300 is back with more Orientalism

A mere five minutes into Zack Snyder’s new film “300: Rise of an Empire,” my forehead was already firmly and resignedly placed in my palm.

In one fell swoop, the audience is immediately subjected to a brief barrage of violence on behalf of the Persians. Rape, beheading, pillaging and jiggling, slow-motion breasts are set to a voice-over reiterating the prequel’s ahistorical assertion that the Persian Empire’s invasion of Greece somehow had anything to do with its “annoyance” and “fear” of Greek democracy.

Though I’m as big a fan of stylized gore and supple, bouncing breasts as the next red-blooded American, I find Snyder’s repeated and unwavering insistence on championing the hyper-masculinized Greeks while stereotyping and disparaging the monstrous, evil Persians to be incredibly reductive and problematic.

It’s undeniable the original “300” was rife with similar faults. However, shortly following its 2007 release, the Iranian government rightly condemned it for its ludicrous and offensive portrayal of the ancient Achaemenids.

After such pointed vitriol, I figured Snyder might find it in his heart to tone down the blatant Orientalist undercurrents in “Rise of an Empire.”

Surprise — I was wrong.

Though there are admittedly far fewer monsters fighting on behalf of Xerxes’ empire this time around, the issues still largely lie in the way Snyder chooses to portray the Eastern empire.

The characters of Xerxes and Artemesia embody every basic stereotype associated with Orientalism. They are barbaric, oversexed, decadent, mystical and merciless. Xerxes, bejeweled with lavish piercings and clad only in tiny, metallic panties, apparently possesses magical powers after bathing in a weird, golden pool.

Not to mention the Persian army’s “secret weapon” ends up being a special organization of glorified suicide bombers, armed with oil-filled backpacks ready to destroy Greek ships with the aim of a well-shot fire arrow.

In the world of strict fiction, I suppose that such depictions of created characters are innocuous enough. However, this is precisely why “Rise of an Empire” is so insidious — it is based on the real events of historical people.

By stereotyping the Persians, Snyder has conflated these reductive interpretations with their historical personage, resulting in a garbled mélange of labels that serve little other purpose than to force our allegiance to the Greeks, who are positively wholesome in comparison.

Indeed, Snyder strays liberally from the source material, Herodotus’ “the Histories,” whenever it is convenient for him. He explains these deviations are possible because the action is actually set in a “fictionalized universe” separate from our own.

This begs the question as to why Snyder, in his alternate universe, couldn’t have created a Herodotean prejudice-free world in which the Greeks possess their own magical powers aside from blindingly babe-like beach bods, or one where the Persian Empire isn’t completely made up of barbaric, feminized assholes.

Snyder’s new film is just as problematic, if not more so, than its prequel. Essentially, it functions as the classical equivalent of a British film portraying the American Revolution as being incited by a bunch of drunken, stupid rednecks.

I suppose it’s my fault in the first place for putting any amount of trust in the man who is responsible for such films as “Sucker Punch,” “Man of Steel” and the dishearteningly inadequate screen adaptation of “Watchmen.”

mcaranna@indiana.edu