January 23, 2007

Iranians' love affair with America
posted by HawthorneWingo 17 years ago
  • Ahmadinejad sucks.
  • Yes, yes, but can I get a beer with my bacon sandwich?
  • > so-called experts who have never been to Iran (or at least not since the Islamic Revolution of 1979) advise US government officials on the opinions of the Iranian populace Wasn't this one of the problems with Iraq? Ahmed Chalabi, who left Iraq in the 1950s, said that the invading troops would be welcomed with open arms.
  • Careful there, roryk - you're dangerously close to using logic. We can't have that now, can we.
  • It's such a given of how nationalism works that it's impossible to believe planners in Washington aren't aware of this, which leaves you with the unsurprising conclusion that the factors being weighed have little to do with the wishes, feelings or well-being of the Iranian people. (I am not convinced that Iran's nuclear programme amounts to a real and pressing casus belli.) I'm quite a big fan of regime change in places like Iran myself, and I would be happy see some subtle, sincere and disinterested efforts in that direction, but I don't expect anything of the sort will be achieved by governments pursuing global agendas of their own. And similar to Iraq, the likely outcome of external military intervention will produce more human misery than it prevents, so it can't be supported. The best bet is almost always to identify domestic or exile groups working for changes you agree with and support them as best you can. Sometimes that means just leaving them be, as your involvement can be counterproductive.
  • I have Serbian friends who were very upset when Serbia was bombed in 1999, and I have Iranian friends who left Iran because of the theocracy but who would still be upset if it were bombed. Nobody likes that kind of unrest in their country; I don't like Bush, but I would still be in defensive mode if my state were bombed. I think neoconservative elements in the US government have a WW2-based delusion that anything we do is just like liberating France from the Nazis, etc., which is probably where that continuing "They'll greet us as liberators!" farce comes from. It's my understanding that it would be more helpful for Americans to think of Iran, particularly the urban areas, as "European" than anything; most Americans seem to think of it as a developing nation. I don't mean that "European" is better than what Iran is, or that being "European" should be privileged, only that it's my understanding that Tehran is more like Paris or Berlin than it is like Lagos or Calcutta. ICBW. Heck, most Americans seem to think of Iran as an "Arab" nation, and it totally isn't. I bet if you ask 10 white Americans what language is primarily spoken in Iran, 9 will say "Arabic" if they have an answer at all. (If I'm the tenth, I'll tell you it's Farsi.) A really interesting book to read is Nine Parts of Desire - I think it's by Geraldine Brooks. It's about women in the Islamic world. A point made over and over is that women in countries like Saudi Arabia tend to be envious of Iranian women, because the Iranian theocratic government has typically been more interested in preserving separation of the sexes than in oppressing women per se, at least in comparison to some other countries where women have no autonomy.
  • Hey, blame the Greeks. America didn't even exist then.
  • I just watched the famed cam edition at Cinema Torrento, and despite thus missing out on some of the cinematics, can see why they might be pissed off. No one likes weak scripts and duff dialogue.
  • Way to overreact. Earth to Iran: most people in Hollywood don't know that Iran used to be called Persia. Most Americans wouldn't have made the connection ... until now.
  • I think it's nice to have a bit of purely nationalistic antagonism from Iran instead of the usual religious stuff.
  • If our luck's in it might all devolve into a healthy sporting rivalry!
  • I've read some movie reviews stateside that criticize it for that. Who did they think Leonidas fought, Canada? That said, Frank Miller tends to paint a monstrous portrait of the Persians, while the Spartans' own cruelty is spun more as courage and strength and manhood. A substantial portion of the Persian soldiers are depicted as quite literally inhuman. On the other hand, as Abiezer points out, the plot's so bereft of substance that I had difficulty getting upset over it.
  • To echo MCT's point, one might point out to them that the *actual* Greeks (Herodotus, I believe) felt that, as conquering nations go? The Persians were by far the best. The satrapies were administered fairly, there was no orgy of slaughter as per the Hittites or the Sea Peoples, local religion and trade ops were basically held intact, and so long as you didn't rebel or fail to pay tribute, the Persians pretty much left you alone. They were also considered (again by Herodotus, if memory serves) as being very honorable in battle, far more so than the Spartans or even the Greeks themselves. The whole thing at Thermopylae was prompted (forgive me, I'm working on some rusty brainage here) due to the fact the Greeks supported the little rebellion in Ionia...? So many players, so little room in the Headspace Hotel. In addition, I think that we can all agree that actual Spartans, while martial archetypes, were complete and utter psychotics as a nation and culture, and best remain in our own psyche's as entertaining - and REMOTE - fictions.
  • Si. I will say, though, that as dumbed down as the movie was, it actually did get me in the mood to get back into the Classics, dust off my old Plato and Plutarch, and finally sit down and read Herodotus, which I've never done.
  • What's the difference between the violent images in comic books and the violent images in a movie? Are they really that different? Of course I'm going to say "Yes", you know that, I know that, the other petebests know that. Because it is, that's why. Hey you gonna eat your dinner roll? Can I have it?
  • That was actually part of it that I find disappointing, if hardly surprising, Fes. I'd have been much more interested in an attempt to reconstruct a Sparta closer to what it likely was, and see something completely alien and other, than have the usual cod heroics or broad-brush morality (Hollywood - same story in a thousand settings). MCT is right about it whetting the classics appetite though, and I appreciate that, and I'm certainly not averse to a bit of sword-and-sandalry.
  • Maybe this Iranian critic doesn't realize that we don't take these kinds of movies very seriously. I could be mistaken, but I think most cinemagoers will be aware that massive liberties are usually taken with history in thes flicks.
  • Particularly when they're based on comic books.
  • Which are in turn based on other movies.
  • Which are based on drunken anecdotes at parties, which are based on late-night burrito-induced nightmares, which are in turn based on the grafitti in the Men's room in a small village in India where the women and children won't use the toilets.
  • Why isn't there a major Hollywood release of an ancient tale of porn? Why is it always murder and death and killing and hate and war gooned-up, teeth-gritting scowlers and like that? I mean besides because of the Puritanism and indoctrinated shame and messed up familial relationships because daddy liked to drank and such. I mean, is "300" the best story to pour millions into?
  • Cinemax is running "The Witches of Breastwick" a lot lately...?
  • I heard.
  • No more "decadent" films? Dammit... *cancels screening of Babette's Feast*