Spielberg defends his 'Munich'

'I knew the minefield was there," says Steven Spielberg, describing the storm of controversy over his new film "Munich." He has been attacked on three fronts, for being anti-Israeli, being anti-Palestinian, and being neither -- which is, those critics say, the sin of "moral equivalency."

"I wasn't naive in accepting this challenge," he says about his film, which begins with the kidnapping and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympiad, and follows a secret Israeli team assigned by prime minister Golda Meir to hunt down those responsible and assassinate them.

"I knew I was going to be losing friends when I took on the subject," he told me during a phone conversation Thursday afternoon. "I am also making new friends." The film, which opened on Friday, had already generated fiery discussion from those who've seen it in previews -- or not seen it, but objected to the very idea of it.

In his film, a character named Avner, played by Eric Bana, heads the assassination squad, and begins to question the morality and utility of his actions. Others in the film articulate a defense of the strategy of revenge. Spielberg says that his film deliberately supplies no simple answers.

"It would make people more comfortable if I made a film that said all targeted assassination is bad, or good, but the movie doesn't take either of those positions. It refuses to. Many of those pundits on the left and right would love the film to land somewhere definite. It puts a real burden on the audience to figure out for themselves how they feel about these issues. There are no easy answers to the most complex story of the last 50 years."

Spielberg said he has been particularly struck by charges that his film makes him "no friend of Israel."

"I am as truly pro-Israeli as you can possibly imagine. From the day I became morally and politically conscious of the importance of the state of Israel and its necessity to exist, I have believed that not just Israel, but the rest of the world, needs Israel to exist.

"But there is a constituency that nothing you can say or do will ever satisfy. The prism through which they see things is so profound and deeply rooted and so much a part of their own belief system that if you challenge that, you challenge everything they believe in. They say the film is too critical of Israel. The film has been shown to Palestinians who think it is too pro-Israel and doesn't give the them enough room to air their grievances.

"I guess what I'm trying to say is, if this movie bothers you, frightens you, upsets you, maybe it's not a good idea to ignore that. Maybe you need to think about why you're having that reaction."

Spielberg, who is the most popular filmmaker in modern history, has regularly chosen to make serious and thoughtful films, some of limited appeal, along with his box-office blockbusters. It is striking that the director of "Jurassic Park" (1993) and the Indiana Jones movies is also the director of "Schindler's List" (1993), "The Color Purple" (1985), "Amistad" (1997) and now "Munich."

"Some of my critics are asking how Spielberg, this Hollywood liberal who makes dinosaur movies, can say anything serious about this subject that baffles so many smart people. What they're basically saying is, 'You disagree with us in a big public way, and we want you to shut up, and we want this movie to go back in the can.' That's a nefarious attempt to make people plug up their ears. That's not Jewish, it's not democratic, and it's bad for everyone -- especially in a democratic society."

Yet what is he saying that has people so disturbed? Careful attention to the film itself suggests that it's not so much what he says as that he dares even to open up the Middle East for discussion.

"My film refuses to be a pamphlet," Spielberg said. "My screenwriter Tony Kushner and I were hoping to make it a visceral, emotional and intellectual experience, combined in such a way that it will help you get in touch with what you feel are the questions the film poses. He said he was taught by his parents, his rabbi and his faith that discussion "is the highest good -- it's Talmudic."

But what about the issue of "moral equivalence," the charge that he equates the Israeli and Palestinian causes, when the rightness of one (or the other) is seen as not debatable?

"Frankly, I think that's a stupid charge. The people who attack the movie based on 'moral equivalence' are some of the same people who say diplomacy itself is an exercise in moral equivalence, and that war is the only answer. That the only way to fight terrorism is to dehumanize the terrorists by asking no questions about who they are and where they come from.

"What I believe is, every act of terrorism requires a strong response, but we must also pay attention to the causes. That's why we have brains and the power to think passionately. Understanding does not require approval. Understanding is not the same as inaction. Understanding is a very muscular act. If I'm endorsing understanding and being attacked for that, then I am almost flattered."

In "Munich," there is a scene where Ali, a member of the Black September group that carried out the 1972 attacks, talks about his idea of a Palestinian homeland. Also a scene where Avner's mother, an original settler in Israel, defends their homeland. And a scene where an Israeli spymaster, played by Geoffrey Rush, provides a strong response to Avner's doubts.

"The whole Israeli-Palestinian idea of home suggests that there are two enormously powerful desires in competition," Spielberg said. "Two rights that are in a sense competing. You can't bring that to a simplicity. The film is asking you to surrender your simplicity on both sides and just look at it again. There was an article in USA Today by a Los Angeles rabbi, accusing me of 'blind pacifism.' That's interesting, because there is not any kind of blind pacifism within me anywhere, or in 'Munich.' I feel there was a justified need to respond to the terrorism in Munich, which is why I keep replaying images of the Munich massacre throughout the movie.

"In 1972, when Black September used the Olympics to announce themselves to the world, they broke all the rules and broke the boundaries of that conflict. Israel had to respond, or it would have been perceived as weak. I agree with Golda Meir's response. The thing you have to understand is, Munich is in Germany. And these were Jews dying all over again in Germany. For Israel, it was a national trauma. The Avner character, in the end, simply questions whether the response was right.

"Sometimes a response can provoke unintended consequences. The Rush character and Avner's mother reply. But people feel my voice is represented in Avner. The movie says I don't have an answer. I don't know anyone else who does. But I do know that the dialogue needs to be louder than the weapons."

Spielberg, a onetime boy wonder who directed his first commercial project at the age of 22, is now 59.

"I guess as I grow older," he said, "I just feel more responsibility for telling the stories that have some kind of larger meaning. Most of my movies sum everything up. I try to make movies to give audiences the least amount of homework and the most amount of pleasure. The majority of my movies have done that. But as I get older, I feel the burden of responsibility that comes along with such a powerful tool. I certainly have made movies by popular demand. There is a distinction between moviemaking and filmmaking. I want to do both."

He repeated that he was wounded by the charge that he is "no friend of Israel" because his film asks questions about Israeli policies. "This film is no more anti-Israel than a similar film which offered criticism of America is anti-America," he said. "Criticism is a form of love. I love America, and I'm critical of this administration. I love Israel, and I ask questions. Those who ask no questions may not be a country's best friends."

Is the Middle East without a solution? I asked. Will there be an endless cycle of terror and reprisal? What about the startling fact that Israel's entrenched political enemies, Ariel Sharon from the right, and Shimon Peres from the left, have resigned from their parties and joined in a new party that says it is seeking a path to peace?

"What I believe," Spielberg said, "is that there will be peace between Israelis and Palestinians in our lifetimes."

'Everybody is sort of saying they wish I would be silent' The telephone rang, and it was Steven Spielberg once again. After our previous conversation, I sent him a defense of "Munich" written by Jim Emerson, editor of rogerebert.com (his article appears on the Web site). It includes quotes from many Jews highly critical of Spielberg.

"[Emerson's article] brought together some sources and some criticisms I hadn't seen," Spielberg said, "and it made me want to be more specific about the responsibility of a Jewish artist.

"Everybody is sort of saying they wish I would be silent. What inspired me by what I read in Emerson's article is that silence is never good for anybody. When artists fall silent, it's scary. And when Jewish artists fall silent about Israel, it's maybe not so much because we think asking questions will do damage to Israel, but because we're intimidated by the shrillness and hysteria with which these questions are received sometimes.

"And I guess, because I'm a Jewish-American artist, that means that I'm not willing to shut up because somebody who claims to speak for the Jewish community tells me to. I guess I have a very deep faith in the intelligence and in the fairness and in the intellectual courage of the Jewish community, and I know that the questions I'm posing with 'Munich' are also questions that many Jews here and in Europe and Israel are asking.

"I think that Jews have always understood that the combination of art and advocacy are not the work for the shy or the timid, and that's why Jews down through history have produced so many important advocates -- because the Jewish community traditionally celebrates a variety of thought. I do not believe that 'Munich' will polarize and was not intended to polarize that community which I love."

A couple of personal observations.

For one I watched the movie (something that I think marks me as a tad bit different from quite a number who started to criticize the movie even before it came out without having seen an iota of celluloid or an opening credit). What I saw was a movie that was honestly quite balanced, and let me explain.

Point 1:

If an Israeli (or pro-Israeli person like me) watches the film, and LOOKS FOR SOMETHING TO GET ANGRY OVER, they will definitely find it. For example there is a scene where one of the characters (played by Banner) is having a tete-a-tete with a Palestinian 'freedon fighter' (read: terrorist), and the Palestinian guy starts 'explaining' why they fight and all that. That seems to be one of the several parts that the people claiming that the movie spouts moral equivalency between the Jews and the terrorists. There are some other parts similar to that one where the terrorists claim that the reason they kill is because of what the Israelis did/do to them, and one part actually has a little diatribe where this person states that people need to ask what must have been done to them (the Palestinians) to make them act like 'animals.'

Hence there are sections that some may oscillate towards and criticize.

Personally I have no problem with that! Why? Well, because even today the pointers that the various Palestinian/Arab characters were making are the SAME ONES being made by the Palestinian/Arab terrorists/apologists today. Go to any 'Arab street' anywhere in the ME and ask them why it is 'ok' for homicide bombers to kill innocents in a cafe or bus (or crash planes into buildings or bom embassies), and the average guy in the Islamic nation will say it is because of 'grievances and dehumanization' and all sorts of stupid jazz! Those are the stupid excuses used in the Arab street, even to this day, to justify the murder of innocents. Hence I am not offended if a movie includes the same statements from the people who make them.

If I watched a movie and saw a horse neigh I wouldn't complain that the sound shouldn't have been a neigh but instead a bleat or a moo or a miaow. In the same way if in the real world terrorists say stupid things, I will not go bananas if a movie has the terrorist characters saying the same inanity on celluloid.

Point 2:

If a terrorist (or terrorist sympathizer), or for that matter anyone who doesn't like Israel much (eg your average DUmmie) watches the film they will ALSO find many things that offend them. For example from the very beginning to the very end Spielberg shows what happened to the Jews. The horrors they have faced. And the bravery they show. The speeches by Golda Mier show her as a very brave woman with a lot of weight on her shoulders who is basically forced to defend her country (even though she is seen saying that she didn't want to take this route but now has no other recourse since the world seems willing to merely watch Jews get killed). The Israeli team is seen as always striving their best not to have any innocents killed (even going out of their way to ensure this). And the Israelis are shown as having amazing bravery ....goodness, even the Israeli athletes are shown as brave (for example when one could have escaped, and had made it to an open window, but then stopped, picked up a knife, and ran back to a building rife with armed terrorists to save his friends ....and in the end got killed). Anyone who doesn't like Israel will not like its portrayal in this film. Definitely. Moreover this film will not be getting any awards or recommendations from the PLO, Fatah movement, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qassa, Al Queda, or whatever Islamic kook-group one wants to name. For every 'anti-Israel' facet there are probably 10 'anti Islamic terrorism' aspects in the movie.

Conclusion:

This is one of those movies where someone will see what they are looking for. Look for 'Hollyweird chastizing Israel and trying to spew forth globs of liberal propaganda' and that is EXACTLY what you will find. Look for 'Steven Spielberg, a Mossad-paid Zionist financed by the Zionist conspiracy to make a propaganda film that depicts the lions of Palestine as terrorists and murderers and shows the illegal zionist nation of Israel as legitimate' and THAT is exactly what you will see.

However, watch the movie with an objective mind, and knowing the history of what happened that day in September of 1972, and a far clearer picture will develop. One that doesn't have 'anti-Israel' nor 'Zionist conspiracies' (I always giggle at the whole 'zionist/mossad conspiracy' rants that DUmmies and pro-terrorists use ....it sounds like something from a cheap 1980s cartoon). And for a movie to make both sides claim it is supporting/apologziging for the other side then one has to wonder ....is it doing either? If I make something that has Paul going nuts saying that I am making a propaganda piece for Peter, and at the same time Pete is going bananas asserting that I am being an apologist for Paul, the question has to be asked if I am doing either.

The movie is slow at parts, and at others quite visceral. Overall though I did not see anything that would have me tearing out my hair. In fact I'd bet that a pro-terrorist/terrorist/DUmmie kook would probably hate the movie far more than anyone else.

Just my 0.02 based on my personal observations after watching the movie.

"What I saw was a movie that was honestly quite balanced,.."

This is exactly the point. And one that you seem not to grasp. So since it is Christmas let me take the time to explain it to you.

If you take more than a milli-second to examine the muslim media you will not find them trying to understand the West or the Israelis or the Americans. You will find them denying the Holocaust and glorifying the suicide bombers. The muslim media are actively engaged in preparing their citizens for War. They are working as hard as they can to prepare their populations for a long, bloody, vicious conflict. A conflict to the death. A conflict featuring lots of nasty bloodshed and destruction.

In contrast, the media in the West is doing its best to equivocate on the nature of the enemy and, worse yet, on the need to fight them.

Think WWII for a moment. Or, better yet, think about the period before WWII. One side was preparing for War. The other side was working just as hard to avoid thinking about war. The result was a catastrophe for humanity. We are truly lucky to have recovered and won.

Humanity is now and always will be infested with brutal thugs of a most vicious nature. From time to time these insane madmen gain power over whole nations and peoples. When this happens, the rest of humanity has two choices: capitulate to the tyrants or beat them into submission. We are at that point now with the red/islamo-fascist alliance.

You can equivocate with idiots like Spielberg (who is safely ensconced in his Malibu mansion) or you can join the fight. In addition, you can try and persuade as many of your fellow citizens to join the fight as possible. This is where the true evil of that dimwit Spielberg is revealed. Spielberg and his ilk are confusing the citizenry about the threat at the very time they should be rallying them to the fight.

Get it?

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.