I’ve read the interviews in Time, and I’ve read the various reviews. I have no desire to see the film. Dave said it perfectly:
My problem with Munich (based on what I have heard) – and I assume it is the same for many others – is not that it portrays Arabs as people, but that it treats terrorists as people, or at least on a level footing with those sent out to kill them.
Now we learn via Alcibiades and Lynn that Spielberg has hired a spinmeister to try to get Israelis to see the film and, presumably, like it and agree with its premise. You know what that says to me?
Spielberg knows he’s got a bomb in the making (so to speak).
Munich is not going to attract a large audience. Teenagers won’t want to see it. Parents won’t be bringing their children. That leaves people who go to films Because They Think They Should, people who agree with Spielberg, and of course, the Jew-haters who want to see a Jew demonize his own.
What bothers me the most about this film is exactly what Dave said: It equates terrorists with soldiers. And frankly, from Spielberg’s interview with Time, it’s rather obvious to me that the man hasn’t got a clue as to what the Israeli situation is all about. A “response to a response?” A “prayer for peace”? That’s what Spielberg thinks Israel’s reaction to terrorism is? No context, no clues. To paraphrase a truly annoying talk radio personality: Shut up and film, Stevie.
And next time, don’t dip your toes into water that’s obviously too deep for you.
I went to see The Passion of The Christ mostly because I wanted to have an informed opinion of it. And I’m glad I did.
On Munich, my sentiments are with you. Not interested. Apparently much is made in the film of the innocent waiter that the Israelis killed. But all of the murdered Israelis were innocents, and bringing justice to their murderers saved countless other lives. In war, non-combatants are killed, and the PLO was (and still is) at war with Israel.
Moreover, the film is false history, based on a discredited book. In other words, propaganda. Who needs it?
What do you expect from somebody whose Jewish education came via Barbara Streisand.
Cut us all a break. What does Barbara Streisand have to do with it? Spielberg grew up in an Orthodox home, which also doesn’t mean anything about his Jewish education. If you don’t know his background, don’t make it up.
Either you like the film or you don’t. And not liking the film does not make Spielberg shallow or incapable, any more than Schindler’s List made him Moschiah Incarnate. Lighten up, people!
I consider “Explorers” to be a crime against humanity.
So how does Foxman’s view of the film cut?
Foxman: Spielberg’s ‘Munich’ treats Israel fairly
Translation: “We do not want to lose Spielberg’s and Hollywood’s donations.”
Spielberg has done a lot for Jews, Holocaust survivors and preserving the memory of those who died “al kiddush Hashem”. It’s terrificly sad that “Munich” may turn out to be a whimpering moral-equivalence apologia for Jew-hating terrorists (from reports so far), but this project only shows that the man has feet of clay.
I realise that a mensch’s failures are all the more disappointing, but he still deserves respect for his past works.
As for me, I’ll read more reviews and, if they confirm the above conclusion, then I won’t be going to see it. As I read elsewhere, “Munich” really stands for appeasement.
As a long-time reader of our local paper’s movie reviews, I have learned never to trust anyone else’s opinions on a film [he and I always are 180 degrees apart]. I may or may not see “Munich” but you can bet the decision will NOT be based on whether someone on the far side of the Internet didn’t like it…
Pingback: Somewhere on A1A...
Contrary to my first comment here, I did see Munich, because a friend wanted to see it. Although it was an interesting character study, and (I am told) accurately depicts post-traumatic stress syndrome, the politics of the film were worse than I could have imagined.
Near the beginning, we see PM Golda Meir saying that the Palestinian Arab terrorists must be inhuman animals, and should be put down. The film then sets about to refute the notion that the assassination targets are inhuman animals.
On the other hand, when the film shows Palestinians arguing that the Jews have left them no choice but to act as they do, the movie offers no rebuttal whatsoever. That is because the Israelis are presented as attempting the impossible: to wage war in a moral manner in order to hold onto a “home” that they stole from the Palestinians.
The only racist in the film is a Jew, who declares that the only blood he cares about is Jewish blood. “Palestinian” claims that their hatred of Israelis is a response to Israeli oppression go unchallenged.
The events of the movie take place in 1972-73. At that time, the PLO made no pretense of seeking a state alongside Israel; its goal was to obliterate the Jewish state. The film never makes this clear, just as it never really relates the Jewish attachment to this particular land.