Spielberg's fictions

Jerusalem Post ^ | Jan. 22, 2006 | Alan Dershowitz

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking the keyword Israel.

---------------------------

[Mia T]

bump

My New York Times Review of Munich
CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
(please FReep)

[hosepipe]

Alan Dershowbiz vs Spielberg... Does it get any better..
Well yes.. Deshowbiz vs Chomsky couldn't hurt..

[willyboyishere]

Kushner is ALSO the most overrated playwright of all time.
I found Angels in America full of the most predictable cheap shots and conceits (the Salt Lake City Mormon married man turns out to be a closet gay.etc. etc. )
His writing is always smudged with the pawprints of amateurism and political wishful thinking.
And Spielberg, as talented as he is, cannot ever rid himself of some kind of artistic schizophrenia. For all its believable brutality, Schindler's List winds up going for capital S Sentiment, with Schindler crying that he "could have saved more",etc. etc. Everything that is good in his movies keeps getting undermined by this sentimentality, which has always been a large component of his signature style. Yesterday , the NY Daily News had a brief article quoting several real life Israeli Mossad agents and their reaction to MUNICH. Basically, they felt it had NOTHING to do with reality, and that Mossad agents like those portrayed in the film were so amateurish they would have gotten caught immediately. Obviously the film has an agenda and a message of its own, and that is what always strangles truth and artistic integrity in the womb.

[willyboyishere]

Kushner is ALSO the most overrated playwright of all time.
I found Angels in America full of the most predictable cheap shots and conceits (the Salt Lake City Mormon married man turns out to be a closet gay.etc. etc. )
His writing is always smudged with the pawprints of amateurism and political wishful thinking.
And Spielberg, as talented as he is, cannot ever rid himself of some kind of artistic schizophrenia. For all its believable brutality, Schindler's List winds up going for capital S Sentiment, with Schindler crying that he "could have saved more",etc. etc. Everything that is good in his movies keeps getting undermined by this sentimentality, which has always been a large component of his signature style. Yesterday , the NY Daily News had a brief article quoting several real life Israeli Mossad agents and their reaction to MUNICH. Basically, they felt it had NOTHING to do with reality, and that Mossad agents like those portrayed in the film were so amateurish they would have gotten caught immediately. Obviously the film has an agenda and a message of its own, and that is what always strangles truth and artistic integrity in the womb.

[Mia T]

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 -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies, 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.



My New York Times Review of Munich
Was this review helpful to you?
VOTE HERE

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[veronica]

The movie ends with the image of the World Trade Center projected on the screen...

You have GOT to be kidding me???!!!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It is the success of terrorism, and not attempts to combat it, that invites its repetition.

Amen. I mean, "Allah akbar!!!"

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You have GOT to be kidding me???!!!

Avner and Ephraim are walking outdoors with the NY skyline in the background while Ephraim tries to convince Avner to return to Israel.

[veronica]

Who knew Spielberg was such an idiot. Sheesh...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Who knew Spielberg was such an idiot. Sheesh...

I had intended to NOT see Munich, but my wife wanted to, so...

Anyway, it just so happens that I am in the exact middle of reading "Vengeance," the book upon which Munich is loosely based. One of the things that jumped out at me is that Avner and company were trained to use tiny little Berretta .22 semi-autos like this:

According to "Vengeance," this is the official assassination weapon of the Mossad (much like the CIA uses the Ruger MK series), and the only firearm the team used.

In the first assissination, Spielberg has them using the much larger 9mm Berretta 92FS:

To top it off, when Karl, the cleanup man, comes to remove any evidence immediately after the hit, he is shown picking up spent rimfire cartridges from the floor. Spielberg can't even make up his mind if they were using a 9mm or a .22!

I find this particularly ridiculous since Spielberg went to such great lengths to digitally remove firearms from the hands of agents and replace them with walkie-talkies upon the anniversary re-release of E.T.

He removed guns entirely from E.T., but was not content with little guns in "Munich" and inaccurately replaced them with big guns.

What a butthead.

[Ciexyz]

well said article.

[Publius6961]

Why doesn't Spielberg simply change the title to "Can't We All Just Get Along" and let it go at that?

At least it would be more honest.

[SJackson]

I find this particularly ridiculous since Spielberg went to such great lengths to digitally remove firearms from the hands of agents and replace them with walkie-talkies upon the anniversary re-release of E.T.

He also removed any reference to the cache of black market firearms and explosives bought in the black market by Oskar Schlindler in the event his Jews had to fight for their lives from Shcinlers list.

From more reliable sources, the first assassination was cased by a team of about a dozen, with two Mossad agents flown in for a day for the killing, using silenced .22s.

There's a recently released book by Aaron Klein, Striking Back, which presents a much more accurate picture than Spielberg.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

From more reliable sources, the first assassination was cased by a team of about a dozen, with two Mossad agents flown in for a day for the killing, using silenced .22s.

I am reading "Vengeance" by George Jonas, the book that "Munich" is ostensibly based upon.

This is a serious question: isn't that a reliable source?

[SJackson]

From everything I've read, no. As I understand it, his primary Mossad "source" turned out to be an El Al security guard, discovered after the publication. A couple links to reviews of the Klein book, which appears to be far better researched. Klein is ex-Israeli intelligence, now Time's military affairs correspondent in the region. Timing is coincidental, though the book release was pushed up due to the movie. I've heard Klein interviewed several times, and his conclusions are radically different. From the missions objective, which was killing terrorists who presented future threats, not Munich participants, to the purported misgivings of the participants, which he contends is a complete fabrication.

Aaron Klein Discusses 'Striking Back,' A Look At The Munich Killings, Aftermath

'Munich' distorts history-Michael Medved

New Book Takes Issue With Spielberg's 'Munich'

Rival tome snipes at 'Munich' 'Striking Back' says 'Vengeance' botches history

Coming down firmly on both sides

It was an entertaining movie, a bit slow, but appears not to be historical. Other than the actual Olympics coverage, which Klein says was essentially as accurate as you'd expect in a movie.

BTW, I hadn't noticed the weapon in the first killing, but the 92 hadn't been released till the mid 70s, though I suppose the Mossad could have acquired a prototype if they'd wanted.

[SJackson]

I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but their short bio of Yuval Aviv seems to be accurate. He was Jonas's source for Vengence, and said to be the model for the Avner character who most Israeli sources contend is purely fictional.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

BTW, I hadn't noticed the weapon in the first killing, but the 92 hadn't been released till the mid 70s

I was just guessing that's what they were holding, but it was DEFINITELY not a .22. The muzzle was at least 9mm.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Thanks for all the info. After I finish Vengeance I may pick it up. It's gotten me interested.

[Borges]

If I boycotted everything I disagree with I'd hardly have anything at all to see or watch.