book industry for reinventing Batman in his critically acclaimed “The Dark Knight Returns,” the inspiration for “300” stems from true historic events, although Mr. Miller states that it was never intended to be a historically accurate account of the Battle for Thermopylae. In any case, the information we have about the Battle for Thermopylae comes from the classical Greek author, Herodotus, who lived in the Persian city of Halicarnassus. His book, “The Histories,” became part of Western folklore in 1850, when America embraced it as the leading authority on Persian history. Interesting enough, and many people may not know this, is that prior to 1850, the West had a very favorable impression of the Persian Empire, particularly because its main source for Persian history was rooted in the Bible and the “Cyropaedia,” which was written by another Greek author named Xenophon. The “Cyropaedia” glorifies the rule of Cyrus the Great, a benevolent Persian king who will be discussed later. In respect to the Battle of Thermopylae, the events may have occurred, but it was far different than the famous myth explains: 300 Spartans held Thermopylae for three days against over a million Persian soldiers.

This version of history is portrayed in the Hollywood adaptation of “300” in heavily stylized fashion that remains faithful to the comic book. The film’s director, Zack Snyder, said during an MTV interview, “[t]he events are 90 percent accurate. It’s just in the visualization that it’s crazy.” And yet, the film hardly mentions that the 300 Spartans were allied with over 4,000 Greeks on the first two days of the battle, and over 1,500 on the final day (other sources mention that there were 7,000 to 10,000 Greek allies). The battle was fought in a narrow mountain pass of Thermopylae where not even two chariots could pass through side by side; the choice of using this terrain benefited the Spartans and their Greek allies immensely against the Persians. Many historians agree that the massive Persian army would have obliterated the Spartan/Greek forces without much difficulty if the battle were fought on an open battlefield. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the Spartans were heavily armored and wore armor that weighed 30-40 kg, while the Persians were lightly armored.

Ephraim Lytle, assistant professor of Hellenistic History at the University of Toronto, states that “300” selectively idealizes Spartan society in a “problematic and disturbing” fashion, which would have seemed “as bizarre to ancient Greeks as it does to modern historians.” Touraj Daryaee, Baskerville Professor of Iranian History at the University of California, Irvine, criticizes the film’s use of classic sources:

Some passages from the Classical authors Aeschylus, Diodorus, Herodotus and Plutarch are spilt over the movie to give it an authentic flavor. Aeschylus becomes a major source when the battle with the “monstrous human herd” of the Persians is narrated in the film. Diodorus’ statement about Greek valor to preserve their liberty is inserted in the film, but his mention of Persian valor is omitted. Herodotus’ fanciful numbers are used to populate the Persian army, and Plutarch’s discussion of Greek women, specifically Spartan women, is inserted wrongly in the dialogue between the “misogynist” Persian ambassador and the Spartan king. Classical sources are certainly used, but exactly in all the wrong places, or quite naively.

As I wrote in my post on “The Truth About Thanksgiving: Brainwashing of the American History Textbook,” omitting and ignoring an entire race of people in historical accounts is a form of racism because it negates the achievements and stories of the “Other.” In the film, Persians constantly threaten Spartans with slavery, and yet, any honest historian knows that the Persian Empire, particularly the Achaemenid Empire, was built on a model of tolerance and respect for other cultures and religions. According to the documentary, “Persepolis Recreated,” the Persian Empire is the first known civilization in the history of humankind to practice international religious freedom. Images carved on the walls of Persepolis testify how Persians interacted and conversed with nobleman of other nations respectfully and without enmity. Denying another civilization its own accomplishments and contributions to the world is like blotting them out from history altogether and rewriting one’s own prejudice version. As we will learn later, any mentioning of Persian valor, compassion, and sophistication, would have resulted in a potential backfiring to the film’s agenda.

At one point in the film, the Spartan protagonist, King Leonidas, describes the Athenians as “boy lovers,” which, according to Paul Cartledge, professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, is ironic, since “the Spartans themselves incorporated institutional pederasty [erotic relationships between adolescents and adult men] into their educational system.”

The fact that Frank Miller and Zack Snyder stripped the Spartans of homosexual relations and, instead, made them accuse the Athenians of being “boy lovers” in order to reinforce their masculinity, shows us a distortion of history that favors a heavily masculinized and homophobic take on the Spartans. In our society, gay men are frowned upon because society discourages men to behave in ways that are contrary to their expected gender traits, i.e. a man must be strong, emotionless, and courageous – and of course, these play into stereotypes about gay men since it suggests they cannot possess any of those traits. Therefore, if a man is a “boy lover,” he can never be as great of a fighter as a heterosexual Spartan. It’s obvious that mentioning the facts about Sparta’s institutional pederasty would not have made a connection with the film’s directed heterosexual male audience. This is evident from Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” film, where many expressed their outrage over Alexander engaging in homosexual relations, therefore never developing a close-identification with the character.

Distorting the history in “300” merely fulfills one component in glorifying the Spartans and vilifying the Persians. In the next section, we will see how the film’s visual representation of Spartans and Persians accompany its biased history for the sake of reinforcing the divide between West and East.

Spartans and Persians: Glorification, Demonization, and Tokenism

Perhaps the most noticeable offense in the film is how the Persians are horrifically depicted as monsters. It is not hard to notice the punctuated differences in skin color: the white-skinned Spartans versus the dark-skinned Persians. The Persian King, Xerxes, is shown as an abnormally tall, dark-skinned, and half-naked man with facial piercings, kohl-enhanced eyes and, as Dana Stevens from Slate writes, “[has] a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him.” The rest of the Persians are faceless savages and demonically deformed. This demonization of the Persian race extends to malformed characters, including Persian women, who are depicted as lesbians and concubines – and, as established earlier, being gay or lesbian according to “300” is a “bad thing.” Even the elephants and rhinoceroses look like hell spawns. Stevens also adds:

Here are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with the “bad” (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown people. Disfigured people. Gay men… Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians. Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws…

Also noticeable is how the Spartans wear no body armor; instead they are bare-chested and wear only a helmet, cape, and underwear. This is common in comic books where physical attributes of male characters such as muscles are magnified and exaggerated to symbolize strength, power, and heroism. In sheer contrast, the Persians are dressed in typical Middle-Eastern attire in pure Orientalist fashion, which only degrade them into invisible and insignificant characters without stories. We have seen these contrasting images of West and East cultivated before, and we still see them today. Whenever a crisis in the Middle-East is covered by the mainstream Western media, we tend to see the images of garbed Middle-Eastern men burning flags and shouting like barbarians, but rarely ever see scholarly and intellectual Middle-Easterners who are treated with respect and credibility. As Jack G. Shaheen discusses in his book, “Reel Bad Arabs,” Hollywood is guilty of vilifying Arabs and Muslims; repeating images of light-skinned and attractive Western (mostly American) counter-terrorist heroes blowing away dark-skinned, unattractive, and “rag-headed” Middle-Easterners. These images have been repeated so much in the mainstream media that they become the socialized norm: Arab/Muslim = Evil, oppressive, terrorist, and uncivilized, etc. Although the ancient Persians in “300” are neither Arab nor Muslim, they are confined into the same group through modern-day Orientalism.

Throughout the film, for instance, the constant emphasis on “The Clash of Civilizations” is not just limited to the manner of visual representations, but rather extends to what the Spartans and Persians stand for. Early in the film, we see the Spartan King, Leonidas, resist against the Persian call for “submission” by bellowing about freedom and liberty. Just like the visual depictions of Persians in “300” are no different than Hollywood’s stereotypical and insulting representation of Arabs and Muslims, neither are the themes. As adolescents and fans alike eccentrically shout the film’s most memorable quote, “This is Sparta!” – a line that Leonidas delivers right before kicking a black man down a well – they knowingly or unknowingly establish a close-identification with the Spartan characters and, subsequently, the heroism they are meant to epitomize. As a result, Persians get perceived, in modern terms, as “terrorists” – monstrous beings that are mysteriously driven by an innate desire to conquer, slaughter, and oppress.

These differences between Spartans and Persians ring eerily similar to modern-day tensions between the West and the Middle-East. As Obasagie writes, “this racialized depiction of freedom, nation, and democracy becomes central to “300’s” take home message,” but what remains even more unnoticed is the film’s “unapologetic glorification of eugenics.” In the very beginning of the film, for example, we see the newborn Spartans being inspected for “health, strength, and vigor,” while the weak and disabled are hurled off a cliff onto a large pile of dead babies. Obasogie further elaborates:

The film suggests that this rather crude form of eugenics is put in place for military reasons: every Spartan child should either be able to become a soldier or give birth to one… Initially shocked, audiences are quickly reassured that this is all for the greater good: nation, freedom, and the Spartan family. How else can Sparta defend itself – and inspire modern democracies – unless it reserves scarce resources for the strongest?

Strongest men, that is, which brings me to my next point: the exploitation of female characters. A blog post written at explains “Why Women Should Go See ‘300.’” The list, which is not even written by a woman, reads: 1. Gerard Butler, 2. Gerard Butler Naked, 3. Empowered Women, 4. Strong Relationships, and 5. 300 Nearly Naked Men with 8-Pack Abs. The author apparently thinks that male eye-candy, romantic relationships, and a dash of “feminism” constitute a “good film” for all women.

At first glance, the Spartan Queen Gorgo may look like an empowered woman, but she is a token character, at best. In a predominately White male film, she serves as the only central female character and assumes a pseudo-feminist role for the sake of reinforcing the film’s racism and singular image of masculinity. For instance, early in the film, the Persian messenger angrily responds to her, “What makes this woman think she can speak among men?” She responds proudly, “Because only Spartan women give birth to real men.” Yes, real men, i.e. the heteropatriarchal view of masculinity: aggressive, violent, dominating, muscular, etc. It seems that any man who doesn’t meet these characteristics is not a “real man.” It also seems that Spartan women are treated as merely “manufacturers” of these “real men.”

The mentioning of women occurs enough times in the film to establish that Spartans treat their women “better” than the Persians. The only Persian women we see are disfigured sex slaves.  In actuality, there were Persian Empresses such as Azarmidokht, who ruled Persia under the Sassanid Empire. Ancient Persian women not only engaged in political matters, but also served as military commanders and warriors. One of the great commanders of The Immortals was a Persian woman named Pantea (pictured left), and during the Achaemenid dynasty, the grand admiral and commander-in-chief for the Persian navy was a woman named Artemisia. Persian women also owned property and ran businesses. Unfortunately, we do not see any such representation in “300.”

A counter-argument may state that Queen Gorgo actually plays a pivotal role in the film since she convinces the council to send more soldiers to aid the Spartans. But her success could never have been accomplished if she did not do what stereotypical female characters usually do: use her body to get what she wants. Queen Gorgo realizes she has very little choice when the corrupt Spartan politician, Theron, says he wants sex in exchange for helping her.  After she drops her top, Theron forces her against the wall and rapes her.  Later on, Theron stands before the council and accuses Queen Gorgo of being an adulteress and a “whore Queen.”  Although Queen Gorgo stabs him in this scene, it’s nowhere near as disturbing as the rape scene.

As we have seen in this section, the glorified violence, racism, and erotic imagery of the Spartans, as well as the use of women, accentuates their superiority over the Persians, but perhaps nothing can drive the point home more than Frank Miller in his own words.

Frank Miller and Islamophobia

It should be in the interest of those who may disagree with my analysis of “300” to listen to Frank Miller’s interview on National Public Radio (NPR) on January 24th, 2007 (or read the transcript). The interview followed former President Bush’s State of the Union address and is pasted below (emphases added):

NPR: […] Frank, what’s the state of the union?

Frank Miller: Well, I don’t really find myself worrying about the state of the union as I do the state of the home-front. It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants … and we’re behaving like a collapsing empire. Mighty cultures are almost never conquered, they crumble from within. And frankly, I think that a lot of Americans are acting like spoiled brats because of everything that isn’t working out perfectly every time.

NPR: Um, and when you say we don’t know what we want, what’s the cause of that do you think?

FM: Well, I think part of that is how we’re educated. We’re constantly told all cultures are equal, and every belief system is as good as the next. And generally that America was to be known for its flaws rather than its virtues. When you think about what Americans accomplished, building these amazing cities, and all the good its done in the world, it’s kind of disheartening to hear so much hatred of America, not just from abroad, but internally.

NPR: A lot of people would say what America has done abroad has led to the doubts and even the hatred of its own citizens.

FM: Well, okay, then let’s finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.

NPR: As you look at people around you, though, why do you think they’re so, as you would put it, self-absorbed, even whiny?

FM: Well, I’d say it’s for the same reason the Athenians and Romans were. We’ve got it a little good right now. Where I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he motivated our military, but he didn’t call the nation into a state of war. He didn’t explain that this would take a communal effort against a common foe. So we’ve been kind of fighting a war on the side, and sitting off like a bunch of Romans complaining about it. Also, I think that George Bush has an uncanny knack of being someone people hate. I thought Clinton inspired more hatred than any President I had ever seen, but I’ve never seen anything like Bush-hatred. It’s completely mad.

NPR: And as you talk to people in the streets, the people you meet at work, socially, how do you explain this to them?

FM: Mainly in historical terms, mainly saying that the country that fought Okinawa and Iwo Jima is now spilling precious blood, but so little by comparison, it’s almost ridiculous. And the stakes are as high as they were then. Mostly I hear people say, ‘Why did we attack Iraq?’ for instance. Well, we’re taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, we’re doing the same thing now.

NPR: Well, they did declare war on us, but…

FM: Well, so did Iraq.

Iraq declared war on the United States? Not only are Frank Miller’s words filled with incredible absurdity and ignorance, they’re also plagued by disgusting prejudice that should raise questions about his underlying messages in “300” and other recent works of his. One of the things I found really disturbing in Miller’s interview was how he suggested that “teaching all cultures are equal” and “every belief system is as good as the next” is a bad thing! What is he implicating here? Are we to teach that certain cultures and belief systems are better than others?

Miller uses the phrase “sixth century barbarism” as a coded reference to Islam and lumps the entire Muslim world into one stereotype. Then he says “I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.” Perhaps someone should educate Mr. Miller that the Islamic empires preserved the beloved Greek philosophical texts by Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Ptolemy, Aristotle, and many others. He should also be informed that algebra was invented by a Persian Muslim, Mohammad Al-Khwarizmi. The word English word for “algorithm” actually comes from “Al-Khwarizmi” and the significance of algorithms in computers, programming, engineering, and software design is immensely critical. As stated by Michael H. Morgan, author of “Lost History: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers, and Artists,” Al-Khwarizmi’s new ways of calculating “enable the building of a 100 story towers and mile-long buildings, calculating the point at which a space probe will intersect with the orbits of one of Jupiter’s moons, the reactions of nuclear physics… intelligence of software, and the confidentiality of a mobile phone conversation.” Ironically, the Western achievements that Frank Miller boasts about could not have been possible without the collaboration of civilizations.


As I have written many times in my previous essays, racism is most dangerous when it has been made more acceptable in society. When the Nazis dehumanized the Jews, they did so in cartoons and propaganda films so that the rest of the country didn’t feel sorry about killing them. When early American cartoons and cinema depicted African-Americans, they drew them with ugly features and had White actors wear blackface makeup, respectively (something that certainly continues to happen). At the time, these obviously racist acts were acceptable. In modern times, when the insulting Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were released, many non-Muslims were too shocked at the Muslim world’s reaction than actually taking the time to realize that the cartoons were drawn out of hate and sheer Islamophobia. Rather than seeing the cartoons as racist or dehumanizing, many defended it as “freedom of expression.” The manner in which certain people in the Muslim world reacted to the Danish cartoons is another subject altogether, but it’s worth mentioning that their response represents a sensitivity that the West has made very little efforts to understand, especially within the context of Islamophobia, western imperialism, colonialism, economic exploitation, etc. For Islamophobes, demonizing the Prophet of Islam wouldn’t be such a bad idea since dehumanizing the enemy is an essential process of war. Vilifying the “Other” makes racial slurs acceptable – slurs like “rag heads,” “camel jockeys,” “towel heads,” “dune coons” among much worse things.

Although the Persians in “300” are not Muslim (the movie takes place in the Pre-Islamic and Pre-Christian era), the visualization of Persians are identical to the stereotypical images we see of Muslims in other media representations. Demonizing the Persians during a time when Middle-Easterners and Muslims are already being vilified simply makes dehumanization of the “Other” acceptable and more recognizable. I remember having one odd conversation with a young man who started his argument by saying, “Xerxes and his Muslim army were a bunch of tyrants.” I stopped him immediately and told him that his ignorant comments are precisely the reason why I raise awareness and accuse “300” of being a propaganda film. Xerxes and his Persian army were not Muslim, yet I saw many people correlating the film with present-day tensions between the United States and Iran. Joseph Shahadi recently informed me that the right-wing party of Italy even uses images of “300” in their campaign posters! It’s sad how many don’t seem to realize that dehumanization of certain groups has dangerous consequences; after all, before the Holocaust, Jews were dehumanized.

“300” may look like a visual breakthrough in cinema “art”, but that doesn’t make up for its blood-spattering jingoism or its racist content. Counter-arguments in the film’s defense are often weak with excuses like, “it’s just a movie,” or “it’s based on a comic book” or “it’s simply meant to entertain.” The counter-arguments are short and weak because the film is unapologetic and doesn’t contain anything sympathetic or appreciative about Persians, their culture, and their history. It would benefit Frank Miller and Zack Snyder if they saw Ridley Scott’s brilliant film, “Kingdom of Heaven,” which explores the complexity of war and celebrates dialogue between great civilizations. Such films are beneficiary to society because they convey much-needed messages of coexistence, respect, and understanding that reach wide audiences.

On a personal note, it is discouraging that so many people, including academics, doctors, and scholars, are either not bothered or don’t see the racism in “300.” And every once in a while, another one of my friends will do the Spartan “Ha-oooh!” chant around me and not realize how offensive it is. The fact that so many people cite the movie and enjoy watching it provides enough support for the cognitive social learning theory, where people find the Spartan characters likable and admirable. It is likely that this may be the reason why so many are defensive of the film – simply because they like the movie so much. But society needs to be bold enough to stamp its foot down and say we will not tolerate racism, just like we would never tolerate watching or promoting films that glorify the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. As Dana Stevens writes, “If “300” had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside “The Eternal Jew” as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war.”

My personal hope is that people will appreciate this analysis and realize the immense impact media has on shaping our thoughts, perspectives, and views of each other. I would also hope that people are inspired to study ancient Persian history and learn about the countless contributions of the Persians, who were among the great philosophers, thinkers, poets, artists, physicians, mathematicians, astronomers, and innovators in human history – before and after the Islamic era. I must point out that almost 90% of the paintings I post on my blog are Persian paintings (compare them with Frank Miller’s horrific depiction of Persians in “300″ and you will understand how upset and offended one can be).

The release of “300” angered, but also frustrated me because of the film industry’s relentless demonization of not just Persians, but Arabs, South Asians (especially Pakistanis), and Muslims in general. As evident in “300,” there are people making a living out of vilifying our cultures, histories, and religions while aspiring Muslim filmmakers struggle to get their films funded and/or produced. Without a doubt, the Islamophobia and racism existing within Hollywood makes this challenge even more difficult.

I believe very firmly that truth prevails in the end and I have faith that Arabs, Iranians, South Asians, and Muslims alike are on their way in making a profound difference in our world. Someday, Muslim-majority countries will no longer be demonized and feared, but appreciated and respected. The media has the power to turn tables around in such a way.


29 thoughts on “Frank Miller’s “300” and the Persistence of Accepted Racism

  1. An excellent post and analysis. I must confess that until this time I was blissfully ignorant of this film, and of Frank Miller.

    “This version of history is portrayed in the Hollywood adaptation of “300” in heavily stylized fashion that remains faithful to the comic book”

    Well that just about says it all in terms of the film’s high box office appeal among dichotomous thinking Americans, and internationally, where American films seek wide distribution and so are heavy on action and visuals and light on nuance.

    It seems to me that since the collapse of the Soviet empire US films need a new nemesis, and Arab Muslims (are there any other kind?–in reality yes, in cinema no) have served that purpose since before 9/11, and of course that has crescendoed since.

    The Frank Miller interview is frightening. He thinks contemporary reality in cartoon terms, and has an amazing capacity to conflate cultures, and culture and religion*, and a disturbing lack of regard for historical accuracy, even for a cartoonist, some of whom are truly brilliant and fully exploit the potential of the genre. The latter would include Marjane Satrapi , the Persian-Iranian writer and illustrator of Pesepolis, book and film.

    “The Arab, Iranian, and/or Muslim communities need to make their mark in the film industry and I cannot stress that enough.”

    So true, and that mark should be both in the arthouse cinemas and in the mainstream ones, and by more than dissidents of their regime. This is one of the reasons the loss of film maker Moustapha Akkad was so great. Although I’m blissfully ignorant of the “Halloween” horror movies he produced, Lion of the Desert and The Message are examples of what he could have done to contribute popular but high quality productions on Islamic culture. Distribution, promotion, and critical reception would be separate issues.

    *I’m sure and most readers know this, but I feel compelled to clarify that female genital mutilation is not an Islamic practice, but a cultural one that predated Islam. When Islam arrived in regions where it was and still is customary, notably “Abyssinia”, the Prophet allowed it without recommending it, and advised that the degree of cutting be minimal. Minimizing cutting or reducing it to a needle prick is one of the interim goals today in efforts to eliminate the practice that continues to predominate in a belt across the South Sahara, especially the Horn of Africa (and Egypt). Dr. Nawal Noor a Sudanese-American obgyn practising in Boston, and a McArthur Grant recipient, is doing excellent research and educational work on the topic, and also surgically repairs the complications women suffer, and surgically prevents further ones.
    That Frank Miller trots out this canard against Islam is particularly egregious.

  2. Excellent post! You should be rewarded something for taking the time to watch this dreck of a movie and then writing a nuanced critique about it! As for Frank Miller he sounds like a world class bigot and Islamophobe. I can’t believe people actually watched this movie without thinking something was seriously wrong with it in its grotesque portrayal of ancient Persian society and culture.

  3. While I agree with your analysis of the author, I can’t say the same about your critique of the movie itself.

    Going into the movie I expected two things. First, that this movie would have moral complexity on par with Indiana Jones; and second, that there would likely be a great deal of mindless violence inflicted upon legions of Persian antagonists. I did not expect historical accuracy, nor spiritual enlightenment, nor a credible appreciation of humanity’s various racial identities. The entire film is based on the pretext of hyperbole, and to award it any sort of relevance in the real world is not a fault of the film but a failure of the audience. Certain films exist simply to appease the bestial desires of man, and they have their place in the world. The obligation of an audience member is to not confuse such work with pieces which should lead us to question our lives and our principles.

    1. Dan,

      Thanks for your comment, but it seems that you’re saying this film’s racism should be excused. It’s also offensive and insulting to suggest that people who speak out against its racism are at fault.

      The film was a box office hit and immensely successful, so to imply that its racism should be excused is not only ignorant, but also an example of being racially privileged to watch a film that is offensive to certain groups of people. It’s like saying the KKK are harmless, as if no one should speak out against them since they are exercising their “freedom of speech.”

      Ignoring racist content in a film like “300” simply demonstrates one’s lack of understanding on racial issues and inter-cultural communication. Psychological studies have shown that media has effects on that ways we perceive the world and shape our attitudes on social/religious/economic/political issues. Sure, no one should expect “300” to be a historically accurate film, but no one should ignore its racism and demonization of Persian culture, history, and people.

      For you, it’s simple to blame the audience for interpreting it certain ways. But for Iranians, Muslims, and others, it’s not something we can stay silent about, especially when Islamophobia, negative sentiments about Muslims and Middle-Easterners (as well as hate crimes) have increased since 9/11. These are serious issues and the media’s influence on thought, behavior, and perceptions is a factor that shouldn’t be neglected.

      By trying to discredit my critique, you are saying “300” is harmless, but personal experiences with racial slurs which reference this film (as I pointed out in my post) as well as “300”-themed political campaigns (also mentioned in the post) state strongly otherwise.

  4. Yes. I am saying any perceived racism should be excused, just like it’s negative implications about organized religion, or people born with disabilities, or rhinoceroses. This film shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than a Jackie Chan or Arnold Schwarzenegger film. The only thing that makes the film frightening is when people believe it to hold some truth they should apply to their lives.

    There is a large difference between a movie projecting potentially offensive imagery and a secret society, which condones and commits horrible crimes against their fellow man.

    Furthermore, the use of the film by bigots to promote racist agendas is not the fault of the film. Any number of films can be corrupted for such ends. I certainly condemn using any artwork to condone inflicting harm on an innocent human being, but I will not condemn the artwork itself. That leads down the path of censorship and the belief that other humans can’t critically evaluate the world for themselves.

    Needless to say I still support your claim concerning the artist. The man’s as intolerant as he is ignorant.

    1. Dan,

      You are not understanding something here. It is not about “perceived racism.” Read Frank Miller’s Islamophobic and bigoted responses in his interview with NPR. It is BLATANT. A link is provided so you can listen to it if you want.

      It is foolish and insulting to expect people of Middle-Eastern and/or Muslim descent to ignore that kind of blatant Islamophobia.

      Your privilege is showing when you try to absolve the movie of its racist content. It’s not about censorship; when groups of people are being targeted, vilified, and demonized, it is about hate, racism, and prejudice. You don’t seem to understand how harmful these images are to the Middle-Eastern and Muslim communities. I suggest you immerse yourself in the communities that are raising concerns so that you get a better understanding of the points addressed here.

  5. Hmmm. I just noticed that in the Frank Miller interview his coded reference to Islam as “sixth century barbarism” is historically inaccurate. Historians generally agree that Islam emerged in the 600s. So, you know, technically, “seventh century barbarism” would have been the thing to say. I’m just saying, if I were an Islamophobic racist fascist BIGOT, I would make sure all of the hatred I spewed was, if not completely correct, at least Wiki-verified.

    Why can’t bigots be smarter? Oh, that’s right. ‘Cause if they were, they wouldn’t BE bigots.

    1. Admin Note: Chad – You asked why Muslims couldn’t be smarter than going around and “blowing themselves” up. Um, that’s called stereotyping. Why couldn’t Islamophobes like yourself be smarter and read my comment policy before posting something that you know will get deleted?

  6. Here via ABW.

    Decent essay.

    I would like to add that the “Evil Arab” and “Evil Muslim” – as well as the Islamophobia that has become acceptable today – were in the blossoming stages in the 1980s and 1990s thanks to some of the following movies:

    – Airplane (All the Arab/Muslim characters are armed and evil)
    – Delta Force (All the Arabs/Muslims are evil – and really hate Americans and really, really, hate Israelis)
    – Iron Eagle (Evil Col Qadafi clone flouts international law and nearly kills all-American USAF dad).
    – Navy SEALS & GI Jane (Arabs/Muslims are faceless enemies)
    – Hot Shots and Hot Shots II (See Airplane – made by the same team)
    – The Siege (Point about illegal detention lost when Muslims are ID’d as bombers)

    It should be noted that most of this was lost under the incessant jingoism, nationalism, and downright fantasist storytelling of the decade, mostly of lone white heroes destroying the crap of Vietnam (or some Russian satellite country filled with Brown or Yellow people), but nearly all of these movies perpetuate anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry in some form or another – and nearly all of these movies did well in the Box Office (Navy SEALs and GI Jane excepted…I think).

    300, on the other hand, is a case of a racial fantasy taken to its logical extreme. Nothing in the movie (or any Hollywood release, btw) is ever chosen in a vacuum or “by accident.” If the depiction of a character is one of traditional bigoted stereotypes or if a group of characters fall upon familiar racial tropes, they are placed there intentionally.

    Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim sentiment, however, did not increase after 9/11…technically. It has always been there. 9/11/01 just gave Americans the “necessary excuse” to put their own bigotry on display once again. And, like the other bigotries many Americans proudly wear on their shoulders, all of it is wrong.

    1. I would add Iron Man to that list – generic Arab terrorists. The film never even tells us what they are fighting for.

      1. Uh actually we do see arab good guys. Doctor yinsen the guy who helped tony and we first meet the modern iron man suit when tony saves an arab village from the terrorists. The ten rings are assholes who oppress other arab muslims

        And armed arabs never feature in the plot of airplane.

      2. Um, Doctor Ho Yinsen’s character was originally Vietnamese in the comic books (from a fictional Vietnamese city). They changed the setting to Afghanistan in the film version where he is played by an Iranian actor, Shaun Toub. Iranians are not Arabs. Furthermore, they never specify the ethnic background of Toub’s Yinsen in the film, but based on how he communicates in Farsi, it assumed that he, too, is Afghan. Afghans are not Arabs. Farsi is not Arabic.

        I read Jennifer’s comment as referring to the general Arab terrorist caricature that we see in media – a racist caricature that lumps Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, Turks, and others into the same group.

        And just because there is one “good Muslim” character in the film doesn’t mean racist elements cannot exist. This argument perpetuates a harmful “good Muslim vs. bad Muslim” dichotomy anyway.

      3. not to mention that it’s merely updating the story (in the 70s it was vietnam). And Rhodey’s involvement in three is seen as stupid. Most of the time it isn’t conscious racism. It’s just laziness. they need an enemy to use in their movie and arabs have been used (as have russians) so they just slap arabs in it. Hopefully we as a society will outgrow it

      4. Your comment points to how racism is so deeply embedded in our society. To view Arabs, Muslims, and other people of color as “expendable” and “convenient” to vilify and demonize is a symptom of a larger, structural problem.

    2. wait a minute Airplanes doesn’t have arabs in the plot,

      Hot shots is a spoof of silly action movies and was attacking Saddam Hussein’s regime (Saddam was a complete bastard) and is so utterly silly (I mean come on hot shots part duex involves them killing saddam by dropping a piano out of a plane.

      1. You’re failing to make the connections between media imagery and the impact is has on real people. There is no such thing as “just a movie.” Re-read the opening paragraphs. Also, watch the documentary “Reel Bad Arabs” and listen to what Jack Shaheen says at the 31:19 mark:

  7. This is a very good analysis of the racist propaganda film “300” with only one small flaw – which only comes from a lack of information rather than an erroneous assumption …

    9/11 was primarily a media fakery event heavily reliant on films such as the propaganda movies:

    Frank Miller’s 300
    Nextel’s 9|11
    United 93
    911 Hotel
    and many others

    As well as the propaganda aired as “live broadcasts” but which were incidentally just as scripted and filled with fake special effects as the Frank Miller movie you so wisely comment on. Yes, the “live broadcasts” were pre-created in a studio and there were no actual airplanes, let alone “hijackings” by the racist concept of “scary black people with pointy objects”.

    Please go to for an in-depth investigation into the propaganda arm of the U.S. military and why Frank Miller is so very very wrong about our need to “strengthen up” against an “evil enemy.”

    The enemy is the military banking entertainment complex (yes it does involve Zionists, but not only them – it’s really a pathetic self-proclaimed “elite”) which is destroying America and blaming it on Islam while cashing in as they evacuate our country of its wealth and international standing.

  8. I’m way too tired to read this in full right now but I’ll go back later and finish it. I DID like 300 for the character of Gorgo–I know “Because only Spartan women give birth to real men” is not exactly modern feminism but this part, at least, was historically accurate. Spartan women had a higher place in society than any other type of Greek woman, but it was *because* of their ability to manufacture Spartan men. So I liked that she was a clearly strong character in a way that was in keeping with her culture.

    As far as using her body… it was a selfless act. She allowed the guy to rape her to try to save hundreds of lives, and used every weapon at her disposal to get it done. I found her actions heroic.

    But I definitely agree on the other points.

    1. Dreamchain,

      Thanks for your comments. As I argue in my post, the problem with Queen Gorgo’s portrayal is that it is simply meant to fuel the ethnocentrism and racism against Persians — it’s used to express how Spartans are “superior” to Persians and, specifically, how Spartan women are “superior” to Persian women. The presence of strong, historically accurate Persian women (like the ones I mentioned in my post) are completely absent.

      Also, a woman using her body reflects a common stereotype about a woman’s empowerment in society. That is, a woman’s empowerment is measured by her appearance and she needs to use her body in order to get what she wants. The scene is disturbing because it is rape — it is violence against women.

  9. Wow! This was a great read and insight for me and you have certainly encouraged and intrigued me to look deeper into Persian culture and its history. So many thanks to you Mast Qalander for sharing your thoughts and views on this matter.

    If we get down to some of the basic rights that every human should be entitled to, it is freedom of speech. Freedom to exert your thoughts, ideas and feelings. But it is so vital that we all have an understanding that using our freedom of speech in such away that it offends ‘others’ means you are robbing these people/humans/”your fellow-selves” of one of their human rights to be able to live their lives without racial or predigest discrimination.

    My question to you though would be; can Frank Miller be blamed for his comments, thoughts and beliefs? As you say, the media, especially films, are powerful forms of propaganda. I would also like to add that it is also a very influential form of social conditioning. When the media is used in this way as it has been in 300, do you not think that the people of which these are aimed at are victims of ignorant ideological views and pro racism? Taking this into consideration and Frank Miller’s inevitable collision with this sort of domineering influence, would you really argue that 300 is Frank Miller’s creation or that Frank Miller’s train of thought comes from his own original thinking? Ever noticed how all Disney villains have those stereotypical Jewish features? What do you think Frank Miller watched as a young influential child? Unfortunately I don’t think Frank Miller had quite the same intellectual and ‘correct’ manner of thinking that you were privileged to have been around. Maybe you had someone who admired and adored you enough to have taught you these valuable lessons.

    The sad truth is these sort of films will never be censored because there is a large demographic out there willing to pay money to watch them, money fulls the economy therefore not even the authorities will censor or as you suggest add extra content to show more ‘good’ about the villain to please the minority that aren’t interested in the movie anyway. These people find it hard to be fair and equal to people within their own lives let alone care about their impact on other societies and groups they have no personal contact with.

    The Eastern world may have more civility and understanding than most Westerners will ever understand but I’m hardly one to expect them too. So I say let them have their movie and I’ll enjoy the fruits and differences our entire human race have to offer. Knowledge may be key for some but to most, ignorance is bliss.

    Buy the way, did you not think there was a gross amount of homoerotic imagery with a bunch of topless chest waxed men, trusting their hard strong spears together into other men? It was absolute phallic central! I only ask this because I get from the section where you talk about the Spartans calling the Athenians “boy lovers” to enhance their masculinity but not mentioning the obvious homoerotic imagery the film portrayed.

  10. I like your essay, I really appreciate it. I am Muslim from India I have faced racial discrimination at my work place a lot of times. they. The racial people are smart they encouraged my fellow Hindu brother to say racial comments about my religion and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). I couldn’t say anything as I was a contractor there and my company doesn’t want to spoil the client relationship that it has. Finally I left that work and took another one. The H1 Visa people are very easy targets for them as we cant fight for justice much because our companies don’t support it. I cried when he was using abusive words for prophet (pbuh) and Islam like f*** prophet Mohammad and f*** Islam like that. Still I don’t criticize America, I would criticize our Muslim countries and leader who are running monarchies and fighting in between them. Creating hostile environment to their own people. Specially Saudi Arabia, which is supporting a unjust system called petro-dollar, killing their own people who oppose it. Willingly or unwillingly Muslim countries are supporting US economy by supporting Petro-Dollar, still Americans hate Muslims. I am feeling very unsafe in America, its not worth to invest our time and family here. Save some money and go back to a Muslim country like Malaysia or Turkey etc. I sent my family back home to India. I don’t want my little kids to hear these kind of nasty words.

  11. I just found this today and it was a great read and quite informative. I have honestly never seen 300 (and now don’t intend to) but I have a lot of friends in the sequential art world who are huge fans of Miller and I never knew he was such an ignoramus. I can’t wait to tell them!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s