Debbie Schlussel in FrontPage discusses Steven Spielberg's Munich, an exercise in terror apologetics and long advertisement for appeasement:
When Steven Spielberg began filming Munich in June 2004, he set the tone for his fictional movie about Israeli agents who hunted down the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.Spielberg abruptly stopped filming and closed up shop. Why? Because the 2004 Summer Games were happening in August, and Steven Spielberg didn’t want to upset the terrorists.
That’s what Munich is about: not upsetting the terrorists. And rolling over while they attack and kill us. In Steven Spielberg’s world, not going after terrorists brings peace. In the real world, not going after terrorists brings more bloodshed.
When Spielberg began filming in 2004, it was well known that his film was based on George Jonas’ Vengeance – a book discredited as bunk by both Israeli Mossad agents and Palestinians with actual knowledge of the events depicted. So Spielberg claimed the movie was not based on Vengeance. If it’s not based on the book, then why do the credits of this film say it is?
Spielberg lied.But not as much as he and admittedly anti-Israel scriptwriter Tony Kushner lied in this two-and-a-half-hour-plus celluloid fairy tale. Like the book on which it’s based, Munich is long, boring, and filled with fakery.
Spielberg’s Golda Meir is unsure about going after the Munich terrorists. She wavers and constantly seeks reassurance that this is the right thing. But the real-life Golda Meir could not have been more certain and intent on killing these terrorists.
Spielberg’s “Black September” terrorist group is named after the Munich terrorists, who murdered the Israeli athletes in September. The real-life “Black September” is so named after Jordan’s massacre of 10,000 Palestinians in September 1970 – causing many Jordanian Palestinians to flee for safety in the West Bank and Israel.
Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have deals with CIA officials in which they are paid not to harm American diplomats. Real-life Palestinians in 1973 beat to death U.S. diplomats, like Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore in the Sudan, with Yasser Arafat personally giving the orders. (They were tortured to death and beaten so badly, authorities could not tell which of the two was black and which was white.)
Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have cute, young, innocent, piano-playing daughters who will be fatherless. But he never shows the cute, young daughters of the Israeli athletes who were made fatherless – and whose fathers, unlike the Palestinian terrorists, were innocent victims with no choice in the matter.Spielberg’s Mossad agents say bigoted things like, “The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood,” and go around killing innocent people at whim. The real-life Mossad agents who hunted the Munich terrorists went to great pains to avoid killing innocents (whether or not they were Jewish), a reason it took so many years and financial resources to get all but one of them. (Jamil Al-Gashey lives safely under the protection of the terror-state Syria.) In real-life, they killed only one innocent man whom they mistakenly believed to be a terrorist – a Moroccan waiter in Norway – for which those Mossad agents responsible were tried, convicted, and imprisoned, something that does not happen in the Spielberg version of events. Spielberg’s Mossad agents complain that Israel has no death penalty, so killing the terrorists violates Israeli law. Real-life Israel does have a death penalty for Nazi war criminals, like Eichmann, and recognized that the Munich terrorists were equally worthy.
Spielberg’s Mossad agents cry and brood a lot, unsure of themselves and why they are pursuing terrorists. Been there, seen that before – in the left-wing Israeli film Walk on Water. But it bears little resemblance to the real Mossad agents who hunted the terrorists. They were not metrosexual, sensitive guys – as badly as Spielberg and Kushner would like them to be. Like Golda Meir, they could not have been more certain of the just purpose of their mission.
Spielberg’s Mossad agents question why they should kill terrorists who murdered innocent people, when they will be replaced by other terrorists. Using that fallacious logic, why have a justice system at all? Bank robbers who go to jail will be replaced by more bank robbers. Ditto for child molesters, rapists, al-Qaeda terrorists, etc.
Then, there is something I haven’t read in other critics’ accounts of Munich – something that made me sick to my stomach. Are the lives of the innocent Israeli athletes so worthless that the scenes in which they are murdered by Palestinian terrorists are interspersed with the self-doubting Mossad agent having sex? How would Steven Spielberg like it if a loved one was shown being bludgeoned in between scenes of a law enforcement official bouncing up and down on top of the agent’s naked wife? This happens twice, the first time with a pregnant woman and a sexual position I thought was reserved for NC-17 and X-rated movies. Thanks for cheapening these murdered athletes’ lives, Spielberg.
From the beginning of this movie, the memories of these innocent victims of terrorism are desecrated, their lives morally equated with Palestinian terrorists’ lives. The work Kushner and Spielberg expended to create this undue symmetry of the asymmetrical is the hardest work they did in the entire film.
What can you expect from the man who said his meeting with Fidel Castro “was the eight most important hours of my life”?
Using voiceovers from TV and radio news accounts of the Olympic massacre, Spielberg presents the media confusion over whether the Israeli athletes and their Palestinian captors survived. Spielberg shows scenes of families of both Israeli athletes and Palestinian terrorists sobbing – as if their relatives are on equal moral footing. After it is confirmed the Israeli athletes were murdered, Spielberg uses news footage showing pictures and names of the Israeli dead. Interspersed with that, he shows Golda Meir and Israeli generals looking though photos and announcing the names of the Palestinian terrorists. They’re equal in this movie – Get it?
That’s the message of this movie: An eye for an eye doesn’t work. Instead we should just allow our enemies to take out both our eyes, with no end in sight. Israel tried Spielberg’s route, and the country’s experience was just the opposite of Spielberg’s message.
When Israel won the Yom Kippur War, when it hunted down the Olympic terrorists, when it invaded Lebanon and had Yasser Arafat in its sites in Beirut, the world respected Israel – and so did its Islamic enemies. And terrorist attacks stopped or slowed. When Israel showed weakness – signing empty peace treaties, like Oslo; pulling out of Southern Lebanon in an hour; and giving away Gaza – the world disdained Israel, and so did the Palestinian terrorists. That's when the terrorist attacks acceleterated. Many more Israelis have been murdered and maimed in the twelve years after the Oslo accords than in the twelve years before.
In Munich, repeated scenes of the Israeli athletes being taken hostage by the Palestinian terrorists show a poster of Masada in the background at their Olympic quarters. Masada was a famous mountain fortress in Israel, where ancients Jews made their last heroic stand against the Romans. Masada became a symbol of Jewish heroism that inspired the imagination and spirit of the founders of Israel.
But the symbolism of the Masada poster is lost on Spielberg. In his Munich vision of the world, he doesn’t want a heroic last stand against terrorists. He just wants us to roll over and die without a fight.
Steven Spielberg built tremendous political capital with the making of Schindler’s List. But he blew it all on Munich. And he just wrote his epitaph with it.
There are a lot of people named Abu in this film – Abu Youssef, Abu Salameh, etc. But the biggest Abu is the one in the credits, Abu Spielberg – Minister of Disinformation.
Spielberg must be a right-winger. No wait, he must be neither Right nor Left; that will explain it, because this "should" not be a partisan issue. No wait, he must be an "elite". No wait, he's been bribed by Saudi princes or Turkish diplomats. No wait...
No. The problem is home-grown, from the bottom up and the top down.
"Liberalism is a mental disorder." -- Mike Savage
RE: Yasser Arafat personally giving the orders. (They were tortured to death and beaten so badly, authorities could not tell which of the two was black and which was white.)
Our intelligence agencies have a tape of Arafat giving the orders to execute our Diplomats.
Clinton courted Arafat instead of arresting him!
But for Clinton, it was not about justice. It was all about Clinton's ego and his power mad legacy.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/7348.htm
"Possessed"
By Tony Kushner December 25, 2005
The following narrative, from the liner notes of the Klezmatics' 1997 CD, "Possessed," is reprinted as a service to Israel Insider readers. It contains several incendiary comments about Israel, which most commentators on the "Munich" screenwriter have in recent months stripped from their ambivalent context.
I find myself unable to write your liner notes. Your music moves me like no other, it makes my genes and molecules writhe & dance even though I am, as always in my ashamed embarassed body, inert. When I first heard your "Shnirele perele" on Rhythm and Jews, no kidding, it changed my life, oy so gorgeous, so sexy, so full of August Mystery, I decided to reinvent the kind of Jew I am upon hearing it but I haven't got around to doing that yet, I've been too busy and so am unworthy to write the liner notes for your wonderful new album.
First let me tell you about the kind of Jew I am. Having spent more than half my life in psychotherapy and half in theater, I am incapable of beginning anything without first confessing to a feeling of fraudulence, and tonight that feeling is pronounced, so let me start by telling you what a half-baked, half-formed, reformed, dummermann kind of Jew I am.
In June of this year I answered the phone, and it was my father. The Board of Temple Sinai in my hometown, Lake Charles, Lousiana, had just behaved, my father felt, in a dishonorable fashion. Their previous Rabbi having departed for more remunerative work in Houston, Texas, the congregation had initiated a search for a replacement. Lake Charles Rabbis are notoriously of short-lived tenures, including one, an excruciating, terrifying cheek-pincher, who vanished leaving behind mountains of unpaid bills; and another who, I'm sorry to say, was nabbed in a dragnet the police had cast to catch a peeping tom!
Anyway, the Temple needed a new Rabbi, and the search committee contacted the UAHC and got a list of newly-minted recently-matriculated Rabis, and as they have always done they contacted the Top Guy in his H.U.C. class, expecting as always to be turned down because Temple Sinai is poor and small and in Lake Charles, Lousiana and is always turned down by the Top Guy in his class. But to their immense surprise and excitement the search committee's inquiry as to his availability for a job interview received an enthusiastic "Yes!" from this Magna cum Laude Rabbi. A historic First for the Temple! Followed by this Rabbi's informing the selection committee's chair that he, the Rabbi, is gay, and in a committed relationship with a man who would be, if the Rabbi was hired, the Temple's new Rebbetsin. Another first!
The search committee's chair told the Rabbi they would get back to him in a day or two and the committee discussed. And -- and let this stand as refutation to those who say there is no progress -- they decided to invite the gay Rabbi down south for an interview. Their decision was conveyed to the gay Rabbi and at the same time to the Temple Board for its rubber-stamp approval which, in 120 years of Temple Sinai's existence, had never been withheld. On this occasion, I'm sorry to report, it was withheld. The gay Rabbi was disinvited.
From New York City I called my cousin, the treasurer and a past president of the Temple, and I blasted him! Hypocrites! I threatened to call the UAHC and have them busted for discrimination! My cousin told me that last year somebody spray painted a swastika on the wall of the Temple, a thing which had never happened before. David Duke, Newt Gingrich, this was the recrudesced Deep South. In this climate, I was told, a gay Rabbi isn't possible. Clearly, a pogrom could be anticipated.
When I was a kid, one of our Rabbis, very old, told us Sunday School kids we had to send our Tsedakah to Israel to plant trees. Rabbi, we asked, why do thay need so many trees in Israel? Because, he told us, when the Nazis come back, there must be enough trees planted for all the Jews to climb up them, and hide.
We were, shall we say, anxious to assimilate.
On the other hand, at the conclusion of our Seder meals, we didn't say, "Next year in Jerusalem", we sang "America the Beautiful" -- and assimilationist expression of millennial desire with which, these days, I find myself bemused, appalled (at the assimilationism), and in fundamental agreement.
I want to be both a God-believing Jew and a historical materialist socialist humanist agnostic. I want the State of Israel to exist (since it does anyway) and I want the cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs honored and I want to shokl with Jews at the Wailing Wall and at the same time (and I'm afraid this won't help sales of your CD) I think the founding of the State of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity. Contemplating the possible destruction of Israel (civil war?) I feel at times if I could ever kill for a nationalist cause, I might kill for that one but at the same time I wish modern Israel hadn't been born; I am a diasporan Jew, not a Zionist; and I say this feeling that Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, is, its Zionist agenda and homophobia notwithstanding, Jewish history's best most eloquent single answer to Hitler and the Holocaust; and is so because it is in Jerusalem but I wish Jerusalem was an international city under a U.N. protectorate; and I wish the Museum of the Holocaust in Washington was a Museum of the Jewish-American Experience instead, with a holocaust wing, and I wish it stood on the Mall alongside museums devoted to the sufferings and triumphs of other ethnic-American groups, including a museum of the African-American experience, with a Slavery wing, which I wish was built with, in addition to other funding sources, Tsedakah from committed, determinedly anti-racist Jewish-Americans.
Identity ought to move from a politics of recognition, celebration and liberation towards its utopian goal of ultimate effacement: somewhere, far in the future, on the same far horizon beyond which lies the withering of state, the arrival of Moshiach, and the termination of my psychotherapy -- there also lies the whispering away of the lovely alluring historical grit, the gorgeous gruff textural and aromal specificity of ethnic identity, of race; of the need for rehearsing and even remembering the agonizing, glorious, heroic histories of oppression -- there also likes the Unity beyond Difference, Internationalism, the Creole and Mulatto World, Paradisiacal, the passage through Babel back to Eden, God's purpose from the start.
Are we not possessed, and is your CD's title not apt, by the multitudes we contain, not only multitudes of observant and unobservant brave martyred ancestors, not only of the hosts of spirits and demons who parade through our dreams and nightmares, but of all the cultures through which we have wandered, which we helped to shape, in which we are at home and never at home?
Hebrew- and Yiddish-illiterate, I barely know how to pray; riddled with ambivalence, child of Marx, Freud, Mahler, Benjamin, Kafka, Goldman, Luxemburg, Trotsky, An-ski, Schoenberg, mongrel product of Judaism's and of Jewish exteriority, of its ghetto-hungry curiosity, of its assimilationist genius, I now approach Judaism as Jews once approached the splendid strangeness of the Goyishe Velt: I am shall we say deeply confused, but not complacent. And this I think of course is profoundly Jewish. So perhaps I can write your liner notes after all. Of music, son of a clarinetist and a bassoonist though I be, I know nothing.
The gay Rabbi, by the way, was finally invited for the interview, but before he could go he got a better-paying job in Baltimore. So the Temple moved on to its next choice: A woman Rabbi! Who is pregnant!
High Holy Days this year found me doing research for my new play in a tiny town in Britain with no other Jews and no shul, so I cast my bread upon English waters, said the prayers I remembered, lit candles, made Shofar noises, cried for the Dead, begged for forgiveness and decided to read the Bible.
Why does the God in whom I may or may not believe, or rather in whose existence I simultaneously believe and doubt, why does the Almighty spend the first five books of the Bible writing such morally problematic, bewildering stories? We've always had the answer to that one. Because the Torah is not clarification but the World itself; it is the World's Goad towards perplexity, interpretation, towards Midrash and Talmud. "Az er darf ringen mit zayn Libn Nomen!" as a character in Perestroika says, in a scene that's always cut because let's face it, the play's too long. "You must struggle with the Almighty!" "Azoy tut a Yid!" "It's the Jewish way!"
Hey, for the next album let's do a klezmer version of Mime the Dwarf's lament in Act One of Siegfried, the one in 3/4 time, "Das ist nun der Liebe schlimmer Lohn!" "That's all the thanks I get!" Translate the German into Yiddish! Get Daniel Goldhagen to do the liner notes. Already I can hear Wagner spinning in his grave.
Love Love Love!
Kemaste,
Tony Kushner is one of those constipated Jews
who blathers on and on about nonsense forever,
whining and kvetching (sp?) to anyone who will
not run away. That seems to be common in the
aggressively secular, left wing, subset of the
New York Jewish community. No, I'm not being
antisemitic, I could find annoying things about
Boston Irish, East Coast Sicilians, New England
WASPs, etc. Just that Kushner is a kind of Jew
that I have observed in my life, and that ramble
is just more confirmation.
And, once again, his musical taste is
suspect. Have you ever heard Andy Statman?
That's some good klezmer. Very American, as
Statman is a fine bluegrass mandolin player,
and that influence comes through. The Klezmatics
are OK, clearly talented, but not my cup of tea.
"Having spent more than half my life in psychotherapy and half in theater..."
-- from Kushner's mon-coeur-mis-a-nu piece contained in a posting above
"Psychoanalysis is the cure for which it is supposed to be the disease." (Karl Kraus)
Or: Mamma mia!
Mel Gibson was acussed of antisemitism for making "The Passion" and other worsts things and this is a powerful film.
Stephen Spielberg was applauded when he made Amistad, a anti-spanish film, when we know that the slaveness were a british and french affair, and very few spanish, Spain began to buy slaves with the french dinasty Borbons, not Austrian or Hasburg Family, a traditional catholic family that saved many times Europe from Islam.
Now Spielberg made an anti-semite film, oh I remember can a jew be anti-semite? yes he can, but Spielberg is loved. And the jew lobby so bothered for The Passion, what they say now?
Israel must be consecuent and defends himself more times, and not accusing catholics like anti-semites so times.
It's not profoundly Jewish to be deeply confused. It's simply shallow. The phrase in Hebrew is kal shebekalim.
Another self-hating Jew, Woody Allen said (paraphrasing here) "I've been in psychotherapy so long I'm starting to feel like Cole Porter's leg." No wonder he had to ask a priest if there was an afterlife. Memo to Woody: Ask a rabbi!
I don't care what either of these schmucks say, and that now includes Spielberg.
Both "Munich" and "Syrianna" carry the terrorist seals of approval. I can understand why Gaghan didn't want to upset hezballah, after being kidnapped in Lebanon, and driven around while being subjected to some "spiritual leader's" lesson on the 'correct' way to depict hezballah and islam in the movie he was about to make. He was so grateful to be 'allowed' to continue to breathe and even to make his movie, that he was careful to follow the orders he was given. Theo Van Gogh was a serious movie maker. Gaghan is a joke. Speilberg, who has made serious movies in the past, has also stooped to Gaghan's level.
Spielberg's limo-liberalism is irrelevant. This was the same "liberal" who initally supported the Iraq war. And Dr. Pepper is wrong, Spielberg is definitely a cultural elite. Due to his good reputation, his historical movies carry a certain amount of weight that you probably wouldn't find in say Polanski's films. What is more relevant however is the fact that he is a naive Peace Now Jew. Due to his ignorance of Zionist history and Islam, he thinks peace is achievable in Israel if both sides would only confess their sins and root out their respective extremists. But what is a good Peace Now Jew to do if he finds out that the Palestinian Arabs have committed far more sins than the Israelis? Well he can't show that now can he? Because he would be "demonizing" them and playing into the hands of those wacky "Kahanists" who hold so much sway over Israeli politics. So he must equivocate. Yes, the Palestinian Arabs killed 11 Israeli athletes in cold blood at the Olympics, but the Israelis are no better because instead of sorting out their differences over a cup of tea and a plate of hummus, they sought vengeance. And vengeance is wrong. With this whole movie being a metaphor for Israeli retaliation over Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks, he is doing the propaganda for the Peace Now movement for free, that is the "cycle of violence" is the cause for terrorism, not jihad ideology. He's not a self-hater, but more of a naive Jew that thinks that the 1400 years of jihad conquest and infidel hatred can be douced by mouthing some We All Want The Same Thing platitudes and showing a movie featuring Eric Bana.
I wonder how many people have actually seen Munich? I saw the film on opening day and I think it's the best film of the year. I'm also not clear where people get the idea that Palestinians are shown in a sympathetic light. "Palestininans" get very little screen time and are hardly shown as sympathetic.The film does not deal in moral absolutes and you take from it what you want.That could be what is upsetting to some people.To me the film is about justice and vengence for an unspeakable crime.The message of the film for me is what is the price of vengence both for the avenger and those who are punished.If you are a barbarian you can saw off a head on the internet without a second thought. If you are a civilized man it's not unreasonable to think you could have second thoughts even if your cause is just.It's the difference between a Muslim terrorist who would gladly take out a city block and everyone it to get their target.Versus an Isrealis or Americans who goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties.
..idiocy to suggest the Israeli agents would be
plagued with second thoughts..no doubt they volunteered and were happy to dispatch the murderous cavemen.
Spielberg lost my respect, before Munich was even dreamed when he stated something to the effect of, "The most important time of my life were the eight hours I spent with Fidel Castro."
But someone says it better than I do...
Read on...
http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oaghb137.php
I think many of you look at this in the wrong way. It is not that your assumptions of Spielberg and Gaghan are incorrect. You are spot on, but with a twist.
Look, Spielberg went from being a storyteller with great visual skills to being too obsessed with not hurting anybody, giving some bs politically correct spin to a black and white issue. I would argue the black and white nature of Schindler's List is the same form the Munich infamy . . . 'They're all gone.' Or you could argue he's losing his touch . . . The War of The Worlds is now Schindler's List and Munich is no Raiders of the Lost Arc. Few artists keep it up forever, and only the rare artist improves with time(Bergman and, especially, Krystoff Kieslowski of Red, Blue, White fame). Gaghan is a hack. He butchered the great BBC miniseries Traffic into some bs two hour film IMHO. Syrianna takes an activist pro-terrorist position(voice over narration by a suicide bomber), while those evil Texans kill and mame for money, and, of course, religion has nothing to do with it, only poverty. Gaghan deserves the masterpiece theater dhimma award. He's the kind of guy that my Father would flinch at, saying "I hope he's not Jewish." Munich is deliberately ambiguous, morally so and politically as well. All of the Palestinians who die are 'great guys,' while the hit team are also 'great guys,' but laden down with moral guilt. In his quest for a politically correct viewpoint, Spielberg shoots himself in the foot. Sure we can see the Jews internal debate on their moral actions, but where is the corresponding Palestenian guilt, the arab guilt for Munich. The idiot Kushner forgot to add this little diddy didn't he?
What's the point of my long rant? That there is Jewish guilt and Christian introspection . . . did the Jews go too far in Munich in sinking to their opponents level? Did W go too far in Iraq? For the right or wrong reasons? Does Jihad watch make the correct point on this issue or that issue? Where is the arab guilt for(name your atrocity)? Where is the self-critique in Islamic societies???????? Are they safe to criticize the Immans ????? To have some shmuck make Syriana or Munich is not the point . . . the point is that we are an open, self correcting, self editing, diverse, open society . . . and this is NEVER a weakness(no matter how maddening the drek that Hollywood churns out).
Tony Kushner
Meet Stanley Cohen
Roxane, sadly you might be right . . . "I wonder how many people have actually seen Munich? I saw the film on opening day and I think it's the best film of the year." But you fail to mention the competition like The Dukes of Hazard. I didn't see the editor in the credit section of the film. I assume there was one, but he was drunk. The film had good moments and exciting actions, but was overly laden with stuff not on the story of the spine of the movie. What's with all the good talk with papa? I get it, food is a metaphor for whatever, but how bout the French dandy with the dog? Was ne necessary. How about when Avner goes to the Bohemian underground club and gives money to that slutty eurotrash babe . . . now I ask you was that necessary. Maybe after cutting away a third to 40 % of the scenes, you might come away with a really good movie. I think the editor was scared to do his work, not to offend the director(just my opinion) or was drunk. The only two explanations. By the way, Roger Ebert, whom I truly respect, gave Syriana and Munich 4 stars. Maybe 4/10 for intellectual blather. He also gave Shawshank Redemption 3.5? and Red by Kieslowski 3/4. He must be smoking something as well.
By the way, I suffered through Kushner's much lauded Angels In america . . . what was that 45 hours? Roy Cohen BAD. Liberal GOOD. What a deep film that was thematically! I'm told Kushner wrote like a 200 page script for Munich--where the industry standard is 110 and shrinking yearly, but he had SO MUCH TO SAY!!! What a joke, or maybe I'm just jaundiced and jaded(or maybe Kushner, Gag Han or whatever he's called, and Spielberg suck AND I'm jaundiced and jaded).
Other articles on Munich that I would also recommend reading:
Israel-Blaming Spielberg has lost "direction"
NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/59644.htm
Spielberg's 'Munich': Prayer for peace, or nod to terror?
Haaertz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ArticleNews.jhtml?itemNo=656432&contrassID=13&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0
The case against Munich
By Leon Wieseltier
http://jewishworldreview.com/1205/munich.php3
Spielberg film draws Israeli criticism before it opens
Reuters
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051213/en_nm/arts_munich_israelis_dc_2
But you fail to mention the competition like The Dukes of Hazard. I didn't see the editor in the credit section of the film. I assume there was one, but he was drunk.
I try to avoid films like "The Dukes of Hazard" so I'll defer to your judgement on the quality of that film. I did take the time to actually go and see Munich. Like most Spielberg films the techs were exceptional particularly the cinematography.Though I'll agree that the film could have benefited from tighter editing.As for the eurotrash babe I thought the money was paid in exchange for info on the Palestinian terrorists.
Since I haven’t yet seen Munich, I will hold off on any criticism or praise. Regarding Debbie Schlussel’s comment about George Jonas’ book Vengeance: “it was well known that his film was based on George Jonas’ Vengeance – a book discredited as bunk by both Israeli Mossad agents and Palestinians with actual knowledge of the events depicted.”
It would be beneficial if Ms. Schlussel would back that assertion up with some references. The following comments are from a thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Marine Corps Command and Staff College by Alexander B. Calahan titled: Countering Terrorism: THE ISRAELI RESPONSE TO THE 1972 MUNICH OLYMPIC MASSACRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENT COVERT ACTION TEAMS
The paper appears to be well researched including an interview with the agent identified as Avner. From the references in the thesis:
“Avner, former Mossad Operations Officer and primary source to George Jonas,
telephone interview by author, January 27, 1995. Source (Avner) related that due to
contractual and confidentiality agreements, an interview relating to his alleged association
with the Mossad would not be possible. However, he commented that the book,
Vengeance, by George Jonas, describes the details of the Mossad operations subsequent
to the Munich incident, and he could not elaborate beyond what is in the book. The
source (Avner) contacted by the author, further declined to, confirm or deny, (due to the
binding agreements) that he was indeed Avner. Published open source materials have
identified the source as Avner, but the author chose not to identify the publications or the
name of the individual identified. The source commented that the Israeli Government has
officially acknowledged the existence of the independent assassination teams tasked to
target PLO terrorist leaders following the Munich massacre. Suffice it to say that the fact
that the source is restricted through contractual and confidentiality agreements tends to
substantiate the source's identity.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/CAB.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/calahan.htm
Whether or not this is the real Avner, I would appreciate some references to Ms. Schlussel assertion that Jonas’ book is bunkum.
BTW – someone should inform MS. Schlussel that her article is also being used in the white supremacist website National Vanguard (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/ ). What is the National Vanguard – this is their own description:
“National Vanguard is what you've been looking for: an intelligent and responsible organization that stands up for the interests of White people”
(http://nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6678)
Here is another choice tidbit from the Vanguard:
“I have freakin' had it! This "Holocaust" business has gotten way out of hand. Like a dog that bites the neighborhood kids, it needs to be put down...for good.”
“You want "Holocaust Denial," you Jewish Supremacist creeps? I'll give you Holocaust Denial and I won't dress it up in scholarly robes, either.”
“Y'know, I've never really quite "gotten" this Holocaust business. First of all, it happened a long time ago, so it isn't relevant to life today. Second, it didn't happen to me. “
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7298
I can only assume that Ms. Schussel would have a fit if/when she finds her work quoted by this group.
Kemaste,
I'm with you on that Castro comment. I heard
it too. Disgusting!
Roxane,
Leni Riefenstahl was also a brilliant film
maker, and I'm sure "Triumph of The Will" was
wonderful. But it was still Nazi propaganda, and
I wouldn't go to see it. See, I'm one of those
small minded phillistines who thinks there is
right and wrong, and even that, if your cause
is just, you can hate or kill. I'll defer to
Ecclesiastes, or if you hate religion, the
Nichomachean Ethics.
I don't really care for Spielberg, and
haven't since E.T. Nor do I care for the critics,
like Ebert. But I hardly see movies now anyways.
American,
Triumph of the Will is available on dvd I know because I rented the film and watched it.Of course I'm not telling you to watch Triumph of the Will or Munich.That's the beauty of America that we can watch the films we want. What I'm saying is having seen Munich I do not agree with the article that was posted here.My experience in seeing Munich is that the film does not deal in moral absolutes,which may be troubling to some people.Nor did the film say it was wrong to hate or kill,in fact the ex-Mossad agents who assasinate the terrorists are the heros of the film.
Roxane, your last point is right on. Munich does not deal in moral absolutes, which, in my case, is troubling given the subject manner. The subject matter is the inner moral conflicts of the mossad agents. On this point, I find it intriguing that Spielberg/Kushner delayed the execution of the Israeli olympians until the last minutes of the movie. Remember the film has a running start with the attack on the olympic compound by the terrorists . . . but then stopped, only to give further bits of 'Munich' action as the movie progressed. Couldn't the filmmakers just showed the entirity of the Munich assaninations from start to finish--say in 10 minutes--then go on to Avner's story of revenge. You might say this was the filmmakers choice for artistic reasons, and you might be right, but one could argue that the initial murder of the Isralis was so outrageous(as was the arab reaction), that this might alter the "dreaded" neutrality point of view of the film. Arabs kill, Jews Kill. How stupid . . . 'if only' a liberal democrat would save the world(like Clinton). How about the 'metaphoric untrue' scene where the Israelis found themselves in the 'safe house' with the PLO boys. They sleep in the same room. After all we're all human. They even joke and get along. How stupid is this war business and cycle of violence. Arafat wanted peace, didn't that Nobel prize tell us it's true? Or was that a piece of Tel Aviv. Now, Roxane, you might argue successfully that my political bias makes me a very very poor choice to judge this film, and you might be right, but I also found the highly slanted documentary movie that one an oscar(narrated by Michael Douglas)about the Munich tragedy to be riviting.
On the subject of discrediting Jonas' work, by the way, I'm told by an ex-Israeli intel guy that Jonas' book is dead right with one exception . . . that both the Israelis and Palestinians elevated the stature of the killed arabs, for different reasons. The Israelis for purposes of justification(to the world and to 'Avner's' team) while the Arabs wanted to elevate the stature of their killed brothers out of respect.
Roxane, sorry for attacking your tastes. I loved the tv version of The Dukes of Hazard(especially Daisy), and I also saw Munich on opening day. My opinion is simply different than yours. From a technical point of view, I feel the film was too long, and, in my view, had many scenes that were superflous or restated multiple times, but that is just my 2 cents. Still, it grates me when film critics I respect give Munich and Syriana 4 stars(the best rating their is, the benchmark for great, transcendent film). So how about The Shawshank Redemption or The Godfather or ET or Star Wars(the original)?? In my humble, personal opinion, the best scene of the movie was the Lebanese assasination by Israelis(including Ehud Barak, the future Prime Minister of Israel) who attacked in drag, fooling the Arabs manning the roadblocks.
Biorabbi,
The controversial scene near the end of the movie mixing sex and violence is taken from Jonas' book.One of the Mossad agents not sure if that was Avner reports in the book having flashbacks to Munich and the dead athletes.So I think that's why the scene with the athletes appears near the end of the movie in the aftermath of the assassinations of the terrorists. As for the scene in the "safe house". The Mossad agents identify themselves as members of ETA to the Palestinians. The Palestinians do not know they are sharing the house with Israelis they think they are in the company of Spanish terrorists.As for them getting along we know what happens to some of those Palestinians when they next encounter the Mossad agents later in the film.
" Dr. Pepper is wrong, Spielberg is definitely a cultural elite."
I didn't say Spielberg is not a cultural elite; I said that this doesn't explain why he adopts the PC party line with Munich.
Roxane may not realize it, but the PC party line with regard to the problem of Israel and Islam is precisely -- and incoherently as befits Leftist irrationality --: "there are no moral absolutes -- therefore, Israel is absolutely [more] immoral [than the Palestinians]."
PS: Ebert and Roeper, who positively drip with PC sentiments, approved highly of this film.
Roxane,
Yes, the beauty of America is that you can
watch jihadist snuff flicks with live beheadings.
Great use of those freedoms our forefathers
fought for!
The reason Spiderman was a better movie than
anything Spielberg has done is that line, "with
great power comes great responsibility". As I said, you are free to watch whatever you want; likewise, I'm free to call you a worthless piece
of trash for doing so. Freedom cuts both ways.
American,
I've never seen a Jihadi snuff film though I have seen Spiderman, Spiderman 2 and even Batman Begins.You've not seen "Triumph of the Will" or Munich so you have no idea what you're talking about.I suppose that's why instead of presenting a coherent argument you're reduced to calling me names. Gee that's intelligent and very sad.
While on the topic of movies, I really enjoyed True Lies. I thought less of The Siege, as towards the end, it still pretended that Islam is a noble religion that was perverted by the terror cells in the movie. That was even more reprehensible than the movie assuming that in the event of martial law in a US city, the army would act pretty much like the cops in The Shield
Roxane,
Since you've never seen a jihadist snuff film
you have no right to criticize it, by your
standards. Since I've never been in a mosque, I
guess I have no right to criticize Islam? I have
to read Mein Kampf before I criticize Nazism? One
needs to have some kind of direct experience of
every subject about which one speaks? What an
unimaginative person you are! I can read a
summary of Riefenstahl's work if I wish.
I doubt you're capable of judging my intelligence, but if you require it spelled out,
by seeing "Munich" and praising it, you are
giving some small aid to people of low morals,
one who has publically praised dictator Fidel
Castro, and one who considers Israel the greatest
tragedy to ever befall the Jewish people. That's
truly sad. But of course, it's your right to do
all of this, and my right to describe you with
the words I use.
American,
Nope. By seeing Munich and praising it I'm exercising my rights as a free person in a democratic society. I'm also giving my opinion of one film.A film that I've actually seen.You see I am allowed to express my opinion about the film even if you don't approve.You sound like the Jihadists you condemn,full of righteous indignation and venom, unable to understand or tolerate someone who dares offer an opinion that's different from yours.It's way beyond silly that you're upset and reduced to name calling because I given an opinon about a movie. A movie you've never seen and know nothing about.
Jeffreyimm -
You may also want to include this link as well:
Mitch Webber's piece originally in the New York Sun
(New York Sun requires registration, but the review is reprinted at Power Line - link)
Mitch's review reveals so much more - it's defintitely worth a read.
From an acticle that was linked from the Drudge report, it appears that a Mr Mahammed Daoud is also critical of the film. He was one of the leaders that planned and organized the attack, but did not actually participate. He voiced outrage at not being consulted on making this film!
He is presently in Syria, and has been allowed to visit the West Bank after the 1993 "peace" accords. He has no remorse or regrets about his role in the massacre and thinks this slaughter is one of the pivotal moments in the history of terrorism. Apparently Moussad has decided not to go after him.
Steven Speilburg has charactarized this movie as a "prayer for peace".
It's ironic that last night on CBC Newsworld the documentary series "The Passioate Eye" showed the documentary film "One Day in September". Too bad I missed most of it - it seemd very thorough and compelling. One thing I hadn't known were the details regarding the Lufthansa jet that was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists after the Munich massacre. The passangers and crew were ransomed for the captured terrorists. The film made the allegation (substantiated) that the hijacking was a set-up between the German government and the terrorists to allow the captured terrorists to go free in exchange for not attacking Germany in the future. Apparently the circumstances of the jet's departure and scant crew and passenger list supports this allegation as did several witnesses.
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/inseptember.html
If the film significantly distorts the reality of the Munich massacre and the punishment executed on the criminals, then it is evil, although technically it may be superb, skillfull, etc., as was Triumph of the Will. Now there is something very immoral about the point of view of the film and its scriptwriter and other persons involved. If the Western and Communist powers had disapproved of the PLO's tactics and cooperated to stifle the PLO's terrorism in those days, then Israel would have not felt compelled to defend itself in this way. And of course, killing the Munich terrorists was self-defense in a world where in fact there is little order or justice, certainly as far as Jews are concerned. If Kushner cannot and will not understand this, then he deserves no sympathy. A poster above pointed out that the Munich terrorists that Germany put in jail were released in a staged scenario involving a fake plane hijacking and official German connivance with the terrorists.
The comments of "Avner" quoted above do not prove that Jonas' book is reliable. They are nearly meaningless. If this "Avner" was actually a Mossad operative, then he may have been bribed to make anti-Israel propaganda. Books that come out of such a background are likely to be a blend of fact and fiction with a clear political purpose. The notion of morally conflicted assassins/executioners is not confirmed except by this questionable book. That Spielberg used this book as the basis for the screenplay [written by Kushner] shows that he is either foolish for using an unconfirmed source, or that he is morally corrupt.
Of course, there is the documentary "One Day in September" done by Arthur Cohn, which has the virtue of being much more reality based.
Some people may think that an avowedly fictional creation does not have any responsibility to truth, except the "political correctness" of the Stalinists [who are still with us]. But if the film is fiction, then what right do they have to use the names of real people?
Eliyahu:
I mentioned One Day in September above - unfortunately I only caught the tail end. The good news is that it's being rebroadcast on CBC Newsworld again this Friday in case anyone here has access to it.
http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/index.jsp?program=Passionate+Eye