fascist entertainment

[Conquer or Die]

What does the OI crowd think of the growing trend of fascist entertainment in the movie business? From "300" to "Wanted" there seems to be no end to the amount of large scale productions devoted to militarism, whiteism, masculinism, and random, incorrect definitions of "freedom." Is there a connection between this glorification of man and state and a potential upsurge in fascist thought?

I may be mistaken, but isn't it a Third Worldist viewpoint that all developed nations become fascist a la Germany when they sense that their power may be stopping, and that these nations become fat with notions of supremacy once more? What's more interesting is that this transition is democratic, as with the election of Hitler. Is this what is happening with modern day Russia (who voted Putin twice) and America with their imperialist ambitions? What about France and Britain?

Will America and Russia get into World War Three with China.... and then lose?

[GPDP]

...what

[Conquer or Die]

...what

Do successful fascist movies indicate a trend towards popular fascist thought in America and the world?

[forward]

i dunno, i kinda liked 300 but i'm not fascist or anything, certainly wouldnt support someone with fascist traits, i dont really think there is an increased trend slanting towards fascism. in russia, the people have never really been free, what do you think there views will be close to? afterall they have never really tasted freedom....but although i dont really like him, putin certainly isnt fascist.

[Kami]

Do successful fascist movies indicate a trend towards popular fascist thought in America and the world?

I've yet to see a movie about that mix of nationalism and corporatism we all know and loathe portrayed in a good light.

[Conquer or Die]

i dunno, i kinda liked 300 but i'm not fascist or anything, certainly wouldnt support someone with fascist traits, i dont really think there is an increased trend slanting towards fascism. in russia, the people have never really been free, what do you think there views will be close to? afterall they have never really tasted freedom....but although i dont really like him, putin certainly isnt fascist.

I'm filled with blanket assumptions, obviously. But there are many rumors as to Putin's plans for Russia's economy. He is an imperialist, a militarist. He is in with corporations. Sound like anybody from history you know?

He was a member of Russia's former secret police.

[Conquer or Die]

I've yet to see a movie about that mix of nationalism and corporatism we all know and loathe portrayed in a good light.

How do you describe a movie which indicates that a poly-tyranny with slaves is somehow democracy? Especially when a select group of men act out against the vestige of democracy presented? Let's also not include the fact that white homo superiors were battling homosexual brown skinned people and winning in massive numbers.

300 was in support of tyranny, slavery, oppressive masculinism supported at a state level (opposed to an individual's beliefs), and other such "progressive" thoughts. It is the definition of fascist entertainment, or art. This film would not be censored by Hitler's bureau.

Now, corporate + state? Let's talk Dark Knight.

[politics student]

How do you describe a movie which indicates that a poly-tyranny with slaves is somehow democracy? Especially when a select group of men act out against the vestige of democracy presented? Let's also not include the fact that white homo superiors were battling homosexual brown skinned people and winning in massive numbers.

300 was in support of tyranny, slavery, oppressive masculinism supported at a state level (opposed to an individual's beliefs), and other such "progressive" thoughts. It is the definition of fascist entertainment, or art. This film would not be censored by Hitler's bureau.

Now, corporate + state? Let's talk Dark Knight.

If I was to tell you this.

"It was a film, they are made to be big sellers the details of the situation is mostly unimportant to the story, viewers and anyone who takes it seriously."

V for Vendetta success does not mean that there is a popular trend to revolution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2006/03/10/bfvendetta10.jpg

[Conquer or Die]

If I was to tell you this.

"It was a film, they are made to be big sellers the details of the situation is mostly unimportant to the story, viewers and anyone who takes it seriously."

V for Vendetta success does not mean that there is a popular trend to revolution.

V for Vendetta and The Matrix stand against dozens of current release films. However They may indicate a trend as well (that Austrian Libertfrauds perverted into support for border fascist Ronald Paul).

My concern is with the cheers received for blatantly fascist propaganda such as 300.

[Demogorgon]

It is hardly new. Look at eighties action films.

[Killfacer]

shut up idiot. Nothing "fascist" about 300.

[More Fire for the People]

Curious, because I have not seen it yet and would like to, how do you consider Wanted, fascist?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How do you describe a movie which indicates that a poly-tyranny with slaves is somehow democracy? Especially when a select group of men act out against the vestige of democracy presented? Let's also not include the fact that white homo superiors were battling homosexual brown skinned people and winning in massive numbers.

300 was in support of tyranny, slavery, oppressive masculinism supported at a state level (opposed to an individual's beliefs), and other such "progressive" thoughts. It is the definition of fascist entertainment, or art. This film would not be censored by Hitler's bureau.300 sucked. But anyway, as stated before, it's about making money. Which they did.


Now, corporate + state? Let's talk Dark Knight.Heath Ledger represents the socialist ideals in it. Quite well, I believe.

[Chapter 24]

Heath Ledger represents the socialist ideals in it. Quite well, I believe.

How in the hell did he do that? The Joker represents an extreme nihilist (is that an oxymoron?). There's nothing "socialist" about him, in fact his whole point was to cause chaos and disorder.

[Killfacer]

Reasons why 300 wasnt offensive, let alone "facsist:
1. How the fuck is it facsistic? It doesnt support a Mussolini-esque government does it.
2. I hear talk of the Persian army being a bunch of freakoids and mutants. Watch the film and you will notice two things: Firstly that the ugliest fuckers in the film are a Greek Oracle and the second ugliest thing in the film is that hunch-backed traitor freak.
3. Next you seem to criticise the fact that its just white blokes kickin the ass off non white blokes. Once again this criticism is stupid. The Spartans DID fight at Thermopylae and they did hammer the Persian army into dust. What did you want? Flying black greeks shooting lasers at an invading space army of super robotic cyborg aliens? Winning in massive numbers? Well yes, even the most conservative estimates would tell you that the Persian army hugely outnumbered that of the Greeks
4. Without Thermopylae the Persian army would probably have crushed Athens. No athens, no democracy: Therefor, without Sparta's (admittedly brutal) society and army, there would be no democracy. So this assumption is correct.
5. Shut up its just an effing film, with very little connection to reality.
6. What did you want exactly? The 300 spartans to be made up of skinny runtlings barely capable of holding a shield?



Also the joker is a violent nut job. Not a socialist.

[RGacky3]

ITS ENTERTAINMENT STUPID!!!

Who cares. 300 was playing off the male fantasy testosterone fueled mind. I personally thought it was a cool movie, and I could care less if there was any political message, which I seriously doubt there was. Its a movie.


V for Vendetta and The Matrix stand against dozens of current release films. However They may indicate a trend as well (that Austrian Libertfrauds perverted into support for border fascist Ronald Paul).

My concern is with the cheers received for blatantly fascist propaganda such as 300.

I personally thought V for Vendetta sucked, it was boring, even though the message was good, movies are for entertainment, not for political cues, you read books and follow events for that.

I seriously doubt 300 was fascist propaganda, I'm pretty sure it was just a movie ment to entertain and be badass, and even if it was fascist propaganda (which thinking it is is parenoid and stupid) at least it was entertaining to me.

[politics student]

I personally thought V for Vendetta sucked, it was boring, even though the message was good, movies are for entertainment, not for political cues, you read books and follow events for that.


I personally enjoyed V for Vendetta I do agree it is quite long periods with a lack of action. Saying that I enjoyed the ending and the story, I never watched films for action scenes.

[PigmerikanMao]

Fascist entertainment coincides with a fascist state. The top echelons of the American government have promoted militarist imperialist actions ever sense the civil war, and there has always been a heavy bias against the public sector in favour for some privatized alternative as long as I can remember in American history.
I saw a thread that suggested He-man was a Nazi who fought the Jews (represented by Skeletor apparently). I'm not saying this was right, nor frankly do I care that much- He-man was always a shitty show and always will be. The point is that this is hardly a new trend and will continue. I wouldn't be too worried about a total popular support for a fascist government anytime soon though, that is unless a movie as blatant as Olympia hammers the box office.
~PMao ;)

[pusher robot]

It's not that these movies are fascist, it's that they celebrate the traditional "manly virtues," also known as the "classical values." These promote both individualistic and civic values and are typified by the classical Roman virtues as listed on wikipedia:

Auctoritas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas) — "Spiritual Authority" — The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.
Comitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitas) — "Humour" — Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.
Constantinum (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constantinum&action=edit&redlink=1) — "Perseverance" — Military stamina, mental and physical endurance.
Clementia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementia) — "Mercy" — Mildness and gentleness.
Dignitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas_(Roman_concept)) — "Dignity" — A sense of self-worth, personal pride.
Disciplinae (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disciplinae&action=edit&redlink=1) — "Discipline" — Military oath under Roman protective law & citizenship.
Firmitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firmitas&action=edit&redlink=1) — "Tenacity" — Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.
Frugalitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frugalitas&action=edit&redlink=1) — "Frugalness" — Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.
Gravitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitas) — "Gravity" — A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.
Honestas (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honestas&action=edit&redlink=1) — "Respectability" — The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.
Humanitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitas) — "Humanity" — Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.
Industria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industria) — "Industriousness" — Hard work.
Iustitia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iustitia) — "Justice" — Sense of moral worth to an action.
Pietas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietas) — "Dutifulness" — More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.
Prudentia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prudentia&action=edit&redlink=1) — "Prudence" — Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.
Salubritas (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salubritas&action=edit&redlink=1) — "Wholesomeness" — Health and cleanliness.
Severitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Severitas&action=edit&redlink=1) — "Sternness" — Gravity, self-control.
Veritas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas) — "Truthfulness" — Honesty in dealing with others.

Why are you seeming to see more movies with protaganists strongly identified with these virtues? I cannot say for sure, but I can guess:

"When virtue has slept, it will arise all the more vigorous."
-Friedrich Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche)

[Bud Struggle]

That was an excellent post, Brother Pusher! :thumbup:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How do you describe a movie which indicates that a poly-tyranny with slaves is somehow democracy?

Because that's what ancient Greek democracy was. Granted the whole "Sparta is fighting for democracy" is an annoying anachronism, but given it was a single line in an otherwise entertaining film, I'm willing to be lenient. This is Hollywood after all, not exactly famed for historical accuracy.


Especially when a select group of men act out against the vestige of democracy presented?Did you watch the film? Leonidas' primary political opponent had been bribed with Persian gold, as had the priests who told Leonidas not to fight the Persians.


Let's also not include the fact that white homo superiors were battling homosexual brown skinned people and winning in massive numbers.Again, I would say this is down to ignorance more than anything else, as to most people today, Persian = brown. Large numbers of the Persian army were slaughtered because of the arrogance and stupidity of one individual, Xerxes, in spite of massively superior numbers and equipment - they even had grenadiers, for crying out loud! IF they were so "inferior", how come they had managed to invent a form of gunpowder?

As for the Persians (or even Xerxes himself) being homosexual, how do you know? Did they have homosexual sex onscreen? One big Persian army orgy? I must have slept through that part. Not to mention the amusing irony of not grasping the homoerotic undertones of 300 muscular men in leather underpants.


300 was in support of tyranny, slavery, oppressive masculinism supported at a state level (opposed to an individual's beliefs), and other such "progressive" thoughts. It is the definition of fascist entertainment, or art. This film would not be censored by Hitler's bureau.An accusation completely without substance. I don't remember even seeing a helot slave in the film, nor do I remember any of the protagonists saying that slavery was a good thing. If anything, the depiction of ancient Spartan society given in the film was sanitized to the extreme.

Masculinism? Obviously, if the vast majority of the protagonists are muscle-bound warriors, then the film is definately going to have a strong masculine flavour. But remember that Leonidas' wife was hardly a shrinking violet.


Now, corporate + state? Let's talk Dark Knight.A film I have yet to see, but which I've heard is excellent. Certainly Batman Begins was a top-class film.

[Bud Struggle]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.--Freud

[Conquer or Die]

Why are you seeming to see more movies with protaganists strongly identified with these virtues? I cannot say for sure, but I can guess:

"When virtue has slept, it will arise all the more vigorous."
-

Return to the days of slaveocracy and traditional values of genocide and hierarchy? You're a good soldier for General Rockwell and his army of the New North Virginia!

[Conquer or Die]

1. How the fuck is it facsistic? It doesnt support a Mussolini-esque government does it.

Yeah, I think it does. A hitleresque one at least. (He drew great inspiration from Sparta's infanticide and warrior culture)


2. I hear talk of the Persian army being a bunch of freakoids and mutants. Watch the film and you will notice two things: Firstly that the ugliest fuckers in the film are a Greek Oracle and the second ugliest thing in the film is that hunch-backed traitor freak.

Because they were traitorous they were the most ugly. They were made clearly to be bad guys and against what Sparta stood for. All the enemies of Sparta were hideous and un pure and sinful.


3. Next you seem to criticise the fact that its just white blokes kickin the ass off non white blokes. Once again this criticism is stupid. The Spartans DID fight at Thermopylae and they did hammer the Persian army into dust. What did you want? Flying black greeks shooting lasers at an invading space army of super robotic cyborg aliens? Winning in massive numbers? Well yes, even the most conservative estimates would tell you that the Persian army hugely outnumbered that of the Greeks

The records are from Greek sources, but I'm not here to debate what happened at Thermopylae as fact of fiction (though historians have said it was the greatest victory of the East over the West in Early History). You can not say that the beastialization of Persia and its armies was horrendously out of touch with reality.

You seem to enjoy saying how they "smashed the Persian army into dust." Don't you?


4. Without Thermopylae the Persian army would probably have crushed Athens. No athens, no democracy: Therefor, without Sparta's (admittedly brutal) society and army, there would be no democracy. So this assumption is correct.

Sparta's suspension of its own democracy, continuation of slavery and infanticide and warrior culture are required for the world to have democracy? Bold statement that you can't really back up. I mean, you can justify anything, no matter how undemocratic or unfree simply by saying that.


5. Shut up its just an effing film, with very little connection to reality.

Most films have a message, even if it's just acsthetic. "Shut up it's just a movie" doesn't work for me, or for Zach Snyder, or for Frank Miller (who is making a batman propaganda book about fighting down the Al Qaeda).


6. What did you want exactly? The 300 spartans to be made up of skinny runtlings barely capable of holding a shield?


That's exactly what I want. For them to be betrayed as "weaklings" losing to "superior invaders" of "mixed races." The censoring bureau will have none of that.

[Conquer or Die]

Did you watch the film? Leonidas' primary political opponent had been bribed with Persian gold, as had the priests who told Leonidas not to fight the Persians.

Democracy can be suspended when there is a threat to the kingdom. Rights can be suspended when there is a threat to the kingdom. I also know fans of George Bush.


Again, I would say this is down to ignorance more than anything else, as to most people today, Persian = brown. Large numbers of the Persian army were slaughtered because of the arrogance and stupidity of one individual, Xerxes, in spite of massively superior numbers and equipment - they even had grenadiers, for crying out loud! IF they were so "inferior", how come they had managed to invent a form of gunpowder?

The implication is that the tactics and lifestyle of Sparta indicated a superior way of living to that of the Persian armies due to the conflict.


As for the Persians (or even Xerxes himself) being homosexual, how do you know? Did they have homosexual sex onscreen? One big Persian army orgy? I must have slept through that part. Not to mention the amusing irony of not grasping the homoerotic undertones of 300 muscular men in leather underpants.

They called the Athenians "boy lovers." There was an orgy sex scene and the portrayal of Persians as effete was crucial to manlitize the Spartans.


An accusation completely without substance. I don't remember even seeing a helot slave in the film, nor do I remember any of the protagonists saying that slavery was a good thing. If anything, the depiction of ancient Spartan society given in the film was sanitized to the extreme.

There were slaves in the picture. They were never referenced as such in dialogue. However it's completely interesting to note the fact that Sparta had one of the worst slave cultures in history (not even respected as property, young spartans would hunt helots for practice) and this is completely glossed over in the film as they talk about democracy. Sparta is not possible without slavery, and this is ignored in the film.


Masculinism? Obviously, if the vast majority of the protagonists are muscle-bound warriors, then the film is definately going to have a strong masculine flavour. But remember that Leonidas' wife was hardly a shrinking violet.

That's right, and Spartan women had more rights then Athenian women even. Pathway to women's rights? Tyranny of the strong over the weak. I'm glad you're a communist :laugh:


A film I have yet to see, but which I've heard is excellent. Certainly Batman Begins was a top-class film.

Batman Begins was really bad. TDK was bearable.

[Jazzratt]

You're angry about a quasi-historical war film? For fuck's sake, find something more worthwhile to care about.

[pusher robot]

Return to the days of slaveocracy and traditional values of genocide and hierarchy? You're a good soldier for General Rockwell and his army of the New North Virginia!

So do all communists seek to destroy virtue or is it just you?


That's exactly what I want. For them to be betrayed as "weaklings" losing to "superior invaders" of "mixed races." The censoring bureau will have none of that.

It's not the "censoring bureau" (which doesn't even exist in the U.S. FFS) but the audience that doesn't share your views, your ethics, or your aesthetic. The film you want doesn't get made because the vast majority of people are not interested in seeing that film, thus it would be a waste of resources. I suggest you quickly get used to the fact that you are in an extreme minority and consequently lack the power to get exactly what you want. Oh and a tip for the uninitiated: the fact that you are in the minority does not necessarily mean that the majority is fascist, just because they happen to be the majority.

[PigmerikanMao]

You're angry about a quasi-historical war film? For fuck's sake, find something more worthwhile to care about.

Shazam! :laugh:

[Led Zeppelin]

4. Without Thermopylae the Persian army would probably have crushed Athens. No athens, no democracy: Therefor, without Sparta's (admittedly brutal) society and army, there would be no democracy. So this assumption is correct.

Bwahahahha, you seriously believe that if Persia had won that battle democracy as a concept would not have existed?

That's hilarious.

[Killfacer]

1. There was nothing hitleresque about Sparta. It was a brutal slave society, but not with any of the key attributes of Hitler's nazi germany.
2. Your next statement simply isnt the case. Most of the Persian army were clearly just normal people. Not monstrous. Secondly it seems you have taken the fact that all the Baddies being represnted as vile freakoids and then said that this means it is somehow offensive. Who wants handsome bad guys? No one.
3. No one is denying that the film was unrealistic, it was. It just wasnt offensive. I do enjoy saying they smashed the Persian army into dust. Yet a fail to see the problem with saying it. The sources must be about right. Look at what happened. Would a fleet numbering in the thousands been there to support a tiny army? No. Would a small army have built a huge pontoon and smashed everything in its path? No. Therfor, would a huge army after winning a battle, retreat when facing a hugely outnumbered foe? Clearly not. The persians retreated for a reason, even after Salamis with out the battle of Thermopylae, their land force would have been enough to smash everything else into dust
4. I dont see your point on this one. So you are denying that sparta contributed to stopping Athens being wiped off the face of the earth? If so then your wrong. If your not then you dont have a point.
5. What was the message then? "all westerners are huge hulking giants who must destroy the arab scum?". Or not. More to the point is the fact that Persians were not ethnically Arabic. It was a conglomeration of conquered states, none of which were Muslim. So any offesnive message just doesnt hold sway.
6. Yes but what you said finally would be just as incorrect. The spartans were no doubt the finest warriors in the world at that point. The only time they were ever defeated in a straight battle before then was by the Theban band.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Democracy can be suspended when there is a threat to the kingdom. Rights can be suspended when there is a threat to the kingdom. I also know fans of George Bush.A total non-sequiter. In the film, the Spartan political system had been subverted by Persian gold.


The implication is that the tactics and lifestyle of Sparta indicated a superior way of living to that of the Persian armies due to the conflict.Had Xerxes not been a military incompetent, then he would have flanked them a lot earlier than he had. The Spartans had the advantage because they were defending a bottleneck, not because of tactics (let alone lifestyle - it was a battlefield for fuck's sake, not a flower-arranging competition) unique to Sparta. Had the situation been reversed, there's nothing to say the Persians wouldn't have done as well as the Spartans, notwithstanding Xerxes' personal arrogance and idiotic generalship.


They called the Athenians "boy lovers."Which is historically laughable, as Spartans were just as partial to young male ass as the Athenians.


There was an orgy sex scene and the portrayal of Persians as effete was crucial to manlitize the Spartans.The orgy was a show put on by Xerxes for the benefit of the traitor and to show his power and benevolence. It's hardly representative of the Persians as a whole.


There were slaves in the picture. They were never referenced as such in dialogue. However it's completely interesting to note the fact that Sparta had one of the worst slave cultures in history (not even respected as property, young spartans would hunt helots for practice) and this is completely glossed over in the film as they talk about democracy. Sparta is not possible without slavery, and this is ignored in the film.Nor was it relevant.


That's right, and Spartan women had more rights then Athenian women even. Pathway to women's rights? Tyranny of the strong over the weak. I'm glad you're a communist :laugh:Don't put words in my mouth, dickhead. I never mentioned anything about women's rights in Sparta.


Batman Begins was really bad. TDK was bearable."Really bad"? Were you dropped on the head as a kid or something? Or are you yet another one of those movie snobs who slavered over overwrought dreck like Atonement?

[PigmerikanMao]

Democracy can be suspended when there is a threat to the kingdom. Rights can be suspended when there is a threat to the kingdom.
Albeit this sounds of a Thomas Hobbes argument; it isn't necessarily fascist.



There were slaves in the picture. They were never referenced as such in dialogue. However it's completely interesting to note the fact that Sparta had one of the worst slave cultures in history (not even respected as property, young spartans would hunt helots for practice) and this is completely glossed over in the film as they talk about democracy. Sparta is not possible without slavery, and this is ignored in the film.

As true as this may be, slavery wasn't used in positive light. Historians may have chosen to add key facts about the society over others for the sake of creating a likable protagonist, but that doesn't make a movie fascist, just historically inaccurate.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would be more alarmed about the neo-conservative moment, which has obvious sympathies with nationalism, militarism, theocracy, sexism, jingoism, homophobia, and centralization of power.

[RGacky3]

Its a freaking movie, the 300 spartans arn't running for office!!!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm filled with blanket assumptions, obviously. But there are many rumors as to Putin's plans for Russia's economy. He is an imperialist, a militarist. He is in with corporations. Sound like anybody from history you know?

He was a member of Russia's former secret police.
That sounds like most people from history I know.

[Bud Struggle]

I would be more alarmed about the neo-conservative moment, which has obvious sympathies with nationalism, militarism, theocracy, sexism, jingoism, homophobia, and centralization of power.

And we're damned good lookin', too! :lol:

[Mindtoaster]

i dunno, i kinda liked 300 but i'm not fascist or anything, certainly wouldnt support someone with fascist traits,

your fetishism for putting to death people you consider "weak" speaks otherwise.

[Conquer or Die]

So do all communists seek to destroy virtue or is it just you?

I'm trying to say that a film like "300" is not virtuous, even though it is portrayed as such. I do not wish to destroy virtue, in fact I mean to support it through my beliefs. I don't find wanton military violence virtuous, or high minded ideals in the face of autocratic genocide and slavery respectable.


It's not the "censoring bureau" (which doesn't even exist in the U.S. FFS) but the audience that doesn't share your views, your ethics, or your aesthetic. The film you want doesn't get made because the vast majority of people are not interested in seeing that film, thus it would be a waste of resources. I suggest you quickly get used to the fact that you are in an extreme minority and consequently lack the power to get exactly what you want. Oh and a tip for the uninitiated: the fact that you are in the minority does not necessarily mean that the majority is fascist, just because they happen to be the majority.

And what film am I trying to make? Spartacus? V for Vendetta? The Matrix? (hugely popular films that have sway with Commies, Maoists, and anarchists) I merely mentioned a trend in film that promoted "values" against freedom for freedom's sake, support of imperialism, sacrifice for the state, and a racist, absurd aesthetic. For the record, I found "300" an enjoyable film for entertainment value but overall a completely fascist, racist film. My concern is not with how "bad" a film is, but rather what it supports. Triumph of the Will, Birth of a nation, etc. aren't bad films. They are monumentally respected as historically significant in film history.

Where am I in the extreme minority? Not wishing to support slavery? Not wishing to promote militarism?

Hitler gained most of his support democratically before he became a tyrant. Mussolini was the same. Imperial Japan had majority support. The Majority can be fascist, can be wrong, can be not virtuous.

[pusher robot]

I'm trying to say that a film like "300" is not virtuous, even though it is portrayed as such. I do not wish to destroy virtue, in fact I mean to support it through my beliefs. I don't find wanton military violence virtuous, or high minded ideals in the face of autocratic genocide and slavery respectable.

Obviously, the movie is not targeted toward you in that case. But, do you understand that some people - maybe even most people - do not interpret the movie the same way that you do? That other people may actually see those virtues I listed and respond positively toward them? The meaning of art is always inherently subjective - to condemn people as "fascists" and "racists" because they take different meanings than you do is, I think, deliberately hateful.



And what film am I trying to make? Spartacus? V for Vendetta? The Matrix? "That's exactly what I want. For them to be betrayed as 'weaklings' losing to 'superior invaders' of 'mixed races.'" The censoring bureau will have none of that."

This. An apparently ahistorical movie that shows the Persians as having more virtue than the Spartans.


Where am I in the extreme minority? Not wishing to support slavery? Not wishing to promote militarism?
No. In seeing glorification of slavery in a movie that has no slaves in it, and in seeing militarism in a movie that is about defending one's home and family from conquering imperialists. That puts you in the extreme minority. Your interpretation of the "message."


Hitler gained most of his support democratically before he became a tyrant. Mussolini was the same. Imperial Japan had majority support. The Majority can be fascist, can be wrong, can be not virtuous.Obviously. I am only pointing out that it is not necessarily so.

[Conquer or Die]

Obviously, the movie is not targeted toward you in that case. But, do you understand that some people - maybe even most people - do not interpret the movie the same way that you do? That other people may actually see those virtues I listed and respond positively toward them? The meaning of art is always inherently subjective - to condemn people as "fascists" and "racists" because they take different meanings than you do is, I think, deliberately hateful.

I am not condemning an audience as "fascist" or "racist" just the filmmakers. (This would most likely include Frank Miller, Zach Snyder, and maybe those involved with the production but not necessarily so.)

At the very least, many, many people (for a film production) interpreted the movie as entertaining -which includes a lot of the people who found the film fascist. My problem was that the "virtues" it apparently expouses were historically hypocritical and downright racist. I also take a cue from Hitler's view of Spartan culture. Hitler appreciated the selective breeding of Sparta -which was glamourized in the film.

My overarching point was asking the question of whether or not these films lead to fascist thought being appreciated in America and the world. If people can identify with strong white men destroying weaker brown races, what could possibly be the next step of acceptance in this culture?



"That's exactly what I want. For them to be betrayed as 'weaklings' losing to 'superior invaders' of 'mixed races.'" The censoring bureau will have none of that."

This. An apparently ahistorical movie that shows the Persians as having more virtue than the Spartans.

It was sarcasm. Historical accuracy is most important when making any historical work, be it art or analysis. I said it to indicate how I thought "300" treated historical accuracy inversely in addition to my distaste with the attitude of the poster. I clearly wouldn't want a film like that, starting with the fact that it's actually not historically accurate.


No. In seeing glorification of slavery in a movie that has no slaves in it, and in seeing militarism in a movie that is about defending one's home and family from conquering imperialists. That puts you in the extreme minority. Your interpretation of the "message."

The point is that through Slavery Sparta was able to maintain itself both as a war culture (young Spartans hunted helots) and economically. The fact that it wasn't mentioned in the film is insidious because the Spartans throw around the word "freedom" at every critical time as they dance over the bones of their ugly enemies. To me this indicates that the filmmakers thought Sparta's slavery had nothing to do with the ideals of freedom and heroism or the "virtues" that some people may have identified with in the picture.

While "defending the homeland from imperialists" is certainly *not* a bad virtue. The point is made abundantly clear that Sparta is a tough, infanticidal culture that is only "free" because of the actions taken to remove the "weak" from society and promote a fetishism and religion around violence. This isn't a bunch of farmers taking to the pitchfork against invaders. This is a culture of violence and supremacy being "free" and fighting those who are "weak" and "not free."

If all a person took out of Sparta was "defend the homeland from imperialists" then I would say it's downright in line with my values and in line with my idea of what leftism - communism should support.


Obviously. I am only pointing out that it is not necessarily so.

And I'm merely saying that you shouldn't reduce my point to a bland term thrown around at the easiest opportunity just because I have distaste with an alleged "majority's" view of "virtue."

[pusher robot]

And I'm merely saying that you shouldn't reduce my point to a bland term thrown around at the easiest opportunity just because I have distaste with an alleged "majority's" view of "virtue."

That's not what you're saying though. You're not expressing a personal distaste. You're not posting a movie review and expressing your opinion about it. You're positing that it is - objectively, factually - fascist/racist, and asking why people like fascist/racist entertainment. Can't you see the difference? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


My problem was that the "virtues" it apparently expouses were historically hypocritical and downright racist. I also take a cue from Hitler's view of Spartan culture. Hitler appreciated the selective breeding of Sparta -which was glamourized in the film.You're the one being historically hypocritical, for condemning people far in history for failing to live up to today's standards. Yes, Sparta had slavery, as did most other human societies at that time. By your standards, there were absolutely no good guys, no virtue, nothing positive for us to emulate in history. Which is ridiculous. Of course you must be selective in what you choose to admire in history. That's not hypocritical in the slightest, it's social progress.

[Conquer or Die]

That's not what you're saying though. You're not expressing a personal distaste. You're not posting a movie review and expressing your opinion about it. You're positing that it is - objectively, factually - fascist/racist, and asking why people like fascist/racist entertainment. Can't you see the difference?

I guess I shouldn't have personalized what I said. But my intention remains the same. I'm claiming that "300" is in fact fascist.


You're the one being historically hypocritical, for condemning people far in history for failing to live up to today's standards. Yes, Sparta had slavery, as did most other human societies at that time. By your standards, there were absolutely no good guys, no virtue, nothing positive for us to emulate in history. Which is ridiculous. Of course you must be selective in what you choose to admire in history. That's not hypocritical in the slightest, it's social progress.

That's the problem. Why should we emulate the Spartans? Was it a case of Warner Bros. picking Red vs. Blue in a historical fight? Or was it a determined case to figure out how superiority on the battlefield is linked to high minded ideals that are ever present?

300 took fact, infused it with fiction, and made a moral point out of it. The problem is that this moral point is in contradiction to how Sparta was possible. (the use of freedom in the film - the very suppression of freedom was what made Sparta's existence possible) It also supported very dearly love of the homeland (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), selective breeding based on combat skill, and war culture. It also severely distorted the imagery of Asian people and treated them as sexually loose and hideous and cowardly. Sparta was glorified against what made it possible. Sparta's "socially progressive" aspects were blatantly glorified (the aspects Hitler happened to focus on).

I cannot post links, but look up Laconophilia on wikipedia.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How in the hell did he do that? The Joker represents an extreme nihilist (is that an oxymoron?). There's nothing "socialist" about him, in fact his whole point was to cause chaos and disorder.

Damn. At least fascists can get a joke.

[turquino]

I agree with Comrade Sega Communist. 300 pushes a very clear oppressor nation political line that is distinctly fascist in character. His analysis is very thorough and good, although its no secret even among liberals.

Communists who think its just "entertainment" take note: culture does not exist independent from class struggle. Watch the movies closely and investigate questions like: Under what circumstances were they made, and for whom? What themes of human nature do they uphold? What characters is the intended audience made to sympathize with or revile?

[Post-Something]

This is such a fucking shit thread. First off, the OP keeps using annoying and outdated words like "whiteism" and "slaveocracy" which I have to google. Secondly, although you could argue that films like these press Bourgeois values on the working class and enhance the false class consciousness they have, I fail to see how 300 will somehow bring out the-inner-fascist-in-all-of-us so that we put some neo Hitler into power.


Communists who think its just "entertainment" take note: culture does not exist independent from class struggle.

http://www.vedrashko.com/uploaded_images/communist_mutants-709292.jpg

Yes, but it's ultimately determined by the economy. I can't help but feel this culture you're talking about isn't just a by-product of the infrastructure of society. Plus, 300 was a pretty cool film, and it spawned a highly respectable intenet meem. So if WW3 comes about as a result of 300, I'll take the blame.

[pusher robot]

I guess I shouldn't have personalized what I said. But my intention remains the same. I'm claiming that "300" is in fact fascist.

And I'm telling you that you can't do that because artistic interpretation is personal, subjective. What's "fascist" is your attempt to impose your interpretation as objective fact.


That's the problem. Why should we emulate the Spartans?Wrong question. The right question is "what about the Spartans is worthy of emulation?" We have the luxury of hindsight. We are allowed to pick and choose and say that they had some virtues and some flaws, and praise them for there virtues at some times and condemn them for their flaws at other times. A film that wishes to praise the Spartans for their virtues of loyalty, selflessness, courage, and discipline is not obligated to condemn them for their faults at the same time. Praising them for their virtues does not automatically entail praise for their faults.


Was it a case of Warner Bros. picking Red vs. Blue in a historical fight? Or was it a determined case to figure out how superiority on the battlefield is linked to high minded ideals that are ever present?
Well I wasn't in the board room, but I suspect it had something to do with the fact that it was based on the successful graphic novel "300." Warner Brothers did not write the story nor did they even choose the imagery.


300 took fact, infused it with fiction, and made a moral point out of it. The problem is that this moral point is in contradiction to how Sparta was possible. (the use of freedom in the film - the very suppression of freedom was what made Sparta's existence possible)I fail to see the problem here. Is it your contention that films must never portray contradictory moral acts? The struggle of competing morals is one of the central sources of dramatic conflict. If you know enough history to understand why this is contradictory, then it has added ironic meaning to you. If you don't then you can't possibly be taking the moral lesson from it that you are worried about.

Your complaint seems to be that it is ineffective propaganda. But propaganda is boring. The movie was made to entertain, thrill, and provoke, not teach a god-damned moral lesson.


It also supported very dearly love of the homeland (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), selective breeding based on combat skill, and war culture.It portrayed those things. It may even have challenged the viewer by suggesting that they have some value. But did it really come out and say "this is good, this is bad?" I mean, somehow you were able to watch the film and not be convinced that they were good things. Do you think you are so special in that regard?



It also severely distorted the imagery of Asian people and treated them as sexually loose and hideous and cowardly. Sparta was glorified against what made it possible. Sparta's "socially progressive" aspects were blatantly glorified (the aspects Hitler happened to focus on).
Well it just so happened that in that time, in that place, in those circumstances, the Spartans were the "good guys" and the Persians were the "bad guys," so the Spartans get the benefit of being positively portrayed and the Persians don't. It's a standard convention of story-telling; I really think you're reading far too much into it.

[RGacky3]

What does 'the OP' mean?

[pusher robot]

What does 'the OP' mean?

"Original Poster"

[Conquer or Die]

This is such a fucking shit thread. First off, the OP keeps using annoying and outdated words like "whiteism" and "slaveocracy" which I have to google. Secondly, although you could argue that films like these press Bourgeois values on the working class and enhance the false class consciousness they have, I fail to see how 300 will somehow bring out the-inner-fascist-in-all-of-us so that we put some neo Hitler into power.





Yes, but it's ultimately determined by the economy. I can't help but feel this culture you're talking about isn't just a by-product of the infrastructure of society. Plus, 300 was a pretty cool film, and it spawned a highly respectable intenet meem. So if WW3 comes about as a result of 300, I'll take the blame.

Entertainment, Culture, Philosophy, and Economics are interchangeably linked.

An example: Being white and from the south does not make one inferior or evil. However, the conditions of the environment produced susceptability to agrarian communitarism in the form of slavery that the north did not have. As a result, slavery grew and was then supported by Art, Economics, Philosophy, and religion whereas in the North it died. From this came romanticism and fetishism of slavery. To support slavery is not only good for the wallet book of a few (which was the only truth to it), it's also what Jesus wants, what smart people want, what is depicted as the norm in literature and art, etc. Unfortunately these weren't just by products of society, they were attempts at legitimizing the working class to fascist revolutionary radicalism as poor white southerners rose up in arms at the approval of the pulpit (it should also be noted that many in the south had a track record of abolitionism as well, but the general culture was swayed in one way). Culture was not the cause of slavery, but its sustenance and violent conflict was sustained and promoted by culture. Art imitates life, and influences it.

Frank Miller has called Batman (a character he works with frequently) a fascist. Supports the wars in the Middle East. Is creating what HE called propaganda in support of the war on Terror using Batman. He clearly has an agenda to push through his medium, and Zach Snyder has also criticized "Europe" as being against "freedom." (a statement not fascist in itself, but in its historical ignorance, telling of the viewpoint)

Posting an obvious and silly satire as a rebuttal does nothing for me. Starship Troopers is a fascist movie, but it's critical of fascism and is therefore not in support of it. The film you posted likely didn't have a serious tone or message in support of fascism (it was a satire), however, if it did, it was probably terrible and its value was that of satire (see: Reefer Madness). In either case the value of the movie is contradictory to Anti Communist or fascist theme.