Spielberg & Kushner's Munich '72 / Israeli vengeance film

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (565 of them)
eh, forget i said anything.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:47 (eighteen years ago) link

TOO LATE NOW, BUDDY

Dan (YOU'VE MADE YOUR MORBIUS-LINED BED, NOW LIE IN IT) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:50 (eighteen years ago) link

Yeah, stenc, I'm not trying to pick on you or anything but I don't understand what on god's green earth you mean with a statement like that. Cos, I mean, yes, at it's very most basic, taking a film of something doesn't necessarily involve storytelling, pacing, etc. You can just sit there and film a door for 17 hours if you want. But movie-making--and I think we can all agree here, besides Mr. Moneybags Douchey, that we are discussing someone who qualifies as a movie-maker--involves all of these things. So I'm really honestly not sure where the hell you were trying to take that.

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:52 (eighteen years ago) link

And quite frankly I find it disingenuous to claim that a film of a door opening and shutting for 12 hours or flowers in slow motion or something doesn't constitute telling some kind of story, some kind of message, with a very deliberately chosen pace.

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:54 (eighteen years ago) link

NB: I am totally trying to pick on you.

Dan (Is It Working?) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:54 (eighteen years ago) link

Stenc, "pacing" is very relevant to shit-throwing monkeys whose visual experience has been hardwired by bad TV.

hahah! spielberg is like the original shit-throwing monkey whose visual experience has been hardwired by bad TV!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 05:41 (eighteen years ago) link

The part where, if the squad hadn't shown up where they did when they did, the Germans would have controlled the bridge and thus prevented a major part of the Allied offensive from Normandy into the rest of France. A development that is positively Kubrickian in the way that chance and contingency interfere in human planning, if not pulled off with quite the same depth or panache.

-- monkeybutler (pdenniso...), November 9th, 2005.

this is an excellent point.

I don't give a damn how ambitious Spielberg might have thought SPR was - in the end it was just a soothing version of standard war movie heroism lined with morally questionable choices to give it a veneer of 'adult' respectability.
-- Are You Nomar? (wooderso...), November 9th, 2005.

ah i see. how do you know when the morally questionable choices are applique or integral to the film? intuition?

the pacing/storytelling/imagery thing... in practice it's hard to tell these apart. even slow, non-narrative films have some kind of pace but then i can think of a fair number of films which have multiple rhythms and moods. 'last crusade' is all pace, all the way: it's almost a continuous chase. but sometimes an incredible shot has rhythm and drives the narrative: eg the amazing single take travelling shot in 'war of the worlds' (haha or 'touch of evil') which follows cruise's car down the motorway.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:03 (eighteen years ago) link

i wonder if the US media will pick up on this. they seem generally keen to link the riots with 'islamism'.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:40 (eighteen years ago) link

how do you know when the morally questionable choices are applique or integral to the film?

When they appear once per castmember and are never discussed again, and the whole movie is bookended with three and a half pounds of mild orange cheddar, those are pretty good indicators.

Which brings us back to a massive problem people have with Spielberg, minus all the discomforts we've discussed about his execution, he seems like he spends a lot of time stepping out on the cliff edge from which one descends into auteur-space, looking down, putting his hand out to show that he's totally going to do it, then turning around and using his complete control of the project to make sure it doesn't really offend or shock anybody over 7.

You almost get the feeling that after he made Jaws he realized that the super cheesy fake shark was exactly what he wanted all along, and used that as a guideline!

TOMBOT, Thursday, 10 November 2005 13:06 (eighteen years ago) link

>'Pacing' is a function of editing and narrative - you want to tell me no critics in history, Agee to Kael to Rosenbaum to Farber etc. - have ever considered that in valuing a film?<

I meant 'PACING' with the quotes ... ie, "oh no, nothing's happening, the camera is static, a dialogue scene went on for more than 3 minutes, etc."

Forget I said anything as well. Ever. Let Frank & Hot Lips be your guides.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 November 2005 14:16 (eighteen years ago) link

TOMBOT is otm that spielberg never really follows through -- i'm not even a big fan (haven't bothered with 'CMIYC', 'the terminal', etc), but he's not alone among top-rank hollywood directors there. the reason i'm excited for this film is i think he'd have to work hard to make a crappy affirmative ending out of the true-story material at hand.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 10 November 2005 14:21 (eighteen years ago) link

I meant 'PACING' with the quotes ... ie, "oh no, nothing's happening, the camera is static, a dialogue scene went on for more than 3 minutes, etc."

Yeah, but nobody you're discussing this with (yes, I am making the assumption I can speak for slocki and Alex on this one, knowing some of their other tastes in film) meant pacing in that fashion. I'm not really sure why you feel the need to be such a condescending prick on these threads so I'm going to take your advice and forget you've ever said anything.

And yeah, I think Tom basically hits it on the head, the potential for true greatness Spielberg has shown is what really creates the violent reaction towards him; it's kind of like no one gets really angry if they go to see a Michael Bay film and he pusses out on some BIG MEANINGFUL THING but with Spielberg it's kind of like, then why did you bother making this film? Why not keep doing what you excelled at, which is big blockbuster entertainment? He doesn't straddle the line very neatly at all. (and yeah, Enrique OTM in that he's not alone)

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Thursday, 10 November 2005 14:30 (eighteen years ago) link

TS: Steven Spielberg vs Ron Howard

Dan (Whose Schmaltz Reigns Supreme?) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:32 (eighteen years ago) link


http://www.bilbocine.com/mash.jpg

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:38 (eighteen years ago) link

you are the worst arguer EVER.

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:01 (eighteen years ago) link

come on, posting "funny" pics when you have run out of arguments is a venerable ilx tradition

, Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:12 (eighteen years ago) link

admittedly i just did that... on a noise board thread... to dr. morbius!

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:14 (eighteen years ago) link

but it was funnier than trying to win an argument by comparing the person you're arguing with to a character from mash!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:15 (eighteen years ago) link

using his complete control of the project to make sure it doesn't really offend or shock anybody over 7.

i dont mean to pick on this post because i think it's a good one. but one reason spielberg is such an interesting figure to debate is that it forces (or should force) the participants to ask themselves just what is so bad about a "happy" ending, or lack of ambiguity, or something that doesn't offend or shock anyone over 7. (all of these issues are pretty up front in the end of AI, i think).

why do we value these things in storytelling or filmmaking? what makes them better? (because they better correspond to "reality"? is that really valid?)

anyway, just some stupid thoughts

ryan (ryan), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:30 (eighteen years ago) link

that was all poorly written. but yeah, i guess my point gets across. (one reason i feel so strongly about AI, for instance, is that it seems the transcend the whole happy/unhappy ending thing for something completely weird and fascinating). on another level it's always worth questioning the surface "complexity" or moral ambiguity of a lot of films which really cant claim those qualities beyond the gesture. i think a lot of spielberg's films genuinely can, and not always because spielberg intended them to.

ryan (ryan), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:34 (eighteen years ago) link

yeah i liked AI for similar reasons. it's such a fascinating jumble of tones!

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:39 (eighteen years ago) link

I'd really have to question whether the ending of A.I. is particularly unambiguous. Or happy, for that matter. Given whose POV the film is really from, who it's being narrated by, and for what purpose.

monkeybutler, Thursday, 10 November 2005 17:15 (eighteen years ago) link

Tombot's last post up there was so brilliant I am in awe.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 November 2005 17:21 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh you guys. It's a top-notch trailer. And does seem mostly concerned with the human cost of vengeance.

SPOILER ALERT

Though I thought the part where Eric Bana turned green and started throwing Palestinian tanks around was a little much.

rogermexico (rogermexico), Thursday, 24 November 2005 18:10 (eighteen years ago) link

Assorted TIME cover features:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1137684,00.html

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 5 December 2005 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link

I finally was subjected to War of the Worlds (courtesy 24-plane flights). Blech. I think part of my lingering disdain for Spielberg is my hatred of the actors he seems so fond of (Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Haley Joel Osment, etc.) The rest I put down to the icky feeling his manipulative style gives me.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 5 December 2005 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link

I saw Worlds last night: quite enjoyable, his best since the first two-thirds of Minority Report. I'm not sure why Cruise is getting all the hate; if anything, Her Fanningness and her scary precociousness made me wonder if Estelle Getty was playing her character instead.

Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Monday, 5 December 2005 21:46 (eighteen years ago) link

The rest I put down to the icky feeling his manipulative style gives me.
-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), December 5th, 2005.

3.2

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 21:52 (eighteen years ago) link

(I've said this in other places, maybe even on this thread - I'd have to look - I just mean that Spielberg knows how to push my visually-triggered emotional buttons, but that more often than not, he's pushing those buttons in the service of really weak and empty material. I don't know what "3.2" is an allusion to).

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 5 December 2005 22:03 (eighteen years ago) link

(oh. the Olympics. right.)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 5 December 2005 22:03 (eighteen years ago) link

Fortunately, The Toms aren't in this. (And Spielberg generally uses them in their least objectionable modes, Light Comedian for TH -- I'm done fighting about Ryan -- and Action Figure for TC.)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 December 2005 14:51 (eighteen years ago) link

Presumably encouraging for non-admirers:

"Really, much like Match Point and Woody Allen, you would not know this was a Steven Spielberg movie if you didn't see his name on it. He really gives up his style crutches for the cleanest telling of this story. And as a result, it really has the feeling of early 70s film, particularly The Conversation, The Day of the Jackal, and even a bit of The Godfather."

http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2005_thb/051206_tue.html

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 7 December 2005 17:10 (eighteen years ago) link

Okay this is officially the movie I want to see the most this December (after The New World that is.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 7 December 2005 17:12 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't like the Godfather very much!

I think the Toms issue is a major factor for me as well. More loathesome actors surely don't exist?

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 December 2005 17:13 (eighteen years ago) link

sure. Patricia Arquette.

AND THEY'RE NOT IN THIS

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 7 December 2005 17:18 (eighteen years ago) link

Yes, I'm aware of that, being as I'm not completely retarded, I was responding to your previous post about Toms H and C (I disagree with your assessment because there IS no good way to utilize those two).

However, OTM about Patricia Arquette.

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 December 2005 17:22 (eighteen years ago) link

what happened to the new world? I thought that was coming out on thanksgiving?

kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 7 December 2005 17:25 (eighteen years ago) link

It's coming out on Christmas weekend, I think.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 7 December 2005 17:32 (eighteen years ago) link

Let the political firefight begin:

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/001430.html


His second film of the year with not-so-oblique 9/11 associations.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 9 December 2005 16:51 (eighteen years ago) link

wow. how interesting... thanks for linking to that morbius. i'm going to see this next wednesday and my interest is even more piqued than before!

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:45 (eighteen years ago) link

i liked it

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 15 December 2005 17:15 (eighteen years ago) link

Good... All the right ppl are disliking it...

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 15 December 2005 17:31 (eighteen years ago) link

Heh.

1. King David Hotel: The bombing of the King David Hotel, which served as headquarters of the British administration in Palestine, killed 91 Arabs, Jews, and Brits in 1946. Two future Prime Ministers of Israel, David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin, masterminded the attack. Disguised as Arabs, members of Begin's Irgun placed 350kg of explosives inside the building. In this action-packed thriller, David (Pierce Brosnan) — a British officer ordered to hunt down the killers — falls for Margaret (Uma Thurman), an American journalist working for Life Magazine. But is Margaret really in love or is she a secret Zionist assassin out to stop David in his tracks?

2. Nakba: A story of innocent love in a time of war and tragedy. Layla (Penelope Cruz) & Salam (Orlando Bloom) are a Romeo & Juliet against the backdrop of the 1948 Nakba, the Palestinian national catastrophe. During the Nakba, over 700,000 Palestinians fled — voluntarily & involuntarily — their homes. Can their love survive conflict?

3. USS Liberty: When Israeli boats and fighter jets attack the US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty in the middle of the 1967 Six Day War, 34 US servicemen are killed and 173 are wounded. The official word from Washington and Tel Aviv is that the attack was a mistake. But Brad Pitt & Tom Cruise, who play surviving officers from the Liberty, swear vengeance after discovering that the attack was actually part of a plot to start World War III.

4. Sabra & Shatila: It's 1982 and the war in Lebanon rages on. British war correspondent Robert Fisk (Star Wars star Ewan MacGregor) hides in the camps of Sabra & Shatilla, while a Lebanese militia aided and abetted by Israel slaughters thousands of Palestinian refugees. Sahar (Sandra Bullock) is a Palestinian mother determined to protect her family at any cost.

5. Vanunu: A political thriller set in Israel, Australia, Thailand, England, and Italy. "Syriana" star George Clooney plays Mordechai Vanunu, the nuclear technician who exposes Israel's nuclear weapons program and pays the ultimate price. Nicole Kidman plays Cheryl Bentov, the American Mossad agent who seduces and kidnaps him.

6. Hebron: A story of tragedy and torn loyalties. In 1994, Brooklyn Jewish doctor Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Muslim worshippers in Hebron, killing 29. Palestinian American Mazen Khalili (Tom Hanks), a State Department official assigned to investigate the massacre, struggles with his job responsibilities and his roots. Leah Rabinowitz (Meg Ryan) is a Jewish American journalist who discovers a dark family secret that will change her life forever.

7. Qana: On April 18, 1996, Israeli shelling of a UN Compound that shelters Lebanese refugees kills more than 100 & injures over 300 men, women, and children. Jessica (Angelina Jolie) is a UN worker determined to let the world know what happened after witnessing the atrocity. Yossi (Robert De Niro) is a Mossad agent assigned to kill Jolie.

8. Gaza: Chris Hedges (Harrison Ford), a New York Times correspondent in Jerusalem, files stories from his hotel room. Hedges reaches a turning point when he witnesses Israeli soldiers killing young Palestinian boys for sport, then defies his editors by writing stories that humanize Palestinians. David Schwimmer & Sarah Jessica Parker make cameo appearances as the parents of Muhammad al-Durra, the 12 year old Palestinian boy killed by Israeli troops in 2000.

9. Rachel: Rachel Corrie (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the idealistic young American activist crushed to death by the Israeli army with a Caterpillar bulldozer. Sally Field, well-known for her role in "Not Without My Daughter", plays Rachel's mother.

10. Refuseniks: When a fellow soldier commits suicide after killing an unarmed pregnant Palestinian woman (played by Natalie Portman) in cold blood, two young Israeli soldiers (Matt Damon and Ben Affleck) decide that the occupation and the killing of Palestinians is immoral and unjust.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 December 2005 17:33 (eighteen years ago) link

Good... All the right ppl are disliking it...

Out of curiosity, who would that include?

Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 15 December 2005 19:26 (eighteen years ago) link

For starters, The New Republic, Matt Drudge and similar lamebrains, and assorted Zionist hoodlums (apologies to Vanessa Redgrave).

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 15 December 2005 19:43 (eighteen years ago) link

Developing...

Lars and Jagger (Ex Leon), Thursday, 15 December 2005 19:44 (eighteen years ago) link

Ah, I thought you meant crit-wise, like Ebert had come out swinging. "WORSE THAN THE BROWN BUNNY AND NO BOOBS" or something.

Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 15 December 2005 19:49 (eighteen years ago) link

i'm too busy today but some actual thoughts on this movie tomorrow

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 16 December 2005 00:53 (eighteen years ago) link

"For starters, The New Republic, Matt Drudge and similar lamebrains, and assorted Zionist hoodlums (apologies to Vanessa Redgrave)."

This is not shocking (nothing indicated that this movie was going to be a sop to the Israeli ultra-right.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 16 December 2005 00:57 (eighteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.