you don't think the movie isn't aware of that?
― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 05:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 06:27 (eighteen years ago) link
Tony Kushner, who wrote the scenario to Steven Spielberg's film "Munich", defends himself in an interview with Peter von Becker against accusations that he was sloppy in his research. "The problem is that there are no accessible documents on the background to the events in Munich in 1972 and their aftermath. Each informant only tells his own side of the story. We know Abu Daoud's version because he wrote a book about it. Now he's gone into hiding, all the while complaining that we didn't talk with him. In truth he's insulted that until now there's been no English translation of his book! (laughs) Even among the Israelis there are differing accounts. And some would like to cover up the fact that the trail of the bloody retaliation for Munich leads to Israel's prime minister at the time, Golda Meir. I have a lot of respect for Meir, and the film doesn't put her down. But without her, Palestinian terror suspects across Europe wouldn't have been hunted down and liquidated, and a lot of innocent lives would have been saved."
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 22:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 22:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― alma, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 22:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 22:36 (eighteen years ago) link
hes questioning israel's use of terror, and the response to the munich killings is the specific narrative he's using.
― cheshire05, Thursday, 19 January 2006 00:58 (eighteen years ago) link
Yes, well, Steven showed us nice well-mannered Palestinians smoking and sharing jokes with cutie Eric Bana, after realizing they'd been given the wrong room. Not even John Ritter had such luck.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 19 January 2006 01:48 (eighteen years ago) link
-- alma (maltease...), January 18th, 2006.
The fact that atrocities were committed in the founding of Israel does not mean that all Israelis lack "core values" or that none of them have moral dilemas about anything. I could just as easily argue that there's no point in showing the "side of the story" of a group that kidnaps and massacres innocent olympic athletes to make their political point.
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 03:02 (eighteen years ago) link
We're talking about trained killers who, in real life, had no regrets or moral dilemmas about the entire thing. The adding in of those emotions only serves propaganda purposes. None of the other violent killers in the movie are shown as human beings. Hell, the people who had nothing to do with it but were killed by the Israelis anyway are barely shown as human beings.
"i think speilberg is trying to question the morality/usefulness of political violence.hes questioning israel's use of terror, and the response to the munich killings is the specific narrative he's using."
Hardly. The film more or less glorifies the killers.
"you don't think the movie isn't aware of that?"
"Yeah, I thought it took pains to emphasize that point."
Not really. The main killer questions it briefly at the end, but he is assured that they do and very little else is said about. The movie also ends by nothing that Salameh was killed, implying he was somewhat guilty.
― alma, Thursday, 19 January 2006 03:43 (eighteen years ago) link
Hahahaha. Most complaints I've heard try to make EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE point. "Oh, we only ever see the Arabs interacting with their daughters, or reading poetry and befriending shopkeepers, and never see them doing anything terrible!"
The main killer questions it briefly at the end, but he is assured that they do and very little else is said about.
Er, no. The Geoffrey Rush character basically tells him, "Who cares if they were involved in Munich? They did plenty of other bad things." And Avner is none too happy about it. It's not as if he strolls back to his Brooklyn walkup whistling.
― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 19 January 2006 11:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 19 January 2006 11:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:34 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:23 (eighteen years ago) link
I didn't think this while I was watching it. The criticisms listed above aren't convincing enough to me, and I suspect they're at least somewhat rooted in anti-Israeli and/or anti-Spielberg stances.
I thought that this film presented its point quite vividly.
― peepee (peepee), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:37 (eighteen years ago) link
The only thing that bugged me was the ott orgasm/airport carnage scene near the end
― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:30 (eighteen years ago) link
Now, I don't doubt that the people they chose weren't prone to feeling bad about killing - but everything about the Munich reaction is shrouded in secrecy and this isn't the 'true story' of what happened.
So, even if the real-life mindset were relevant to a fictional film (which it's not, as slocki said - it never makes any kind of truth-claim about the events), we have little or no evidence to contradict Spielberg's portrayal.
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 20 January 2006 00:32 (eighteen years ago) link
And Mossad people might know cuz uh most of the people in the film are Mossad people and might either through interaction or general experience be able to speak to their mindset. Except the people involved were not involved with Mossad during the operation, nor has any similar operation been undertaken by Mossad (that we know of).
If you want to say it 'rang patently false,' fine - but the problem comes in pretending that Spielberg 'lied' to make the Israelis more palatable.
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Friday, 20 January 2006 05:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 20 January 2006 06:46 (eighteen years ago) link
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-op-kushner22jan22,0,7266356.story
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 24 January 2006 16:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 January 2006 16:16 (eighteen years ago) link
Pretty good film but it made me a bit uneasy how we were supposed to sympathize with the Mossad agents(and I did!).
― Lovelace (Lovelace), Monday, 30 January 2006 16:23 (eighteen years ago) link
And the goal of the much-maligned sex / airport slaughter crosscutting seems obvious, whether it works or not. Avner continually identifies his wife as "home" (who sez this is atypical Spielberg?) as opposed to Israel, but he's done his killing for his other home (and taken his wedding ring off before he starts his assassination tour). Or as Nathan Lee writes in Film Comment, "Avner begins as an efficient, unfeeling tool. He ends so half-mad with grief that visions of dead Olympians play out while he's banging his wife."
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 January 2006 16:40 (eighteen years ago) link
Alex, my adversary on all things Spielberg, art is "lies," especially when you have to boil an eternal conflict down to 164 minutes on celluloid.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 January 2006 16:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 January 2006 16:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― cancer prone fat guy (dubplatestyle), Monday, 30 January 2006 16:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:35 (eighteen years ago) link
the fact that the assasins frantically tried to prevent the little girl from being collateral damage is meant to reinforced their humanity i think--all the better to contrast with the inhumane things they end up doing anyway. compare that moment to women on the boat, etc.
― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:49 (eighteen years ago) link
No shit it is obvious and yeah it doesn't work.
"Alex, my adversary on all things Spielberg, art is "lies," especially when you have to boil an eternal conflict down to 164 minutes on celluloid."
He should tell better lies then cuz I've heard these ones before.
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 03:18 (eighteen years ago) link
Right, and there's no reason to reinforce their humanity. They're more attractive -- more ruthless -- as ciphers. This is one of the few films in which I'd accept a protagonist's realization that he's morally damned without "clues" and "foreshadowing," which Spielberg has never been able to film without getting hamhanded. Eric Bana is a canny actor, and he suggested that he could have played an assassin as cheerfully malevolent as the woman he offs.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 03:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 03:28 (eighteen years ago) link
― gear (gear), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 03:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 04:37 (eighteen years ago) link
I'd forgotten Mich(a)el Lonsdale is in Truffaut's Stolen Kisses, and in Malle, Bunuel and Duras films too. The one I always recall his face from is The Day of the Jackal where's he's the cop trying to thwart deGaulle's assassination.
Alex, do you think you would've been able to ID this as a Spielberg film if his name wasn't on it? cuz I think it's clearly much more mature than his previous 'grownup' films like Color Purple (egad) or Schindler.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:32 (eighteen years ago) link
I still think this is the most logically defensible interpretation, but it's not the first one I thought of. My first reaction, based on how the scene felt when I first saw it, was that the crosscutting is an expression of self-doubt on the part of the filmmakers. Ie., they worry that they have made a film in which the payoff/"money shot"/release/climax/orgasm is killing. In other words the way the film is structured, tension builds as they attempt to assassinate each terrorist, and it's released each time they succeed. So the crosscutting is intended as a brief wormhole into an alternate film in which the terrorist/Mossad roles are reversed and the emotional payoff occurs when the athletes are killed rather than when the terrorists die. But this is just a passing nightmare - not a statement of equivalence, as the films right-wing critics would have it - a moment of self-doubt.
― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 21:20 (eighteen years ago) link
No I wouldn't have, but I could make that claim about most Spielberg films (this is to his credit--the fact that he's always visual interesting despite not having much of cinematic signature is as well.) That said the feeling of disappointment I get from his projects is very consistent. At the same time, I won't deny that a large reason why I find Spielberg so disappointing is that he consistently takes ideas and projects that I am very interested/invested in and does far far less with them than I would have hoped.
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 21:41 (eighteen years ago) link
Did you like Angels in America? I forget. I wonder why the moral rhetoric of the movie is being exclusively discussed as Spielberg's, when Kushner's is unmistakeable in many of the dialogue-heavy scenes.
David Edelstein in the Slate roundtable:
I'm ... endlessly fascinated by vigilantism and its discontents... Torturers frequently regard themselves as vigilantes, acting outside the pansified Geneva Conventions—-and they're abetted by movies and TV shows like 24, which this year presented the unintentionally hilarious spectacle of a battery of ACLU types pouncing within 30 minutes on a super-secret government agency holding a terrorist with knowledge of the whereabouts of a nuclear missile en route to a major American city. (Somewhere around his third year of incarceration, Jose Padilla must have regretted he didn't have Kiefer Sutherland zapping his privates—-he'd have been out in an hour.) ...I grew up with movies about throwing away the manual and doing worse to your enemies than they did to you ("the Chicago way," as David Mamet called it memorably in The Untouchables). I welcome its corollary, "the Munich way." I welcome anything that shifts the cultural dialogue away from "axes of evil."
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 21:56 (eighteen years ago) link
Wait isn't that what I said?
I like Angels in America (liked it a lot more when I saw it fifteen years ago than I did the HBO version though, sadly.) And yeah the heavy-handedness is very clearly at least as much the screenplay as it is Spielberg (Kushner's quote above about "sociopaths" very indicative.) But auteur theory and all that it's not surprising that Spielberg is gonna get the majority of the blame.
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 23:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 10:38 (eighteen years ago) link
I didn't think so... early State of the Union cocktails? ;)
Eric, I knew you had it in you.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 14:40 (eighteen years ago) link