Iran angered over films 'The Wrestler' and '300'

From Yahoo News

TEHRAN, Iran – An adviser to Iran's president on Sunday demanded an apology from a team of visiting Hollywood actors and movie industry officials, including Annette Bening, saying films such as "300" and "The Wrestler" were "insulting" to Iranians.

Without an apology, members of Iran's film industry should refuse to meet with representatives from the nine-member team, said Javad Shamaqdari, the art and cinema adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"In my viewpoint, it is a failure to have an official meeting with one who is insulting," Shamaqdari told The Associated Press.

The film "300," portrays the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days. It angered many Iranians for the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.

Iranians also criticized "The Wrestler" starring Mickey Rourke as a rundown professional wrestler who is preparing for a rematch with his old nemesis, "The Ayatollah." During a fight scene, "The Ayatollah" tries to choke Rourke with an Iranian flag before Rourke pulls the flagpole away, breaks it and throws it into the cheering crowd.

Neither movie was shown in Iran.

While American actors such as Sean Penn have traveled to Iran, it is rare for such a large group to visit. In February, Iran denied visas to a U.S. women's badminton team that had been invited to compete in a tournament in Iran.

The group includes the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Sid Ganis; actors Bening, and Alfre Woodard; producer William Horberg; AMPAS Special Events Programmer and Exhibitions Curator Ellen Harrington; and Tom Pollock, the former Universal Pictures chairman.

According to the Web site of Iran's Cinema Association, the group arrived Friday in Iran. They met a group of Iranian artists on Saturday, and will be holding educational seminars in directing, screenwriting, acting, producing, marketing and film distribution.

Shamaqdari says Iranians will warmly host the visiting Americans "but it will not stop Iranians from demanding an apology."

The visits come as President Barack Obama has indicated a new willingness to open up relations with Iran.

Relations between the two countries have been strained over concerns in the West that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program, something Tehran denies. The U.S. has also alleged that overwhelmingly Shiite Iran supports Shiite militias in Iraq, which Iran says is not true.

The two countries have not had diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Still mad at '300'?

For heaven's sake...it's history...can't change it.
I don't understand why they're mad...the persians were conquorors...so were every power that has ever risen...we're all the same so let's all get over it and get along once and for all and stop allowing small groups of f**k from trying to control us and brainwash us into thinking that everyone else is the enemy for their f**k gain!!

Unfortunately, they fail to distinguish that the movie was based on a graphic novel from the Spartan's point of view, and thus the imagery of Persians as monsters etc. were part of that mythical portrayal. It was not supposed to be "historically" accurate. It was just a movie about a graphic novel.

I doubt relations are going to get better since it is estimated that Iran will have nuclear weapons within a year. That is a global concern, and not just an American concern. It is also thought that Israel will attack Iran within that year because of the nuclear issue. I think that U.S. cinematical representations of Iranians are the least of Iran's problems. Political concerns are more pressing. Just my opinion, of course.

Does this mean we're all gonna die?

I think they need to get over it. Anytime you have a movie about an historic war (whether it be a mythical graphic novel representation or a realistic one) someone usually has to be the bad guy. A war story is usually going to be told from the point-of-view of one side that defeats or stands up against whatever country is their enemy for that particular war.

I mean, it would be hard for Americans to make a movie about the American Revolution, for instance, without making the British look bad, but that doesn't mean that is how we feel about them TODAY in 2009. They are are biggest ally now. We love the British.

Or another example would be the American Civil War. Of course a movie about that is going to make the South look bad because they were on the side of slavery, but that was THEN. They wouldn't be trying to make the point that Southerners are the bad guys NOW in 2009.

My point is, most war movies are going to have one side, usually a country, be the villian, but it is intended to reflect their actions during THAT conflict during THAT time period, not necessarily today. I'm not saying Iran today isn't to be feared either, but that relates to another issue that involves nuclear weapons and our concern what they might be capable of in the modern era. That actually DOES involve today in 2009. It doesn't have to do with what their ancestors did in a war with the Spartans thousands of years ago.