Posted on 01/22/2006 4:02:16 PM PST by wagglebee
Steven Spielberg hit back at critics of his latest film "Munich" about the targeted killing of Palestinians behind the massacre of Israelis during the 1972 Olympics, in an interview to be published Monday ahead of the picture's German and Israeli release.
Spielberg, 59, told German news weekly Der Spiegel that "Munich" aims to reclaim the debate about the moral costs of the struggle against terror from "extremists" and engage moderate forces in the West and the Middle East.
"Should you leave the debate to the great over-simplifiers? The extreme Jews and extreme Palestinians who consider any kind of negotiated settlement to be a kind of treason?" he said in remarks printed in German.
"I wanted to use the medium of film to make the audience have a very intimate confrontation with a subject that they generally only know about in an abstract way, or only see in a one-sided way."
"Munich", which hit US screens last month, depicts an Israeli campaign to hunt down and kill Palestinian radicals behind the hostage-taking of Israeli athletes and coaches during the Munich Olympics.
The drama ended in a massacre: 11 Israelis, five Palestinians and one German police officer were killed.
The film, which will be released in Israel and Germany this week, looks at the psychological and moral toll the assassinations took on the Israeli agents. It is billed as "inspired by real events" to deflect criticism about its historical accuracy.
"Munich" was blasted by some US Jewish commentators who accused Spielberg of equating the Israeli assassins with the Palestinian militants.
Spielberg dismissed the charges as "nonsense".
"These critics are acting as if we were all missing a moral compass. Of course it is a horrible, abominable crime when people are taken hostage and killed like in Munich," he said.
"But it does not excuse the act when you ask what the motives of the perpetrators were and show that they were also individuals with families and a history.... Understanding does not mean forgiving. Understanding does not mean being soft, it is a courageous and strong stance."
Ping.
What do you think the reaction would be on the left if someone made a movie about the motives, family and human side of someone who kills gays? I mean, they're human beings too. We must understand them, right?
Spielberg has turned into one of those guys who thinks he can give it, but can't take it.
Insisting on the truth is too extreme for him.
Waiting for Spielberg's "Understanding Adolf Hitler"...
"The Misunderstood and Unappreciated Pol Pot."
"But it does not excuse the act when you ask what the motives of the perpetrators were and show that they were also individuals with families and a history"
"Understanding Josef Stalin"?
So he admits that he crafted the film to advance his agenda, and not to be an objective retelling of the truth...
Spielberg is a Moron.
Spot on.. that is perfect.
Spielberg is leaving out that the Israelis are dealing with people who only understand force. Negotiating is a sign of weakness.
"Munich" is all about moral relativism, pure and simple. The homo cowpoke movie wins out with higher share because it doesn't have to justify murder in the form of terrorism. Essentially, it's just about two queers humping each other on the range and only offers the tired question of why this can't be normal. Spielberg miscalculated against the moral black and white aspects of the 1972 events in Munich and attempted to blur the line of good vs.evil. Most people aren't buying it or a ticket to his movie. His moral compass is the one that needs calibrating.
The left adores Stalin, that one wouldn't even be a surprise. I think that Oliver Stone is working on a movie about how wonderful Castro is.
I've got these Hollywierd leftists on a short leash, as for when I decide to and not to attend their movies. When Spielberg came out with the militarisic movies I didn't buy into it. The a.h. backed Clinton with his big donations. Is that the action of a person who revers and honors our military? I pegged his movies as a way to tap into the cash vaults of those who did rever our military.
Now his true wishy washy nature has been revealed. I was confident it would.
I guess it is extremism to want to bring just to murders.
It must also be over-simplifying to say that someone who takes civilians captives and murders them is a terrorist and you should not grant them the status of a soldier in uniform or grant them the niceties of a trial before hunting them down and killing them like the rabid dogs that they are.
Yeah we should understand what makes them tick. Not that Spielberg has the correct motivation in mind.
So the people who criticize Spielberg's film are extremists, but the terrorists who massacre Israeli athletes and cut captives' throats are not extremists. What planet is Spielberg living on...
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.