Replies

But I think the statements of moral equivalency are overblown

Showing the Palis as humans is NOT a moral equivalence

Having the lead hero state that he is confused how their revenge is causing more attacks and is it right therefore is not moral equivalence, it is him being drawn out and tired

In each of those scenes, the idea of Israel surviving comes out on top

His mother backs him all the way, and tells him all that matters is that Jews are never treated the same again

Golda Mier is not some wishy washy character, she is someone with a little depth, human!

Just because the movie shows that the Palistinians love their families, too, does not lessen the lesson that they were a bunch of murderous thugs.

All serial murders of our century loved their Moms, right? They were still murderers.

Same in the movie, it is just that the movie shows the Palis loving their families, is that so hard to believe?

NONE of that is a moral equivalence that makes ANY comparison of actions taken by the Mossad vs the PLO or the Fedahyeen.

In each and every case cited of Avry doubts, someone is there to counter his statements and remind him it was all for the safety and security of Israel, a theme that was profound throughout the movie.

Remember: I went into this movie reading some of the same negatives you all did. And all here know I am a huge Israel supporter and would NOT speak well of some Pali sympathetic flick.

This was not some Pali sympathetic flick, just an honest look at the human condition; how a terrorist can love his kids before he tries to kill yours. And how trained killing machines can show mercy to an armed teenager who was about to shoot them.

I am not going to lie, though, it could have had a stronger message of just how evil the Palis were, but this movie showed more even handedness to the characters as humans.

It is not the movie that I think should have been made, but it was fair, and the Jews were the good guys, that was clear!

What about that last 1/2 hour?

Per Apuzzo who liked the film and found it pro Israel as a whole:

"Rather than build to a climax, it’s at this point that the action stops, and the movie devolves into a series of static philosophical discussions about the ‘cycle of violence,’ etc. - and this, really, is where one senses the deadening hand of Tony Kushner. It’s this last 30 minutes or so that contains all the dialogue that has the cultural Left delighted and atwitter, and this is where - unfortunately - so much of Spielberg’s good work is dissipated. There is literally a point in the film where Avner is asked, “What have you learned?” - the sort of obvious, didactic question that should’ve been answered by the first 2 1/2 hours of the film! [The answer? War is hell.] There’s even an an embarassing, utterly pretentious montage intercutting the death of the 11 Israeli athletes with a sex scene (non-graphic) between Avner and his wife. It’s meaningless, film school-level drivel. Again one senses here the hand of the tendentious, sex-as-death obsessed Kushner.

Munich also contains a few gratuitous pot-shots at the CIA, which is accused - admittedly, by the French - of paying/protecting the head of Black September in order to prevent the assasination of American diplomats. This is the kind of snarky historical swipe Kushner apparently specializes in - and it grated on me, deep into the film. It’s one of Munich’s few departures into conspiracy la-la land, and it goes against the overall flow of the story. American audiences should have some explanation from Spielberg about whether he endorses this view of the CIA."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548223/posts