Friday, December 23, 2005
An emailer writes:
Didn't pay. They were giving out free preview tickets to Jews, probably to counter all the negative talk.
The shock was: this is a really boring movie. Really. Part way through, I was looking at my watch to see if it would be over soon. It's very tense, every few minutes I was holding my breath in terror. But it never went anywhere. Felt like it was four hours long - somewhat over two, actually.
The moral equivelance theme is there, overshadowed by the violence only generates more violence theme: When Israel takes out murderers, it causes more murderers to arise. But I would say more moral muddle than failure of morality. It wasn't clear what Spielberg was trying to say. except that death and murder are bad. Well, duh.
I have a feeling the furor over this movie is going to prove itself unnecessary. I'll end up seeing it when it comes out on DVD I'm sure. Here's the thing. Whatever Spielberg and the rest of the Hollywood chest-beaters may think, the enemy got the message...you kill our people, we'll kill you. It's as true now as it was in the '70's, and it's going to stay that way until Spielberg becomes Prime Minister.
In the mean-time, here's another lesson the enemy can take away: Not only do the Jews kick your ass, but they feel real bad about having to do it. I mean, go ahead and kill me, but just don't patronize me afterward. I'm risking going off on a tangent here over a film I haven't seen, but there's a whole other post behind the idea that killing killers (people who know damn well what their future has in store for them) perpetuates anything.
The trouble for Spielberg is that those of us who understand how important it is for the West to stand firm can't stomach people like him who seek to undermine that. It may be a decent film on its merits, but when he made the choice to make the film a political statement (much like the director of Paradise Now), he opened the door to having it judged on the same basis.
Here are a couple of unenthusiastic reviews: Haaretz: A 'Munich' to remember - or not and StarTribune: Movie review: 'Munich' too much, too slow
Judith has a series of posts on the factual basis of events and the film, here.
I thought they didn't get all of the terrrorists behind this?
Also, what about the press conference that the terrorists held afterwards (after Germany released them or before?) where they smiled and bragged like heroes about what they did.
I always thought that after watching that that is what cemented the idea that their must some retribution for what they did. I wonder if that press conference was in the movie as well?
I also thought there was an Israeli private citizen or two that backed the assassinations as much as the Mossad?
It won't be what I expected, on the other hand it won't surprise me if this cinamatic display of faux realism and moral equivalence, as Mike notes, does end up being far more mediocre than Hollywood's PR and the critics' hype has hoped to indicate. Moral equivalencies need to be effected with a great deal of abstraction and sophistication in terms of their aesthetic and technique if they are to be "successful" as propaganda. The all too real global situation we are facing in general, together with the specific manifestations we have seen in the news, in Israel with notable frequency, in Spain, London, Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul, etc., all make it far more difficult to treat this subject matter in an abstracted, aesthetic manner; a stark realism perforce insinuates itself.
If so, Spielberg, Kushner, et al. will end up revealing far more of themselves and Hollywood's affectations and moralistic pretentions than anything else. It does make some sense and I certainly hope such is the case; though Spielberg's imprimatur will surely carry at least some contrary weight and if so, he's simply shown himself, at least in this singular instance, to be a far more sophisticated version of Michael Moore's more gross moral equivalencies.
I wouldn't call the movie mediocore or boring.. at least not to me. It was beautifully shot though.
The main theme of the movie builds in dialogues that point it out.. Kushner uses the characters to mock the older generation belief in the cause of Israel and the country itself. In the end the character leaves his mission and Israel because he is conflicted by both. He decides to stay in Brooklyn with his wife and new daughter... and the message here and in dialogues is that the true attack of the movie is on ISRAEL itself...
That is what comes through.
Your remark on seeing it on DVD underscores the real danger of movies like this and "Paradise Now" - they will be slotted into the lists of 'resource materials' for college courses all over the place. Any teacher or other group leader looking for materials on the conflict will order the DVD - months and even years after the reviews and fiskings have faded from memory.
Only the movie will remain, still in the fullness of contextless authority thanks to the wonder of digitized media.
Correction: I previously referenced 'Mike' when the intention was to reference the emailer cited in the primary post.