Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Steven Spielberg's MUNICH

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    Thank you.

    Janice asked a third question: Why do I, her cousin-in-law, apparently have a secret plan to destroy Israel?
    Since this is who Kushner is mainly talking to, his article doesn't have much relevance to the larger public.

    Munich" dramatizes the toll violence takes.
    That is what Rosenbaum is saying: Munich is still supposed to make us feel good about the slaughter of Arabs, though we're now also supposed to feel bad about feeling good. Violence....kills. It takes its toll....on the killers, too. Etc. Only a completely pro-Israeli bias (which is easy for most Americans to assume) can allow one to find this line of thinking necessary or useful in this context. Killing a bunch of Arabs messes up Avner's sex life. But it had to be done.
    Last edited by Chris Knipp; 01-23-2006 at 12:18 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840

    More from Kushner's LA Times piece

    P.s.
    We've followed the lead of many Israeli historians, novelists, filmmakers, poets and politicians who have recognized and described the Israeli-Palestinian struggle this way — as something tragic and human, recognizable.
    Again, this is the bias: I don't find this message necessary, but of course if your sources are mainly Israeli, you probably may. More importantly, we need to note that American Jews and many American non-Jews on the issues are well to the right of the average Israeli. Hence Kushner is pointing out, his 'cousin-in-law' is shocked, but he's only following a body of sophisticated Israeli opinion. But that's the bias. It's all about American Jews and Israelis.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Buffalo / NYC
    Posts
    1,116
    It's great to see that Kuchner, Spielberg, and others have responded to any criticism the film has received. In Mr. Kuchner's highly relevant article, he's employed a family member, perhaps one that doesn't exist, to avoid preaching to the public unlike what the film's detractors have done. Munich had to be made from a certain point-of-view and I'm glad that it was (instead of focusing on what the film tries to say, that's what bothers a few). Rosenbaum's comments posted earlier are laughable to say the least.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    I find no fault with Kushner's willingness to reply to detractors, but why wouldn't he do that? As for your calling Rosenbaum's summary of what's new about Munich "laughable," that is hardly a refutation.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Buffalo / NYC
    Posts
    1,116
    It wasn't meant to be a refutation; there isn't much there to "refute."

    Spielberg has been more ardently criticized for being pro-Arab. I guess that must be because he "enjoys killing them."

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    Yes, it may look that way. But there is something very much to refute. You completely misstate the idea. It's not about "enjoying killing Arabs," but approving the slaughter of Palestinians -- while now feeling bad about feeling good about(approving) it. It is only about being an observer, not about being a participant, that Spielberg takes this stand. For the participants, I take it his point is clearly made that killing fucks you up pretty bad. If you misstate the idea, you will not grasp its point. I can assure you there is one. I know Rosenbam's statement is coached in cynical terms, but this a subject where one is driven to cynicism. On intentions, Spielberg's Munich is admirable -- though maddenlingly naive. But in my view, and I think Rosenbaum's, Spielberg's perspective is too limited (and naive) to bring a satisfactory result. And in my view, his result is a film that is ultimately more a muddle than a clarification, for all its dramatic effects and apparent desire to depict moral complexities.

    Some additional statements I've recently found that flesh out my point of view on the film, which may arouse your further derision, no doubt? Also to be refuted by dismissive laughter? --

    Robert Fisk: "My challenge for Steven Spielberg: 'Munich' suggests for the first time on the big screen that Israel's policy is immoral." (An article in The Independent, London, January 21, 2006.)

    Mas'ood Cajee: "Imagine if we were in a parallel universe in which Hollywood gave Arabs and Muslims a fair shake. Here are ten films (all based on true stories) that are just waiting for Spielberg's magic." ("Beyond 'Munich': The Ten Movies Steven Spielberg has yet to make," altmuslim, December 8, 2005).

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Buffalo / NYC
    Posts
    1,116
    No, you're not about to arouse anything further no matter how hard you try. I had read Rosenbaum's comment before, which was nothing but a cheap shot, but I wasn't going to respond until you posted it here. I exactly know why you did that, and you'd be naive to think that I was gonna let you get away with it.

    "It's not about "enjoying killing Arabs," but approving the slaughter of Palestinians -- while now feeling bad about feeling good about(approving) it. It is only about being an observer, not about being a participant, that Spielberg takes this stand. For the participants, I take it his point is clearly made that killing fucks you up pretty bad. If you misstate the idea, you will not grasp its point."

    huh?

    Anyway, I'm not interested in your point-of-view (whatever it is) because you've proven time and time again that you aren't capable of acknowledging one that opposes yours. No wonder it doesn't take you long to resort to quotes and links.

    The next time people watch this film, hopefully they'll pay attention to the fact that it features a world-renowned Palestinian actress named Hiam Abbas (who also served as a technical advisor). She played the wife of an alleged Black September collaborator, and was the one who brought up the issue to Israel's bombing of Palestinian targets in neighboring countries in order to exact revenge, something conveniently ignored by Israeli media. Also pay attention to the fact that Munich had the audacity to suggest CIA's involvement with both the PLO and the Israeli covert squad. And also pay attention to the fact that the answer isn't a "yes" when Avner asks Ephraim whether the men they killed were the ones involved. I have a feeling that if an honorable Muslim filmmaker were to make a film about the operation, it would end up being a lot like Munich. But it wouldn't mean the same because its director wouldn't be an American Jew who happens to be the most famous filmmaker in the world today.

    Since exchanging links is what others like to do around here, here's Armond White's review.

    Also, Sun-times editor Jim Emerson's article.

    I guess it's time to move on before members are subjected to reading one more circular discussion involving Chris Knipp.

    Good Night, and Good Luck.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Big Island, HI
    Posts
    305

    Munich a review

    I can safely say that Munich is a well crafted film. Spielberg presents a sobering and serious character study of a man given a grisly and dangerous assignment. The film itself is engrossing, beautifully shot and believable. Eric Bana, with a simply perfect reaction to hearing his daughter speak on the phone, establishes himself as a heavyweight actor.

    That being said, Munich is a highly manipulative film. Spielberg makes clear by his emphasis on and juxtaposition of certain elements that his contention is that to respond in an "old testament" fashion to terrorism is pointless and merely continues the "cycle of violence".

    This logic is seriously flawed if you put it to the test. First of all, there is no moral equivalence between a terrorist act and violent action against terrorists. Terrorism in the deliberate targeting of civilians and non-combatants to create fear among the general populace to manipulate the political landscape. Terrorism is cowardly, reprehensible and the last refuge of the ignorant and incompetent.

    The "cycle of violence" argument is weak. If a thug punches some lady and takes her purse, is the cop that forcefully arrests said thug perpetuating a "cycle of violence"? Of course not. Spielberg's other contention in the film is beautiful and noble stated by the character Robert played by Mathieu Kassovitz. He states that all the years of suffering and persecution that the Jews have gone through has made them righteous and shouldn't "lower" them to the level of their enemies.

    First of all, it is an insult to the foundation of Judaism and to the intellectual and spiritual contributions of the Jews to suggest that it required thousands of years of persecution to make them "righteous".

    I believe that only someone like Spielberg who was born and raised in America and who has lived in relative safety, affluence and luxury his entire life could actually believe in the impractical course of "inaction" that he espouses.

    I also have a problem with the depiction of the cold, methodical methods used by the Israeli hit-men, particularly when the film goes so far to paint the Palestinian terrorists almost as innocent victims of circumstance. In the movie, the Palestinians who slaughtered the Israeli athletes are shown sympathetically as if there actions are simply responses to forces greater than themselves. They shoot in confusion and desperation, while the Israelis are portrayed as calculating and reasoning.

    If this was not merely my perception but a goal of the filmmaker then there is really an inherent racism in the film. It depicts the Palestinian terrorists almost as sub-human, which is really a cop-out and downplays the cruelty and heinous nature of their crimes.

    As a film, "Munich" is of high quality. As a political statement it is disingenuous and naive. I would only recommend this film to those who have an informed sense of history. Specifically, research the history of the Levant and the Six-Day War.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843
    Originally posted by arsaib4
    you've proven time and time again that you aren't capable of acknowledging one that opposes yours. No wonder it doesn't take you long to resort to quotes and links.
    I guess it's time to move on before members are subjected to reading one more circular discussion involving Chris Knipp.
    I know very well that Chris Knipp is quite capable himself of retorting with grace and wit to these statements. If he feels a need to do so, that is, since their outrageousness and utter lack of factual basis might merit they simply be ignored. I've taken that route before, but my emotions won't allow it this time. For almost four years, disagreements on films and issues with Knipp have resulted in consistently fair and fruitful debates. Consequently, I MUST register a personal protest against the opinion quoted above. My exchanges with Chris Knipp and a few similarly learned and open-minded members are the reason I contribute to these forums. Personal attacks are not conducive to enjoyable and edifying exchanges. Please refrain from resorting to them when faced with members who disagree with your opinion.

    Oscar Jubis.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Buffalo / NYC
    Posts
    1,116
    If Chris Knipp needs to defend himself, he'll do so personally. The comments weren't "outrageous," nor did they lack a "factual basis"; I'm not here to embarrass anyone, otherwise I could've taken that route. Oscar Jubis should be the last member here to "protest" (?) because he/she is one who has often insulted others when faced with an opposing view. I'm sure it's been noticed that I don't take part in conversations that involve this member, and I will continue to do so.
    Last edited by arsaib4; 01-25-2006 at 07:16 PM.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    598

    Here is my review

    MUNICH

    Directed by Steven Spielberg (2005)

    "For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?"- Matthew 16:26


    Steven Spielberg's Munich is a lament for the loss of idealism, not only for Avner (Eric Bana), the leader of an assassination squad, but also for Israel, a country that once proclaimed the supremacy of human values. The film deals with events stemming from the deaths of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, Germany at the hands of a group of Palestinians who came to be known as Black September. It is not a documentary but historical fiction that dramatizes the unofficial Israeli retaliation for the deaths in Munich, depicting the revenge killings of a secret intelligence operation.

    There is much bloodshed and horrific violence in the film but there are no heroes and no villains and, to the chagrin of supporters on both sides, the film contains more questions than answers. Will the killings stop the terror or will the men killed simply be replaced by even more dedicated terrorists? What is the result for an individual's soul and indeed the soul of a nation? Is revenge killing ever justified? These are questions in which Spielberg has shown considerable courage in raising.

    The leader of the unit is Avner, a member of the Mossad, the Israeli version of the CIA, and the son of a war hero. Though he is reluctant to leave his wife who is pregnant, he does not question his mission out of his belief in the righteousness of the Israeli cause. His team includes Steve, a dedicated Zionist from South Africa (Daniel Craig), a toymaker who has turned to making bombs (Mathieu Kassovitz), an antique dealer (Hanns Zischler) and a veteran military officer (Ciaran Hinds). All work for Mossad and their case officer (Geoffrey Rush), though officially no one has an identity or connection to the organization. The film shows that the primary decision was made by a high member of the government, presumably Prime Minister Golda Meir, who justifies the assignment by proclaiming that “every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.”

    Each assassination attempt is shown in detail, including the planning and the execution as the team carries out its operations in Rome, Paris, Cyprus, Beirut, and Athens. As the killings pile up, the bloodshed begins to take its toll, especially the gory "personal" killing of a woman operative who lured and killed one of the members of their unit. The once idealistic Avner becomes disillusioned by the experience and he and others begin questioning the morality of their assignment and whether it will ultimately help or hurt the Israeli cause. Some like Steve, a hard liner says, "the only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood". One member of the Israeli group, however, says "Jews don't do wrong because our enemies do wrong. We're supposed to be righteous" Another says, "Palestinians didn't create terrorism. Palestinian lands were taken by bloodshed and terrorism".

    The Palestinian point of view is represented by a group of Arab bodyguards who unexpectedly share a safe house with the team in Athens, each unaware of the other's true identity. One of the bodyguards, Ali (Omar Metwally) claims that the Palestinians can "wait forever. You don't know what it is not to have a home. Home is everything". Although the film does not take a stand on how countries should react to terrorism, it questions the wisdom of the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" philosophy and the ethical basis of the operation. When Avner concludes, "there is no peace at the end of this", he demands evidence from his superiors that the men they killed were actually involved with the Munich massacre.

    Munich is an honest, tightly woven, and very suspenseful film that contains some fine performances, especially that of Eric Bana. More importantly, it asks us to look at what is possible in today's world beyond the exchanging of atrocities, to perhaps even envision the day when claims of religious superiority ("religionism") will be seen as racism and homophobia are today, as relics of an ignorant past. It allows us to dream that the ultimate solution to the Middle East conflict will not be a political one based on dual states enforcing a religious apartheid, but a spiritual solution where direct experience, not ancient scriptures, will lead people to the divine presence.

    GRADE: A-
    "They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority" Gerald Massey

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    A fair and balanced account with a convincingly positive spin on the film, though much more favorable than my view of it. You don't consider the film's various faults in editing and blind spots or biases, but of course you are right that "both sides" are annoyed by it.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    598
    Originally posted by Chris Knipp
    A fair and balanced account with a convincingly positive spin on the film, though much more favorable than my view of it. You don't consider the film's various faults in editing and blind spots or biases, but of course you are right that "both sides" are annoyed by it.
    Thanks for commenting. I read your review and others and have considered the film from many different points of view. I guess where I ended up is that the positives far outweighed the negatives. I think its one of the few films I've seen that calls into question the so-called war on terror and the morality of revenge. As such, as David Walsh pointed out, "it provides little comfort for defenders of the status quo, in Israel or elsewhere". In addition, the spiritual aspect was more important than any editing miscues and I guess, bottom line, I liked it more than you did.
    "They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority" Gerald Massey

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    Actually if you look back I wrote two reviews, and I believe I started this thread. There was some heated discussion, though in some cases, participants declined to consider assertions of others (even of such eminence as Jonathan Rosenbaum) and merely "refuted" them by calling them "laughable." I did say pretty much what I had to say, if you read the thread, I think you see my position, and the objections I have. On the basis of them, I couldn't list Munich among the year's best. It made my Shortlist, along with Crash and Syriana. Well-meaning efforts all, all with much to say about politics and world affairs, but misfires, in my view. Naturally not everyone agrees with me.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    598
    Originally posted by Chris Knipp
    Actually if you look back I wrote two reviews, and I believe I started this thread. There was some heated discussion, though in some cases, participants declined to consider assertions of others (even of such eminence as Jonathan Rosenbaum) and merely "refuted" them by calling them "laughable." I did say pretty much what I had to say, if you read the thread, I think you see my position, and the objections I have. On the basis of them, I couldn't list Munich among the year's best. It made my Shortlist, along with Crash and Syriana. Well-meaning efforts all, all with much to say about politics and world affairs, but misfires, in my view. Naturally not everyone agrees with me.
    I read every post on this thread and I understand your objections but I feel differently.
    "They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority" Gerald Massey

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •