I haven't seen the movie yet, but several reviews I've seen have accused Spielberg of using the movie to score political points against the Bush Administration make an ideological point about his distaste for the current American government strategy in the War on Terror. This interview should remove any doubt that these reviewers are right.
Spielberg: The film has already sparked off discussion in the USA about the Middle East and about the methods used today in the "war on terrorism" declared by George W. Bush ...
SPIEGEL: ... in which he repeatedly emphasizes that the enemy is evil incarnate and the enemies are not human beings. The effect of this dehumanization of terrorists ...
Spielberg: ... is that you also no longer have to treat them as humans.
Spielberg claims to be sensitive to the families of the victims of the Munich massacre, but I hardly think using their story as an allegory to promote a political agenda score political points against the Bush Administration shows them proper respect--especially if it's true, as I've read, that the movie spends a helluva lot more time "humanizing" the terrorists than "humanizing" their victims. And by the way, can anyone come up with a single example of when Bush has said that the "enemies are not human beings?" [UPDATE: note that this is precisely what the interviewer said ["empahasizes..."]; Spielberg himself didn't say this, though he didn't disagree, either.]
Another interesting part of the interview is that contrary to some press reports, Spielberg admits in the interview that the movie is based on the (discredited) book Vengeance by George Jonas. Why does Spielberg think the book is accurate?
I met the former agent described by Jonas and known as Avner, and more than once. We spent many hours together. I trust my intuition and my common sense: the man is not lying, he is not exaggerating. Everything he says is true.
Given Spielberg's fortune, do you think he might have actually spent some resources actually investigating the book's claims, rather than relying on "intuition and common sense?" [UPDATE: Spielberg has no obligation to make an "accurate" movie, but in the interview, he is clearly claiming that the book he relied on is accurate. If he just liked the book, he should say, "I liked the book, and I don't care if it's accurate."] I teach and write about expert evidence, and I've learned that when it comes to evaluating controversial claims, nothing is more dangerous than a judge who decides to rely on intuition and common sense instead of objectively considering the empirical basis for the claims in front of him.
UPDATE: Should I have seen the movies before writing about it? Yes, if I were writing a movie review. But given that my two points were (1) an interview with Spielberg shows that the content of the movie was motivated in part by opposition to Bush Administration policies; and (2) that Spielberg claims that the movie is based on an accurate book, but his evidence of accuracy is only his own uninformed judgment, I don't really see how viewing the movie would affect either of those two points.
Evil is a characteristic of volition. Animals or hurricanes can't be described as evil. Humans and other volitional beings, devils, gods, figures of myth, aliens can be described as evil. Thus the use of the term evil as applied to our enemies in WWIV who seek world hegemony, is a statement of their volition, their humanity. Those who would rob them of their capability of being evil are the ones who would rob them of their volition and their humanity.
"We will give them more than they deserve.
We will give them Justice."
The point about "scoring points against the Bush administration" is an entirely separate issue. My reaction to that is "so what?" Hmm, filmmaker doesn't like the Bush administration, certain aspects of his latest movie could be read as being critical of the Bush administration. Is anyone shocked by this? Do artists have an obligation to praise the government of the day? (another Richard III scenario), to produce only art that is neutral towards the government of the day?
I haven't seen Munich and wasn't intending to see it, but whether it's critical of the Bush administration or praises it, or is neutral towards it does not have any impact on my decision. I'm not offended by the fact that artists have opinions, even when those opinions differ from my own, and even when those opinions find their way into the art they produce.
I saw the movie just last night. I didn't take it as a criticism of the Bush administration specifically, so much as a commentary on the institutional inability of nations or groups to understand the perceptions of the enemy. In defining the "otherness" of the enemy, one simply looks past the reasons they perceive their actions as morally justified. That is not to say that if we are all able to stop this aspect of dehumanization, we will all live in peace, love, and harmony. Nevertheless, Spielberg does illustrate how both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian situation act in a manner that hardens the position of the other over time. There is no surprise here -- it happens in every war. If there is an implied criticism of the Bush administration, it is that it entered into a war with a very naive perspective on the nature of the Middle East. I happen to agree with that criticism.
Obviously this would be controversial in a number of respects. (1) It's not known to what extent the actions at Abu Ghraib represent Administration or DoD policy, as opposed to being the independent actions of some messed-up young soldiers. (2) We don't have a lot of information about what's going on at Guantanamo Bay. (3) There's clearly some disagreement about what kind of rights detainees there have, or should have.
However, Spielberg's point does not appear to be that the President or anyone in his administration has ever said that terrorists aren't humans, but instead that their actions toward those whom they suspect of being the enemy aren't consistent with how Americans have traditionally believed humans should be treated. As I say, this statement involves various assumptions, with which we may agree or disagree. But that's what I take him to mean.
(2) Spielberg could claim that he just liked the book, and decided to make a movie out of it. But now, he is claiming the book is accurate. All the other Mossad agents that have come forward and know the events first-hand say it's not accurate.
(3) Spielberg has every right to be critical of the Bush Administration. But he is using the Munich situation as an allegory to the current "War on Terror," while still claiming to respect the families of the Munich victims. If you used the story of the murder of my family member to score political points on something having nothing directly to do with that murder, I wouldn't call it "respectful." I especially wouldn't call it respectful if, as I've read (and I'm conceding here I'm going on accounts of the movie, not personal knowledge), the movie treats the victims as "extras," but the perpetrators' motives, etc. are discussed in great detail.
The movie may be a great work of art, and it may make telling points about human nature, and its view on the War on Terror could be quite thoughtful. But Spielberg is claiming both accuracy and sensitivity to the Munich victims, and the evidence from this interview suggests that he is wrong on both counts.
2. In the movie violence leads to violence. First, the Munich kidnappings/murders, then the Isreali retaliation, and finally the terrorists counter-retalliation. I did not take this as a critique of Bush. It was a comment on human nature generally.
3. Please do not try to comment on something you have never seen. I would however be curious to hear people's opinions after seeing the movie.
4. To me it only makes sense, from a narrative standpoint, to discuss the perpetrators motives but ignore the victims. The victims are out of the story in the first 15 minutes. The movie is about the hunting down of the perpetrators, therefore they play a much more important role in the story. The point of view of the everyman Israeli is well represented in the movie just by other charecters. If Speilberg was writing a book perhaps he should have been more detailed but this is a 2 hour movie.
Maybe that's why we don't allow relatives of the victim to be on a jury? They can't possibly sort out the facts.
"Nothing to do with that murder?"
I can't see how the actual events of Munich and 9-11 don't have everything to do with each other. You have the same cast of characters and the same goals -- kill Jews and destabilize the open cosmopolitan culture with which they are associated.
And btw, you haven't seen the movie? And yet you post on it with a firm opinion? That's as prime and humorous example of chutzpa as I have run across in many days. :) And no, you can't claim simply to be commenting on Spielberg's interview and not the movie itself; that dog simply won't hunt.
The real problem with the movie -- yes, I have seen it -- is that it is simply not very good. It is far too long, it rambles and it doesn't really have a clear POV of view at all. It is by no means favorable to the bad guys and yet it makes the good guys -- the Israelis -- look like bumblers, which may or may not be so but is also somewhat irrelevant. I sthat bumbling some moral flaw? Rooted in revenge? Or just ordinary human mistake? Who knows. The movie doesn't.
My only guess is that if you're looking for a movie to play up the evil involved in killing 11 innocent athletes, there's not much that can be satisfactory. The fact is, though, that to a great extent this movie did. It did portray heroism on the actual part of the athletes. It did, obviously intentfully, come back to the original murders throughout the movie so that we didn't forget what this was all about. No, it didn't tell their life stories, but of course, that's because the movie was actually about what happened after their deaths.
Certainly, anyone who sees this movie is going to take it in a different way. The fact is, though, that Spielberg obviously made a conscious effort to play up the evil involved in the initial killings. If it had been a truly neutral movie, he wouldn't even have done that -- the initial killing wasn't what the movie was about. Now, at the same time, he didn't want to make heavy-handed gestures about the utter mindlessness of all those who are involved in terrorism. He wanted, it seemed to me, to show that even normal-seeming people can engage in the most senseless kind of terrorism. Maybe some of us don't like that position, but I don't think we should equate it, even implicitly, with anti-semitism, which the innuendo regarding his motives seems at least to me to do. The movie, let's not pretend otherwise, was extremely anti-terrorism.
I think that people understand, more than Krauthammer realizes, that killing 11 innocent athletes is a bad thing. I don't think anybody could watch that movie and not feel that way. The movie did nothing to diminish that -- it only played it up. Sure, it spent more time "humanizing" the original terrorists, but that's because they are what the movie was about! He had to tell the story at some point.
I also don't think we should forget that this is a director who made Schindler's List. One can hardly accuse him of ignoring the big evils. Isn't he entitled, then, to make a provocative movie about other factors involved?
The problem with this statement is that an artists work is usually judged in relation to his or her past work, so Munich will invariably be judged alongside Amistad and Schindler's List. If Munich is shown to be playing fast and loose with the facts (while Spielberg is making claims about its historical truth), it only serves to embolden those who would like to challenge the truth behind the other two stories (i.e., Slavery appologists, Holocaust deniers.)
Shakespeare gets a pass with Richard III because there is no evidence that any of his other historical (or other genre) plays were designed to be an accurate representations of the events that they depict. Julius Ceaser contains anachronisms and invented characters, and the (true) events that inspired Hamlet were distorted and shifted out of context to make up that play's dramatic arc.
For a modern day example, imagine if Oliver Stone had made Munich: in light of JFK and Nixon, would anyone be shocked if he was accused of altering the historical record to make a political point?
Also, I haven't seen Munich (I'll probably wait for the DVD), but my cinemaphile friends have all told me that it is not that great as a work of art to begin with: they had problems with Eric Bana's performance (unconvincing) and with the pacing of the film (questionable editing choices.)
The replacement or mediation of revenge and feud by law goes back to the ancient Greeks. Our Constitution and laws, and treaties with other nations, require legal process and accord individual people with legal rights in legal process. The exercise of government power is supposed to be constrained (and I suppose, rationalized) by laws and legal process.
President Bush has asserted that he, in his role as commander-in-chief, is legally unconstrained. He has asserted, on more than one occasion, that he is legally able to order torture, for example, laws and treaties to the contrary notwithstanding; he has never admitted doing so in a specific instance.
We do know that a number of people have been detained and denied legal process. We do know that a number of people, held as prisoners of the United States, have been tortured and some killed, in various circumstances. For there to be a controversy, someone has to assert that that's OK. Otherwise, these are simply crimes awaiting prosecution.
totally rediculous, when the good guys and the PLO end up occupying the same safe house by mistake..would PLO terrorists really yell "PLO!!!!" as identification like they were FBI agents making a bust?? Stupid
Let's look at heatrical films on the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last 40 years:
Cast a Giant Shadow (1966).
Little Drummer Girl (1984).
Munich (2005).
The first film is pro-Israel, the last two are anti-Israel. That's not very many films for such an inherently photogenic topic. One wonders why.
Critics of the contemporary cinema (or to identify it properly, the contemporary left-wing cinema) are merely suggesting that its prejudices should be highlighted as an analytical tool. Since Hollyweird obviously seeks the deconstruction of the US and Western Civilization and its replacement with Godess knows what, it is perfectly appropriate to point out the race, gender, affectional preference, and religio-philisophical backstory of film production.
What's sauce for feminist and queer theorists is sauce for the gander.
I'm shopping this screenplay about a world-girding conspiracy of the MLA, MESA, and the Screen Actors Guild to destabilize American society so that it can fall like an overripe fruit into the hands of its enemies. I like Keifer Sutherland as the lead -- a take-no-prisoners radio talk show host defending traditional American values ('but with a little sex in it', and a little torture).
The moview begins by saying 'inspired by real events.' How is that disclaimer? I'm under no impression that some of the details in it were real.
I don't know how humanizing the movie is, when our hero tells the terrorist that he is making himself out to be an animal and the terrorist replies that that is the goal. Seen the film yet?
COUNTERING TERRORISM: THE ISRAELI RESPONSE TO THE 1972 MUNICH OLYMPIC MASSACRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENT COVERT ACTION TEAMS
by, Alexander B. Calahan, GS-12, Graduate Class, Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Military Studies
April 1995
You say "an interview with Spielberg shows that the content of the movie was motivated in part by opposition to Bush Administration policies," but this is not at all what Spielberg said! He said the film has sparked discussion, not that that discussion sparked the film.
The movie contains graphic scenes where the atheletes, in a state of sheer horror, are savagely murdered. It is beyond me how anyone can watch these scenes and then say Spielberg downplayed the humanity of the atheletes or the depravity of their murder.
That said, the movie does show (argue) the Israeli response, hunting down the terrorists one by one, is extremely problematic. In making this point, it does humanize the terrorists, and it does spend more time on this than it does on humanizing the Munich victims.
So what? Is the movie flawed unless it spends an equal amount of time humanizing each side? Do you really need to spend the same amount of time humanizing innocent, murdered atheletes as you need to humanizine their murderers? I don't think so. In my view, the atheletes come off just as, or even more human than, their murderers.
After watching the movie, you could reasonably disagree on how balanced the movie is on portraying the depravity of each side. But you really need to watch the movie first.
>(1) an interview with Spielberg shows that the content of the movie was motivated in part by opposition to Bush Administration policies; and (2) that Spielberg claims that the movie is based on an accurate book, but his evidence of accuracy is only his own uninformed judgment, I don't really see how viewing the movie would affect either of those two points.<
Maybe the movie makes the points in a way that is actually very appropriate and non-offensive to either side. Or at least that shouldn't be offensive to either side. That wouldn't matter?
Also, I think you're just assuming without basis that he didn't research. Simply stating that his intuition played a role isn't to say that he did no research. As an expert, also, you may not respect intuition, but I think Spielberg is not unusual in reyling on it.
I was unaware that the movie started with that phrase, since I haven't seen the movie. However, that being the case, how can anyone complain that the movie isn't historically accurate? Everyone knows "inspired by" means "don't rely on this movie for factual accuracy."
the "big event" in the movie is depicted with meticulous accuracy (the terrorist attack itself). the undeniable fact is that this movie is one of many that identifies its story with a major historical event
but, except for that event, does not purport to depict an "actual happening." that may or may not be "right," but it is certainly not unusual.
i would point out, for example, that i know many of you liked black hawk down. the representation of those events relentlessly depict those africans as nothing more than nameless, faceless savages. that movie was the zenith of the modern concept of "war porn" (a very fascinating (concept). The "war porn" concept, however, is not my real point. In many african countries, the movie was hugely offensive and controversial. Ridley Scott spent no time depicting the conditions that led to the conflict in which the americans found themselves
intervening. the Myriad poltiical and socieconomic problems that country experienced were airbrushed and collapsed into an utterly uni-dimensional backdrop in order to depict "american valor." That was very offensive to a number of people.
it's a little odd to me that many are so worked up about Munich when the narrative liberties it takes are often taken with historical events all the time and with roughly similar degrees of distortion. one the one hand, i am actually pleased that people are thinking about
the relationship between the events depicted and the way they are retold, but on the other, i am a little discouraged by the naked selectivity of the contexts in which such an intellectual project occurs.
so i guess my point is this:
(1) the criticism that the movie depicts events inaccurately when it invokes those real-life events to contribute to its dramatic effect is
a perfectly normal argument (although I happen to disagree with it -
but that has to do with my attitude towards the relationship between
life and fiction).
(2) i think i react so strongly because these sorts of liberties are taken all the time with respect to all different sorts of people, and if in one instance you find the "factual distortions" argument sufficient to render a movie "bad," then you should probably adhere to
that rule across the board. the reply to that proposition is the rub - the reason you care about it in Munich but not in Black Hawk down is because of your identity with the group victimized by the depiction.
That's fine, but in making that response you reduce the assessment of this phenomenon ("factual distortion") to no more than how you feel about the political material depicted. at that point, the "factual distortion" criticism loses it's universality - you can't say that
other people who don't share your specific ethnic/religious sympathies are somehow irresponsible/incorrect.
****
i just reread the krauthammer article for the 3d time, and it is truly awful. and in precisely the way i mentioned before. i think the problem is that all the articles flying around are by politicians, political
commentarists, etc. while they may be good at what they do, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they're equally adept at analyzing fictional texts. there is a difference between analyzing a movie and analyzing a war. when analyzing a story, rather than an actual event (a war, a demonstration, an election), you have to first
say what "happens" in the movie before you analyze it. krauthammer and a lot of these other policy types weighing on the movie are not particularly good at analyzing what happened.
i've probably made this point before, but one example comes to mind. people repeatedly object to the conversation with gold meir because it
didn't "happen." well, it was a fairly effective narrative device conveying avna's real mother to be israel, rather than the woman giving birth to him. i think that's a painfully obvious point, but i
think frankly lost on the krauthammers who ar caught up in the historical accuracy thing.
***
or the brett stephens article:
take one example: the wah-wah it's unfair that the palestinian's get their position collapsed into an easy-to-digest monologue in the middle of the movie. first of all, presenting complicated philosophical positions in simple monologues like that is a narrative device anybody that has ever made a movie uses. second, and more importantly, stephens selectively omits that the palestinian dialogue is monologue out by it's israeli twin - a speech delivered to avner by his mother. neither monologue is particularly good or insightful, but israel "has a monologue too."
I can't help that but believe that so much of this hostility comes as a result of his authorship of schindler's list. He is reviled in some circles for being a traitor. One commentator (brett stephens) tells him to "phone home."
YES SPIELBERG, "PHONE HOME." PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT YOUR FILMS ARE ALWAYS TO CONFORM NEATLY TO THE POLITICAL INTERESTS OF THE GROUP WITH WHICH YOU MOST STRONGLY IDENTIFY ETHNICALLY. AFTER YOU INTERNALIZE THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE PASS IT ALONG TO SPIKE LEE, MARTIN SCORCESE,
JAMES JOYCE, AND MILES DAVIS.
I think that DB is being too literal here. Assuming arguendo, without condeding the point entirely, that Bush has not actually said "the enemies are not human," he certainly has made references to them being evil (e.g. Axis of Evil, evildoers). Now, when someone who self-identifies as an extremely religous man spouts off about "evil," it seems fair to assume that he means (or should understand that his words can be taken by some as meaning) evil in the religious sense of evil. While being evil(as defined in religious terms) may not make a person not human in a technical sense, it carries for many an implication that they have made some "pact with the devil" (for lack of a better phrase) that fundamentally separates them from other god-fearing types. So, while DB may be correct on this point in a pendantic, technical sense, I don't think it necessarily undermines the spirit (no pun intended) of Spiegel's comment.
What Spielberg, facing Spiegel's question, seems to say is that he actually went to the source of the book, the former agent, and talked extensively with that source. In other words, Spielberg seems to be saying that he did not just take the author's opinion at face value, but rather has decided to believe the story of that former agent as told to him by the former agent. Now, DB tells us that other former agents tell a different story. Well, that sounds like a "he said, he said" situation to me. Given the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, this therefore seems like a non-issue.
Inasmuch as Spielberg is using Munich as an allegory to the current situation, the interview suggests that this is so only on a very general level. It seems to me that the general points Spielberg wants to make (and perhaps carry over to the "war on terror") are that 1) Terrorist acts are horrible; 2) The use of violent responses by Democratic Societies to terroristic acts can be understandable, and in some cases necessary, but may very well lead to unintended consequences; and 3) seeking a deeper understanding of the people who commit terroristic acts may help in ending the cycle of violence. You may disagree with one or more of these assertions, but I don't see how any of them objectively "disrespect" the victims of terroristic violence.
You'd think a guy in his profession would understand irony better than that.
Is that like Bush seeing Putin's soul?
also i didn't read the whole interview but the passage excerpted in the initial post just says that the movie has sparked a lot of bush criticism, rather than was motivated by it. those aren't the same thing.
also, the idea that this is primarily an anti bush allegory is absurd. i forgot who first made this point, but the movie is the ultimate in jewish self-absorption; the movie's about the effect of the assassinations on the israeli psyche, not on the palestinian flesh. and it's certainly not a movie about the american psyche.
i thought everyone agreed vengeance was bogus? where did spielberg say it wasn't? or is that an inference everyone's drawing from his statement about his interviews with real-life avner.
(1) spielberg does appear to believe vengeance to be true. i think that his "intuition" is against the weight of academic authority here. given that the movie does not purport to be historically accurate, i'm not sure why spielberg feels compelled to make this claim. the inaccuracies of the movie are wll known - while there was a campaign of reprisal, there were not "teams," but instead a multilayered system of intelligence gathering, situation planning, and execution.
(2) in that interview I don't see anything suggesting spielberg made the movie to attack the administration.
If you read Bush's speeches, he may refer to his faith occasionally, but he always gives solid secular reasons for everything he does. Bush had good and subtle reasons for calling our enemies "evildoers." First, it's correct. He's not even calling anyone evil, just saying their actions (e.g., intentionally killing innocents) are. Second, he needed some fairly generic term that wouldn't cause trouble. If he said "Arab" or "Muslim" it would inflame millions needlessly. If he said "terrorist" it would be both too small and turn off a lot of people who don't agree on the definition.
For that matter, since his Axis of Evil included Iran, Iraq and North Korea, it's not even just about the Middle East. In fact, that's one of the reasons North Korea was included--so the whole thing didn't just seem like a war against Islam. When it came down to it, "evildoers" fit the bill perfectly.
Even if you think Bush is an idiot-fundamentalist (which, by the way, would teach him that all people are fully human), try to argue as if he were smarter than you. Then you'll have a serious argument, not just a straw man.
Firstly, for an argument "almost too silly to respond to" you sure spent a long time responding to it.
Secondly, I never said or implied that Bush is an "idiot-fundamentalist." First of all, as I said before, Bush has self-identified as a deeply religious Christian? Am I wrong on that?
Then, if anything, one of Bush's most politically astute maneuvers throughout his presidency is speaking in language that is coded in such a way to have a specific meaning to his core constituency, which is made up of Christian fundamentalists. The "brilliance" of Bush's use of the word evil is that it can be spun off the way you did, while at the same time mean what I said it meant to Christian fundamentalists.
What a thoguhtful point.
By the way, we are fighting a war in Iraq. The "scum" in Munich are palestinian.
Ridley Scott said he wanted to make a movie that would display what urban warfare looked like, and he did a very good job of it. He doesn't have any obligation to provide socio-economic background about Somalia to make that kind of movie. If he wanted to make a political movie about why Somalia was a basket case at the time, that would be a different situation, but that wasn't his point in making the movie. He didn't care why they were fighting, he wanted to portray what the fighting looked like.
No matter how one tries to avoid it, DB's post is about the movie. It's farfetched to try to claim that his post is about anything else, such as Spielberg's views outside the movie or other people's opinions about the movie etc etc. That's because in order to assess such claims you have to refer back to the movie itself. Familiarity with the movie itself has to be the starting point for discussion of anyone else's opinion of the movie.
In fact DB wrote that "...but several reviews I've seen have accused Spielberg of using the movie to score political points against the Bush Administration" and then goes on to use an interview with Spielberg to try to prove his own assertion.
But none of it makes sense unless DB had already seen the movie itself. For example, Spielberg MIGHT (arguendo) have tried to make an anti-Israel movie (and from reading some of screenwriter Tony Kushner's statements that's not an impossibility) but the final issue is not what the auteur tried to do but what he succeeded in doing. And to determine that, and whether everyone else's view of the movie are reasonable, DB would have had to see the movie.
I can't hear Bush's words. His actions are so loud they drown out his words.
If that is true, that is the central problem with the movie, and Spielberg's intent. The two situations are entirely different. Vigilante action against known murderers is a legal, not a moral crime.
The sadistic excesses of the War on Terror are moral crimes.
I also did not think that the movie was "anti-Bush" - though some of Spielberg's comments from interview do seem to be. From my perspective, the movie focuses on the activities and mental state of those who set out to avenge the terrorism - and concludes that ultimately, becoming an killer tends to crush a person's humanity.
Yes, there's a scene that plays the violin strings of the palestinian viewpoint vis a vis "the homeland" too strongly. And Spielberg goes out of his way to demonstrate how those who orchestrated the athlete's killings have wives and children and are "human, too." But, in no way did Spielberg minimize the horror of the athletes' murders, nor diminsh sympathy for them.
What is wrong with the movie is this. Although surely he is correct that becoming an assassin must be a brutal way to live emotionally - and one can easily argue that it is wrong for any nation to use such methods - Spielberg does not evaluate other alternatives. What should Israel have done when the murder of innocent athletes occurred? Should Israel have ignored the murders? Should they have declared war? And - if so - upon whom? Trials? Where? And how would they get the alleged killers to trial?
Surely long and meaningful answers could not be put into a 2.5 hour long movie. Still - it would have been nice had Spielberg addressed even superficially that Israel faced, and continues to face those who wish to wipe it off the face of the earth. Thus, though some of Israel's reactions may seem brutal, we can only wonder: if not this - then what?
Or a statement that has nothing to do with Bush
Would it be considered offensive by liberals, on the other hand? Not, I think, anything beyond the extent to which they disagreed with the actual message. Or at least it shouldn't be, if we're trying to be a little reasoable.
On the accuracy point, he said that found the book credible. Perhaps a trial judge should demand more before deciding someone's fate or deciding that money should change hands, but for Spielberg to decide on the basis of "common sense" whether to make a movie and portray it as accurate, it seems perfectly fine to me. If he's wrong, no one is sent to jail wrongfully and no one is "denied justice." Instead, Spielberg loses credibility points for pushing something as accurate that turned out not to be.
Another thing is that part of what Spielberg found credible is the agent's description of how he felt about how he was doing. I think it's a little silly to suggest that Spielberg should have done further research to probe the accuracy of that.
Those of you who decry the Israeli actions going after the Munich killers forget why they did it. The law did not work. The Germans let the killers go.
I would suggest that for some the actions of the Israelis at Entebbe would also be considered suspect.
Cris Allen refers readers to the following:
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/calahan.htm
COUNTERING TERRORISM: THE ISRAELI RESPONSE TO THE 1972 MUNICH OLYMPIC MASSACRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENT COVERT ACTION TEAMS
by, Alexander B. Calahan, GS-12, Graduate Class, Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Military Studies
April 1995
I have not had time to read the paper in full. I would however point readers to the initial coments by Callahan where he thanks George Jonas for the extensive time he spent talking with him. If this is the basis for the paper then I would suggest that it is hardly an objective look at the situation. The fact that the paper is on the FAS site is also another reason the wonder at the neutrality of the paper.
The _only_ possible connection between Munich and Bush might be the closing scens which pans sententiously across the Trade Center towers. But the scene lacks clarity. I was puzzled. The pan was gratuitous and not connected clearly to the movie's narrative. The towers seemed tacked on like a caboose at the end of a passenger train.
So DB, go see the movie and then let's chat.
I posted the link to the paper because I thought it might add something to the debate.
The author clearly credits clearly credits Jonas but he also credit numerous other people (see below).
And the author never claimed to be neutral as he clearly states that the paper is his opinion (see below).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Mr. George Jonas for his candid conversation regarding Avner's team, which was so vital to this study. I would also like to give special thanks to my thesis advisor, Dr. James H. Anderson, my second mentor, Mr. N. Richard Kinsman, and my third reader and year-long faculty advisor, Dr. Donald F. Bittner. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the military officers and civilian faculty of the U.S.M.C. University, Command and Staff College for allowing me the opportunity to participate in a unique learning experience.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OF THE MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE. QUOTATION FROM, ABSTRACTION FROM, OR REPRODUCTION OF ALL OR ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PERMITTED PROVIDED PROPER ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS MADE, INCLUDING THE AUTHOR'S NAME, PAPER TITLE, AND THE STATEMENT: "WRITTEN IN FULFILLMENT OF A REQUIREMENT FOR THE MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE."
THE OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF EITHER THE MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.
if the movie was going to be a mindless screed against the reprisals, why would it omit that occurrence.
davod, it's important to realize the role the germans played in the tragedy. from squabbling over jurisdiction to incompetently executing the rescue attempt to prematurely releasing the terrorists and putting them on a plane out of the country, it's behavior was truly reprehensible. if the movie does have a factual failure - and I define factual failures to occur only when the movie creates the impression in the audience that it is presenting it with an accurate depiction of events - it is the failure to show the failings of the german government.
i also don't agree with the proposition that people who decry the israeli reprisals "forget...." the notion that countries don't break laws to catch people who do is pretty important to some of us. i don't know whether that's a hopelessly naive view for israel or not. with the election of Hamas (effectively the death of neoconservatism as a justifiable intellectual experiment), i'm feeling more and more like it is (naive).
but i'm sure glad that someone is framing the question. the fundamental claim the film's political opponents make - that the movie somehow "equates" the moral culpability of the terrorists with the assassins - is asinine and far more irresponsible than anything spielberg did.
Shame on you for writing about a film that you haven't seen. I shouldn't be telling you this. Your post could have been much more interesting and incisive if you had seen the film and criticized it accurately. Read this, yours is number 7
What the movie is about is the effects of Meir's decision, both on the people involved and on the greater struggle. And in my view, the movie didn't really promote much in the way of definitive answers, but rather intended to raise some troubling questions. Whether one actually found those questions troubling is a different matter, but to say this movie was pushing some particular anti-Bush or anti-Israel message seems completely at odds with the movie as I saw it.
No I don't think that Munich does that either. The United States -- 30 years ago or now -- is simply not a presence in the movie. It is not really all that political -- it's about the pressures of revenge on individuals more than any ideological stance. It's very sympathetic to Israel, a hint of acknowledgement to the Palestinians but it is mostly about a few human beings. It's not an ideological movie. To tease any grand message out of it is difficult. The best one can do is "violence is not good," a sentiment so bland that Cindy Sheehan and George W.Bush could both agree about it.
Andy didn't carry a gun. He was the quintessential "Sheriff Without A Gun," which was the name of the proposed movie someone once tried to make about Andy. And he made Barney keep his gun unloaded, with a single bullet tucked safely in his shirt pocket in case of emergencies (which gave rise to the stock phrase "Andy, can I use my bullet?"). True, they kept rifles under lock and key in the office, but I suspect, taken as a whole, the original show would suit Spielberg's sensibilities.
If you recall the date, the Jews managed to trump the US' bicentennial. I never met a soldier who wouldn't have sold his left whosits for a seat on that ride. That was righteous.
So, I was shocked, in a disappointed manner of speaking, a couple of years later. I was in a dentist's office where he had old news magazines. I read the letters to the editor and had forgotten the number of people whose names were not Arabic or German who though Israel had committed a terrible crime by raiding Entebbe.
Astounding.
I think you are at a disadvantage in this discussion for not having seen the movie (which is up to you, of course, but it makes it difficult for you to comment in an informed manner on the movie).
For example, you say: "Violence is not good is a absolute statement. No nuance there. Why do you see what was done as revenge? How about Justice. Not all Justice is done in a court of law."
There is an extended scene in the movie where Golda Meir essentially makes this same point, and as I noted above, I believe that we viewers are intended to cheer on her decision. Of course, the movie does then raise a series of questions about the effects of that decision, but I don't think it is fair to say the movie comes to a definitive conclusion about Meir's reasoning. Rather, I think the movie is trying to suggest that the potential conflicts between law, justice, peace, and so on all run in multiple directions--meaning, for example, that our interest in law could conflict with our interest in justice, but in turn our interest in justice could conflict with our interest in peace.
Anyway, in that sense I think it is a mistake to try to reduce the movie to a simple message. Rather, I think the movie is all about suggesting these underlying conflicts between values we hold dear.
I have not seen the movie "Munich", and doubt I will until comes to HBO. However, I understand its biggist failing is making the Israel executioners the "moral equivalent" of the Black September terrorists who murdered innocent Israeli athletes. Unfortunately today's entertainment media does not have a good bearing on what is truly "good" and what is truly "evil". The intentional murder of innocents is always "evils". On the otherhand, the execution of the guilty, while it might be regretable, is not, in fact, "evil". I understand that this important distinction is lost in "Munich".
Perhaps because the idea that Israel "supported his family after botching it" contrasts too much with terrorists' senseless, intentional murder of the innocent Israeli athletes, thus highlighting why the terrorists are not really the "moral equivalent" of those who set out to exact justice upon them.
Just a sniff test here - do you really think Spielberg omitted the accidental assassination of the Moroccan waiter because he could not present that accident without present the subsequent fact of the Israeli's support and such support would, contrary to his purpose to demonize Israel, reveal them to be more humane than the terrorists?
Or is it just more likely that he didn't include the incident because he wasn't really interested in serial editorializing against Israel?
Of course, this is exactly why the "moral equivalence" tone of the movie is harmful. If anyone truly thinks that the intentional murder of innocents is equivalent to hunting down the guilty to deliver a much needed "reckoning" than they have a completely warped sense of what is "right" and what is "wrong".
From what I heard about the film, "Munich", its major problem was that attempt to make the "Black September" terrorists the "moral equivalent" of the members of Mossad team dispatched to mark their accounts "paid in full". In order to make this case I believe that including the accidental death of an innocent and the resultant reaction by both the assassins and the Israel government may have been seen as counterproductive. If you make a film whose theme is that executing the guilty is the "moral equivalent" of INTENTIONALLY murdering the innocent - then one's reaction to the accidentaly killing of an innocent might just be too telling.
"From what I heard."
So you haven't seen the movie either?
Let me assure you that whatever the films foibles, moral equation of the two acts is not among them. Perhaps the Israeli reprisals are presented in a light less flattering than they could or should have been, but that's not the moral equivalence you're talking about.
To be honest, I'm not sure how much credibility anybody who hasn't seen the movie can have on the "moral equivalence" issue.
While I haven't seen "Munich", I have read several reviews, including yours. Based on your own critique - apparently, besides making the "bad guys" actions (in murdering the innocent athlete) the "moral equivalent" of the Mossad team's executing the guilty terrorists - the film makes the point that: 1. anti-terrorist actions are futile; and 2. killing terrorists is counterproductive. I suggest that inasmuch as a major part of President Bush plan in the War on Terror is that 1. anti-terrorist actions are necessary; and 2. that best anti-terrorist actions are killing terrorists, that by anyone's definition this movie has to be "anti-Bush". If not overtly then at least subliminally.
Also, the logic that a movie that makes a proposition in tension with an administration is "anti-administration." is flawed. For example, Coppola's "The Conversation" is not an anti-Bush movie just because it considers a particular subject matter.
I don't know that the message of the movie is that killing terrorists is counterproductive (See, e.g. the monolgue Avner's mom delivers to him). The much clearer message is that killing terrorists takes a psychological toll on the people killing them, whether it's productive or not.
The notion that the movie suggests all anti-terror actions to be futile is nonsense. If anybody who has seen the movie thinks this is a viable point I'll happily respond to it, otherwise I'm going to save my time.
Even if all your suppositions were true, and the movie portrayed reprisal assasinations as futile, I cannot for the life of me understand how that equates the moral culpability of Israel with the assassins.
I would prefer if someone who has seen the movie would respond, though.
" cannot for the life of me understand how that equates the moral cuplability of Israel with the terrorists.
As to how Somalia got that way, do you really want to go there?
When the Americans were pulling out, a journalist who was watching got caught up in the event. "Go," he said, "and never come back. These people aren't worth it."
I can only assume that people are reading "moral equivalence" into the fact that the movie makes some effort at explaining the motivations of those who committed the Munich massacre (although not much--the vast majority of the movie is about the thoughts and feelings of Israelis). But I think that people who see that as "moral equivalence" are very much missing the point--the movie isn't trying to promote their viewpoint, but rather is presenting the fact that the terrorists themselves do not believe that they are acting immorally.
And regardless of what one feels about the general situation, surely that is a pragmatic point worth remembering (that terrorists do not generally see themselves as evil).
If "humanizing" the terrorists means "making their actions seem humane," then of course I agree that such an enterprise would be apalling.
If, on the other hand, "humanizing" the terrorists means acknowledging that their actions are a product of an identifiable set of social, political, religious, cultural, and economic phenomena, I just don't understand what the controversy is? Is the point that we would be better off pretending that these guys were just wackos from Pluto?
The objection to "humanizing" terrorists in this second sense strikes me as a profound intellectual denial - a denial to attribute fundamental cognitive properties to terrorists: fear, anger, hatred, suffering, revenge, etc. The product of this mix is explosive, violent, and morally reprehensible, but how on earth are we going to address it if we can't say what it is, and how can we say what it is if we're not allowed to frame the question?
Again, I based by comments on reviews of the film such as those below. If you have a problem with that, well I sorry but that is the way it is.
Well, you get the picture.
I just find it unusual that somebody would argue so fervently without testing the positions advanced in the articles against the film itself.
There is, of course, a response for each and every idea presented in your excerpts above, but it seems sort of pointless to discuss them because you have no first-hand familiarity with the underlying subject matter.
As compared to the murder of innocent Israel athletes at the Munich Olympic Games, exactly what act of Israel with regards to the Palestinians is the "moral equivalent" so as to be the catalyst for the terrorists' "fundamental cognitive properties" of "fear, anger, hatred, suffering, revenge, etc."
If the terrorists of Black September were truly interested in exacting "revenge" for their "fear, anger, hatred, suffering, etc.", then they would have taken the Jordanian athletes hostage and not the Israeli, because King Hussein of Jordan, and not Israel, was cause of the event for which the group was named:
Of course, had they taken the athletes from Jordan they would have earned the censure of the Moslem World.
As for humanizing the terrorists, unfortunately the movie's idea of making these terrorists "human" is "morally equate" their brutal murder of innocents, with the "reckoning" exacted upon them by Israel for their guilt in murdering the athletes.
It is only "pointless" if your rebuttal doesn't hold water. I would love to hear why you believe that the brutal murder of the innocent Israerli athletes is the "moral equivalent" of the Israelis exacting their retribution by executing the Black September terrorists.
There's a similar update of that trope in "The Squid and the Whale," where the adolescent boy parrots his lit-wimp father by continually noting that "This Side of Paradise" is "minor Fitzgerald" without ever having read it.
It's really, really funny.
K
Hmmm! If literary critiques and movie reviews are such unreliable means of judging books and films, why are they so popular?
Please stop addressing me directly. I have repeatedly stressed not only do I find the attack and the reprisal to be morally equivalent, but also that I don't take the movie to be saying that either.
You keep asking me to defand that which I expressly disclaim, and it's getting irritating.
I have repeatedly stressed that they are NOT morally equivalent. If your confusion involves my similar failure to include a "not" at some prior point in the conversation thread, I apologize.
Apparently the movie accomplishes "presenting the fact that the terrorists themselves do not believe that they are acting immorally" by comparing them favorably with those Israel who are hunting them down and killing. I believe fits the definition of "moral equivalence".
And honest presentation would have been that the two motives are diametrically morally opposed, one was "right", while the other was "wrong". When it comes the motivations to kill, it is truly that simple. It is neither complex nor difficult. To do any less is to equate the two morally.
I didn't say that you thought that they were "morally equivalent". Kindly relate what it was about the protrayal of these characters that indicted that terrorists motivation was inferior to that of the Israelis. Of course, you apparently got from the movie that the "cognitive properties to terrorists" were "fear, anger, hatred, suffering, revenge, etc." Arguably the motivations for the Israelis included "anger, hatred, suffering, revenge" - to this extent I would say that movie made you see the two were "moral equivalent", at least to the extent that motivations were the same.
Of course, one of the great things about this joke, and the movie Metropolitan in general, is the way in which it satirizes an entire subculture. I think that parallel is particularly apt here, where it appears that multiple members of a certain subculture are echoing certain specific criticisms of Munich without bothering to actually see the movie.
Indeed, I find this parallel even more amusing in light of the fact that I doubt this latest subculture would appreciate the comparison with the prior subculture (namely, young, naive, self-important, upper-class New York City socialites). And yet I think the subcultural dynamics are in fact remarkably similar.
Precisely, Kovarsky. I haven't posted since the beginning of this discussion, because you have done such a good job of dealing with the willfully ignorant.
Whether one believes that the Palestinians as a group have legitimate grievances or not, the fact remains that they think they have one and that they think the rest of the world ignores it.
It is a fundamental precept of military strategy, going back to Sun Tzu (if not earlier), that one must understand one's enemy in order to engage him effectively. What is the problem with that?
It is not exactly news that retribution of the type in Munich can be counterproductive. If killing 9 terrorists produces 900 because of outrage in the community they came from, then it hasn't solved a great deal. It doesn't matter whether Israel (or the United States) or the people of either feel that such a response is inappropriate or illogical or immoral. There will still be more people with weapons and the desire to use them. No one "wins" a war like that without annihilating the enemy, and annihilation is not an option that is likely to work for either side.
Spielberg, through Avner, asks a fair question at the end of the movie: What did all of this accomplish?
Why is it that only the terrorists are entitled to retribution? The so-called "Middle East Problem" began in 1947-8 when the British and the UN allowed the Jews a tiny sliver of Palestine Mandate. At the same time, the British and the UN allowed the Arabs vast tracks of the Palestine Mandate. The Jews accepted this solution, the Arabs didn't. There ensued a war that pitted the Armies of the Arab Nations against a militia and irregular forces of Israel, with the result that the Israelis held and even expanded slightly its territory when the UN called a Cease Fire.
Since then, Israel fought its Arab neighbors in 1956, 1967, and 1972. In 1957 and 1967 captured Arab terrority, like the Sinai Penninsula (returned to Egypt by agreement twice). In 1967 Israel took the West Bank from Jordan. Had Jordan not attacked Israel along with Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in 1967 the West Bank would still belong to Jordan. The 1967 ended officially with UN Resolution 242, the Arab-Israeli peace settlement that called for peace and recognition of the "right of every nation to live free from threat within secure and recognized boundaries", in return for Israel's withdrawal "from territories"; not "all the territories", nor "the territories captured in the course of the recent hostilities." The Arabs met at Khartoum and agreed to a Resolution known as the Khartoum Resolution which adopted the dictum of no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.
In October 1973, a year after the Munich Massacre, the Arabs again attacked Israel and were once more defeated. Since then, Israel has signed a Peace Treaty with Egypt and returned the Sinai Penninsula (again) and Gaza Strip to Egypt. In 1970-71 the Palestinians that had left the West Bank in 1967 and went to Jordan attempted to overthrow the Jordanian King and King Hussein ran them out of Jordan, killing many of them. The Palestinians call this Black September. These Palestinians became refuges throught the Middle East where no Muslem nation accepted them.
In 1993 Israel signed the Oslo Accords and allowed the refuge Palestinians to return to the West Bank. Jordan agreed with Israel to cede control of the West Bank to serve as a Palestinian State. In 2000 the Israel agreed to turn over control of virtually all the West Bank to the Palestine Authority. The Nobel Laureate, Yasser Arafat, refused the deal and declared the al-Aqsa Intifada which killed some 1,000 Israels, mostly innocent women and children in suicide bombing attacks.
To tuly appreciate the terrorists in the Middle East Crisis you have to realize that first, they only understand military power, they break every agreement they have made with Israel, and prefer to murder innocent Israel children because they realize that their enemy is a moral people who value human life. Now unless these terrorists have a change of heart and learn to live in peace with their neghbors and begin to value human life, I suppose that "annihilation" may be the only solution.
BTW, exactly what was it that Israel did to the Palestinian terrorists that produced the al-Aqsa Intifada and the 1,000+ innocent dead, besides agreeing to meet 99.9% of their demands. The real problem in the Palestine, of course, is not the people themselves, but their leaders, who the people a steady diet of irrational hate beginning with the children in schools. Of course, the reason these leaders can get away with this, is because the UN and most of the leaders of the World are willing to ignore their actions. As for your continued attempt to justify the irrational actions of the Palestinians by attributing to them the moral highground of legitimate grievances, all I can say is the Israel were truly their "moral equivalent", they would have been anniliated them long ago. Anyone unable to accept that "truth", must be "willfully ignorant".