Posted on 12/11/2005 12:41:55 PM PST by avile
Given the interviews of the director, the scriptwriter and Spielberg that I have read in the last few days, It is pretty obvious what their thoughts are on the subject; IE; Pro-palestinian, and while not necessarily pro-terror, they seem to think it is excusable.
I'll not be attending the movie to give it a 'fair review' as I might have had those three not given interviews. I doubt that they have forsaken their private views for the sake of making an an honest movie, any more than Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman and Dana Milbank give up their personal leftist views to report just the facts.
---------------------------
First, the title of the article is "Spielberg is no friend of Israel." That is correct even before this film. What has Spielberg ever said or done to support Israel. He has basically kept his mouth shut including through the latest round of Palestinian terror known as the Second Intifadah.
Spielberg's efforts to support Jewish causes are mostly related to the Holocaust.
Also Spielberg did not interview any of the Mossad guys or their families to make this film. Some have already contradicted the film's claims that Mossad agents had "regrets" for their missions. Zvi Zamir, former Mossad spy head, expressed anger about not being consulted.
Here is Spielberg's pre-film release statement:
“Viewing Israel’s response to Munich through the eyes of the men who were sent to avenge that tragedy adds a human dimension to a horrific episode that we usually think about only in political or military terms. By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic standoff we find ourselves in today.”
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/06/02/deadline-finke.php
Add to this the choice of the known anti-Zionist Kushner as script writer, the choice of Malta for filming, and a pre-viewing negative assessment becomes logical if not certain.
As to Spielberg is no friend of Israel, why would anyone presume he would.
Makes me wonder if the English Kings of ages past, who employed Jesters to entertain their dinner guests allowed the clowns to influence the serfs politically?
Hollywood, by all means entertain me, but where did you get the idea that your opinions matter one tiny iota to me? Hmmm?
Well, I won't see it.
This is he Hollywood Left's 'Bridge to Far'
American's who are neither Liberal or Conservative may have this vague impression that Hollywood is very liberal, but since their primary sources of information always dismiss the idea, it has not really sunk in fully.
The Hollywood left is so confident of their propaganda ability and the gullibility of "fly over country", that they think this movie will be no exception. The critics and the media establishment will rave about it.
Fortunately for us the American public won’t be fooled. If you poll that 90% of the country which are not hard left/moveon.org types, you will find no one has any doubt that the terrorists who killed the athletes were unredeemably evil. You will find no one who thinks the Israelis were wrong for hunting them down and killing them, when it became apparent the Europeans were not going to punish anyone.
Also, Fortunately fore us the public does not need to see this movie for it to discredit Hollywood and the media in general. The buzz at the water cooler, the talk over Christmas dinner, the consensus of normal people will be:
“Can you believe that Spielberg made a movie taking the side of those terrorists who killed those Olympic athletes.”
“Yes its crazy, and he is Jewish.”
“I wonder what his mother thinks.”
“I saw something about it on the Today show, they were talking about how wonderful it was. Hmm, what planet are they on.”
But watching the sneak previews and all the coming attractions... the article is true. It is anti-Israeli because it suggests that Wrath of God was worse than what the Palestinians did. The Palestinians were motivated by Israeli oppression...the Israelis were just vengeful.
Sneak previews never do a movie justice. I can't for the life of me understand why Spielberg would make an anti-Israeli movie when he is such a staunch Jew. He has such a deep feelings about his Jewish heritage as well as personal feelings about the Nazis/holocaust that have a subtle theme in so many of his movies. And, as I mentioned earlier, he supported the war in Iraq. It just CAN'T be.
Maybe, theoretically, the previews were cut to LOOK like it would be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli to appeal to left-wing movie people who will make decisions come Oscar season. Maybe Spielberg was not involved with the trailer cutting. The trailer I saw for it did not seem anti-Israeli to me.
Being a staunch Jew does not necessarily make one-Pro Israel. A walk down any university library stack would prove this truth.
It just CAN'T be.
I wish it weren't... What happened at Munich was a seminal event in my life.
I may be wrong... to suggest that Speilberg was not involved in some aspect of his movie is rather silly. This man controls it all...from script to ads for awards.
I agree with you. Until I've seen it, the entire movie for myself, will I then be able to make a judgment about what Spielberg's motives might have been.
I guess I just haven't seen enough. And I wasn't sure how much control the director has over the ad campaigns (not necessarily silly, it probably varies from movie to movie).
It is silly to think that Spielberg doesn't control every aspect of his movie. That's what power in Hollywood allows you to do.
Maybe he was too busy to worry about cutting the trailers. He's got another Indiana Jones, probably his next movie.
Still, I'm not questioning your judgement, but...
It is entirely possible that the pro-Palestinian viewpoint of the movie was only in your own interpretation of what you saw. In a good movie made by a good director, the interpretations can become so various that it is overwhelming to consider them all (I'm looking at you, Donnie Darko). Sometimes our own notions get in the way of what we see before us.
I don't know enough about the movie to say anything conclusively. I mean, is there a character saying "What we do is wrong...we are oppressing the poor Palestinians..."?
Go, spend your money and watch the movie... then let me know how you view it...
I've seen enough to know that no matter how much I wanted to see this picture, I will not...
This is going to be very different from the book.
Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team
with an introduction by Richard Ben Cramer
Simon & Schuster, 2005
ISBN: 0743291646
Non-fiction.
The book that inspired the Steven Spielberg film Munich
Vengeance is a true story that reads like a novel. It is the account of five ordinary Israelis, selected to vanish into "the cold" of espionage secrecy -- their mission to hunt down and kill the PLO terrorists responsible for the massacre of eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.
This is the account of that secret mission, as related by the leader of the group -- the first Mossad agent to come out of "deep cover" and tell the story of a heroic endeavor that was shrouded in silence and speculation for years. He reveals the long and dangerous operation whose success was bought at a terrible cost to the idealistic volunteer agents themselves.
"Avner" was the leader of that team, handpicked by Golda Meir to avenge the monstrous crime of Munich. He and his young companions, cut off from any direct contact with Israel, set out systematically to find and kill the central figures of the PLO's Munich operation, tracking them down wherever they lived.
The mechanics, the horror, the day-by-day suspense of what they did surpass by far anything John le Carré or Robert Ludlum could imagine, as they themselves were tracked in turn (and some killed) by PLO assassins, changing identities constantly, moving from country to country, devoting their young lives to the brutal task of vengeance.
Vengeance is a profoundly human document, a real-life espionage classic that plunges the reader into the shadow world of terrorism and political murder. But it goes far beyond that, to explore firsthand the feelings of disgust and doubt that gradually came to torment each member of the Israeli team, and that in the end inexorably changed their view of the mission -- and themselves.
Vengeance opens a window onto a secret world, a book that at the same time inspires and horrifies. For its subject is an act of revenge that goes to the very heart of the ancient biblical questions of good and evil.
You're welcome. I just assumed that since Spielberg supports the WOT, he would support Israel. Oh, well. I guess one does not necessarily go with the other.
In a bygone epoch, traveling minstrels (forerunners of today's touring rock/rap/pop morons), traveling drama troupes and theatre folk were widely disdained as a subculture not to be emulated, admired, nor held up as models of proper social behaviour,values, or political ideas.
That is one area where our modern western society ought to consider "regressing" somewhat.
A.A.C.
I wasn't questioning your judgement, just suggesting that your interpretation might be different from someone else's...or that your judgement may be a little blocked by some notion or another. And yes, I am considerably cute.
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.