THE 'MUNICH' ALLUSION: THE DANGER OF SPIELBERG AND THE AMERICAN LEFT

Mona Charen (NRO)

Spielberg's Moral Confusion
Munich's problem

In order to turn this Hollywood problem around, people capable of critical thinking must take on the entertainment industry (an industry that is unthinking by definition) IN ITS OWN VENUES.

bump

HISTORY REVISITED -- OR HISTORY REVISED?
(LETTERS TO EDITOR: Steven Spielberg's "Munich")

spielberg prioritizes his liberal view of how the world should be over how it actually is, or was. He's typical of one afflicted with what Tammy Bruce refers to as "malignant narcissism".

Spielberg prioritizes his liberal view of how the world should be over how it actually is, or was. He's typical of one afflicted with what Tammy Bruce refers to as "malignant narcissism"

Interesting take.

In itself, not that pernicious. But Spielberg makes his arguments with his wishful thinking and lies as the premises. Imagine, for example, putting words in Golda Meir's mouth that she would never have said (and can not now defend).

Munich is disinformation of the worst kind kind (to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about both benignity and intelligence).

Spielberg prioritizes his liberal view of how the world should be over how it actually is, or was.

Interesting take.

I see you've edited my corruption of his name.

In itself, not that pernicious. But Spielberg makes his arguments with his wishful thinking and lies as the premises.

Wishful thinking and lies are not incompatible with the liberal view.

This might interest you -

Continuing the Deconstruction of Hollywood

bump

Another FINE MASTERPIECE!

Saw Syriana, George Clooney flick, and no one in the theater "got it". Everyone walked out after movie was over muttering things like "I don't understand it at all". And we saw it in Pasadena, Calif. Got email from friend in DC who said she didn't get it either.

All I got from it was AMERICA BAD, OIL COMPANIES BAD.

I get SO TIRED of that propaganda coming from Hollywarped. We had lunch in Hollywood Sat. and you should see the loonies there. Why does ANYONE look up to those weirdos?

thanx. I discuss the Hollywood factor a bit more in:

AFTERWORD
MUNICH: A CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
(please see post 38)

Liberals love victims, thus as long as we have Jews being persecuted and murdered en mass it's OK to depict the victims sympathetically. However, when the victim defends himself against the tormentor then, according to the advanced liberal mindset, the victim and persecutor are morally equivalent. Libs are big on moral equivalence. It is a concept that enables them to strike a pose of virtuous superiority floating above the perpetrators of violence and issue pious little sermons on how retrograde all those Americans or Zionists or whoever are. Libs love being able to feel that they are morally superior to everyone else and Spielsmuck is a classic of this genre.

very insightful. bump

My New York Times Review of Munich
(please FReep)

CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND

January 9, 2006

Reviewer: miat22 (Mia T)

... to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence.

Munich, with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, he has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Munich is less about Meir avenging the Munich massacre than it is about Bush waging the War on Terror. The historical (Munich) allusion is key to understanding Spielberg.

The core of his anti-war argument: By fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with Munich, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware.

Hollywood IS DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.
To mitigate its danger, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood venues.
The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.

Was this review helpful to you?
VOTE HERE

also:

AFTERWORD
MUNICH: A CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
(please see post 38)

THE 'MUNICH' ALLUSION:
THE DANGER OF SPIELBERG AND THE AMERICAN LEFT
(Please see post 60)

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)