Posted on 01/22/2006 4:02:16 PM PST by wagglebee
Spot on Mamzelle, and precisely the reason he'd never make a film about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The "Jews as victims" position gives Spielberg and his leftwing ilk comfort, and a strong Israel (or armed Jews in general) does quite the opposite.
Nope, only you Stevie, you liberal schmuck! Face it. You have two suck vies in a row and are a bottomfeeder!
..many athletes left the games in disgust when Avery Brundage (head of the Olympic Committee) decided to carry on ....
..Many thought the games should be discontinued, but he wanted to go forward.
For obvious reasons, Mark Spitz, the American gold medal swimmer, left immediately for safety reasons.
As far as I can tell, even though this author gives some insight to the terrorists and presents some level of 'their side'....I'm not reading this as pro-terrorist, anti Israeli....not at all.
Wondering if anyone else has read this.
My esteem for Meir, and the Mossad is unwavering.
One of the reviews I read of this book is that it's a good refutation to Speilberg's Munich
That's an awful question on so many levels. There is a vast difference between indiscriminate hatred and violence perpetrated towards a person for their lifestyle or ethnic heritage (Spielberg doesn't show us the soft sides of Nazis, does he)and violence perpetrated for the supposed intention of liberating a people.
If a movie was made detailing the family life of a person who kills gay people for fun, I'm sure it would be accepted by many people if the movie was not some single-minded finger pointing session. After all, not every wack job comes from a disfunctional family.
Simply looking at the other side of an arguement is not a Liberal ploy intent on destroying America...nor is having feelings of resentment and guilt about blowing away the floor of an apartment building becasue one man is on your hit list. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the terrorists do get killed.
That, Lady, is an excellent analogy.
Saw both, and didn't agree with the critics in either case.
Seems to me that if you're getting your history from dramas, you've got about as much sense as a Private at Ranger Battalion who decides to argue with his Platoon Sergeant 'cause that's the way they do it in "Saving Private Ryan".
Well, some of the people critisizing the movie are probably extremists, but, of course, not all.
I don't think Senor Spielbergo intends to say (and let's be truthful here, it was Tony Kushner, not Spielberg, who wrote the script) that the terrorists aren't extreme. What he is saying is that they are human--which doesn't justify there violent actions, but should at least make us pause for a nanosecond before we embark on a long long mission of assassination.
When the foreign countries pointedly REFUSE to put those criminals on trial, and when the crimes were committed against citizens of one nation, then that nation most definitely has the right to take action to defend itself and its citizens. Germany COULD have put the surviving terrorists on trial, but chose not to. In doing so, they waived their right.
True. On the over-rated pulpit. Gimme David Cronenberg and I'll be happy.
What?
I dont understand your logic on this one. Could you explain please?
Hitler and his henchmen had families as well. Should we take pains to "understand" them, too?
He's just pissy because the movie is tanking at the box office.
So the people who criticize Spielberg's film are extremists, but the terrorists who massacre Israeli athletes and cut captives' throats are not extremists. What planet is Spielberg living on...
NEEDS REPEATING
Spielberg hasn't had a real "hit" in years. "War of the Worlds" took in a little over $230 million, but compared to the cost of filming, it's not what would really be termed a hit.
Spielberg could have chosen to make a film on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, but that would have involved * gasp * Jews fighting back with guns.
After everything I've read about this film, I'm not interested in seeing it.
I've got the perfect movie idea: the story of John William King. John King was the white guy convicted of killing a black man, James Byrd, by dragging him to death behind his pickup.
Unmentioned by most news accounts is how King got his attitude towards blacks: while serving a burglery sentence, he was placed with black inmates, where he was repeatedly gang-raped by the blacks.
I think making such a movie would make a lot of heads explode
I'm not referring to any specific movie or anything, but merely being hypothetical. Though the tone of my response sounds as if I'm wholly defending Spielbergy, I'm not. But saying that, I don't think the question you posed about telling a story centering on the family of a man who wantonly kills gay men is as on the mark as you want it to be.
Every evil person has a family. They might even have a good family. The interesting and devestating aspects about humanizing terroirists, or at least trying to, is to juxtapose their heinous acts against their normal family man life, and how these poles can even exist...saying that, Spielberg doesn't do a great job in doing this. I think the context of the story is the wrong one to pose these questions, considering the public aspect of their assassinations. But I'm obviously not Spielberg.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.