NationStates Jolt Archive

We all loved him when he made Schindler's List, hey?

Well, a new movie of his is coming out called "Munich"...and all sorts of people aren't at all happy with its apparent lack of propaganda material.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,391525,00.html
In certain circles, apparently, simply calling attention to the fact that the people killed by counterterrorists are, in fact, people, is at best maudlin, at worst disloyal. "It's very disturbing," said Goldberg. "Something bad has happened. It's almost as though Spielberg's warning about the corrosive effect on the soul is all too true."

I just thought that this is interesting, and you might like to read it. Apparently it's no longer proper to portray Terrorism as anything else but a demonic force of evil, independent of the empty shells that are the Terrorists, which deserve no better than torture and death.

Sometimes I wonder what the world is coming to.

When did movies stop being a work of entertainment? All I wanna know is, "Is it going to be good?"

Ah, we all miss the old days...

... where Middle Eastern are all Terrorists wearing keffirs who strap bombs on their chests and scream "Allah" before blowing up white people.

... where the Japanese were all either jaundiced slanty-eyed buck teethed menaces or pretty demure and submissive whores.

... where blacks all had big mambo lips, ate fried chicken and watermelons and were absolute idiots.

Spielburg is learning that stories are no longer one-sided.

... where the Japanese were all either jaundiced slanty-eyed buck teethed menaces or pretty demure and submissive whores.


What do you mean "were"?

j/k

I gave up on Speilberg after Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Two hours of listening to his wife scream "Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiindyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!" made me wish someone would garrote him.

thats sad :(
and pretty moronic.

I gave up on Speilberg after Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Two hours of listening to his wife scream "Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiindyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!" made me wish someone would garrote him.

No time for love, doctor Jones!

That said, I'm agreeing with Gataway_Driver and Gauthier. I'd rather go to a good movie that tells the truth than go to a big piece of propaganda.

I gave up on Speilberg after Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Two hours of listening to his wife scream "Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiindyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!" made me wish someone would garrote him.

Oh come now, you didn't watch The Last Crusade? That was a piece of cinema gold!

No time for love, doctor Jones!

That said, I'm agreeing with Gataway_Driver and Gauthier. I'd rather go to a good movie that tells the truth than go to a big piece of propaganda.
It's all propaganda. The only difference is that sometimes you notice it.

When did movies stop being a work of entertainment? All I wanna know is, "Is it going to be good?"
Shortly after the invention of the motion camera. They have always been more.

"Munich" is about the way vengeance and violence -- even necessary, justified violence -- corrupt both their victims and their perpetrators. It's about the struggle to maintain some bedrock morality while engaging in immorality. Spielberg goes out of his way to be generous to Israel -- omitting, as I'll explain in a moment, one of the Caesarea assassins' most high-profile mistakes. But his film, co-written by engagé liberal playwright Tony Kushner, does mourn the way Israel has compromised its values in the fight against terrorism, while leaving open the question of whether the compromises were worth it. "Some people say we can't afford to be civilized," says Golda Meir (played by Lynn Cohen) early in the film, after the murder of the Israeli athletes. "I've always resisted such people. Today I'm hearing with new ears." Meir makes a conscious decision to cross a moral line. "Munich" is about the implications of that choice, and its unintended consequences.

Sounds a lot like Sword of Gideon, which was about the same subject.

I wasn't going to watch the movie because I had seen Gideon and didn't feel the need to see it again, but considering this and that Kushner wrote it, I think I might just give it a whirl. Thanks knee-jerk conservative pundits, you've lit me up to another movie, you're better than Fandango....

When did movies stop being a work of entertainment?

When they told Pamela Anderson she could act?

We all loved him when he made Schindler's List.

Not all of us loved Schindler's List!:mad:

Shortly after the invention of the motion camera. They have always been more.

meh, I'll remember a film if its good, if its not then I won't watch it again. I don't really care for the message given. For instants as a kid I liked the Narnia books by C.S Lewis and I enjoyed the film regardless of the fact that it is heavily based on religion.

I'm the simpleton of the cinema world

meh, I'll remember a film if its good, if its not then I won't watch it again. I don't really care for the message given. For instants as a kid I liked the Narnia books by C.S Lewis and I enjoyed the film regardless of the fact that it is heavily based on religion.

I'm the simpleton of the cinema world
Film, like media, doesn't require you to be aware of its influence in order to influence.

Film, like media, doesn't require you to be aware of its influence in order to influence.

Hmmm not sure about that, although the media can enforce views in the short term, it cannot change them. I'd have to say the same with films, unless we have a view and wish to be influenced by a film. A one off film doesn't have the power to change ones view IMO

I gave up on Speilberg after Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Two hours of listening to his wife scream "Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiindyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!" made me wish someone would garrote him.

Ewww I agree with that.

I started to realise that his movies were more about commericals In Jurassic Park.

There was one scene where he did this slow up and down scan off all the neat toys you can get before he closed in on Richard Attenborough.

And what is with this trademark of his about having and annoying little kid in his movies?

And what is with this trademark of his about having and annoying little kid in his movies?
The only time that came off at all well was when he filmed J.G. Ballard's Empire of the Sun. But the book was much better.

This ought to be interesting. What a shock- Middle East Muslims have a reason for attacking Israel that has little to do with racial prejudice! Amazing!

Hmmm not sure about that, although the media can enforce views in the short term, it cannot change them. I'd have to say the same with films, unless we have a view and wish to be influenced by a film. A one off film doesn't have the power to change ones view IMO

That's exactly what "they" want you to think. *puts on tinfoil hat*

Now seriously, read on the matter. Not only it influences what you think, but more importantly, what you don't think about.

The only time that came off at all well was when he filmed J.G. Ballard's Empire of the Sun. But the book was much better.

And that kid is now making criminals piss in their pants at night. :D

That's exactly what "they" want you to think. *puts on tinfoil hat*

Now seriously, read on the matter. Not only it influences what you think, but more importantly, what you don't think about.

only to enforce views already held, or I spose it could form new opinions that are coherent with the subject's current traits. The basis of the view has to be present for the subject to be influenced

But this is exactly the opposite of whats happening here. Spielburg is challenging the current view of "terrorism" and thats why certain people are up in arms.

Did pearl harbour get much critisism for being historically innacurate in America?

The only time that came off at all well was when he filmed J.G. Ballard's Empire of the Sun. But the book was much better.

I had to study that book in high school. I still think all copies of it and any trace of its existence should be destroyed.

Everybody talks too much, I can't keep up.

I don't expect "Munich" to be any good. Judging by the reviews, it's going to be a major bore.

I've been browsing the net in search for reviews on "Munich", mostly because it is being advertised as the next Big Cinematic Controversy. Steven Spielberg's take on the aftermath of the slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, made in the "terrorists are bad, governments are worse" spirit that is so trendy in Hollywood these days- ohh the rebelliousness!

Well, normally I won't go to see a movie just because it is controversial. Trying to stir up political controversy is, more often than not, the last refuge of the incompetent. And if the movie has nothing to offer aside from the said controversy, it isn't worth watching.

Thought 1

Not sure if he qualifies as really "incompetent" these days, but Spielberg definitely hasn't been at his best lately. Hell, he hasn't even been at his average, it feels like he was steadily going downhill ever since he got Schildner's List done (I have many an issue with that movie of his too, but as an acquantance of mine puts it, those are the kind of things you have to be Jewish to notice). His last movie, "War of the Worlds", was so bad I could barely finish watching. Great special effects, nice camera work- but what a lousy treatment of the plot, what a weak attempt to induce emotions in the viewers! In fact, when I think about it, most of Spielberg's movies suffered from this flaw- his computer animated dinosaurs were too realistic, his human characters were invariably one-dimensional cartoons.

Thought 2
"Munich" is a movie made with an explicitly stated goal to send a message. I loathe such movies, normally. From my observation, they invariably come out bad, because the filmmakers are so busy sending the message they forget to make the movie. In the words of MGM's Louis B. Mayer, "If you want to send a message, send a telegram."


Thought 3
The reviews in the Israeli press are unanimously bad- even the left wing, elitist, controversy friendly Haaretz openly scorns Spielberg's latest brainchild as a "boring and unnecessarily long film with no new insights". The message of the movie- one of moral equivalence between the killers and the avengers- is only part of the problem, and not a very big one (after all, Israel's own filmmakers have produced enough movies with a similar message). The big problem is in the way the movie was done and the way it sends the message:

...Israelis aren't going to like this movie, and for a good reason. It's the kind of wishy-washy Hollywood film that is difficult to connect to because it simplistically deals with an event and with people all too familiar to the Israeli audience.

Israelis don't speak to one another the way Spielberg thinks they do (they also don't speak English to one another, but what can you do), nor do they behave the way he portrays them as behaving...

...Even if you do agree with the left-leaning director, the movie doesn't make the case effectively. At the core of the dilemma it presents - whether targeted killing is a method worth pursuing - there is an unsolved dilemma. The director hasn't made up his mind whether he is against the method for practical reasons: assassinations incite revenge, which incite more assassinations etc - or for moralistic reasons: it is inhumane to kill.

The non-Israeli review seem to be divided into two groups. One group comes to the same conclusion as the Israeli critics, stating that the movie "simply does not sustain intellectual interest on a meaningful level". Others point out that "The film is powerful, in the hollow way that many of Spielberg's films are powerful. He is a master of vacant intensities, of slick searings... Why should I admire somebody for his ability to manipulate me? In other realms of life, this talent is known as demagoguery."

The other group of more sympathetic critics, who seem to be more numerous than the first one, produces glowing reviews, favorably comparing Spielberg to Hitchcock (what blasphemy! :shock: ) and calling "Munich" a "mournful masterpiece", "Steven Spielberg's harshest film yet, which is saying something, given Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan., and find it to be a "unique and sometimes emotionally crushing experience" and a "thought-provoking, highly charged inquiry into the political, moral and historical ramifications of terrorism and the effort to combat this scourge". Which sounds fairly interesting. Still, even some of those viewing the movie favorably admit that "members of the general public will be glancing at their watches rather than having epiphanies about world peace".

Thought 4
The movie is based on a book that is widely regarded as a fraudulent, discredited account of the actual historical events. The producers do not deny it and admit that the flim is merely "inspired" by the events while being "fictionalized" and factually inaccurate. On one hand, one can hardly draw right conclusions from a wrong description of the events. On the other hand, it is standard practice for Hollywood to distort historical facts as they please, so Spielberg can hardly be faulted. Still, it appears to me to be a way of distorting history in people's minds.

Thought 5
The movie features one of my favorite Israeli actresses, the lovely Ayelet Zorer, whose presence alone might make this movie worth watching. I wonder if there are bed scenes...

Thought 6
It's a Spielberg movie about Israelis. If nothing else, it will at least make a semi-decent discussion subject in the right company, so I might still waste my hard earned 35 shekels on watching this thing.

Spielberg needs to do one thing.... make Jurassic Park 4 good to redeem the series after the abysmal Jurassic Park 3. Then he has to end the series. Make sure no one can screw it up ever again coughJoeJohnstoncough:gundge:

Did pearl harbour get much critisism for being historically innacurate in America?
Pearl Harbour(the movie) got critisism for being shite in general.;)

Did pearl harbour get much critisism for being historically innacurate in America?Mostly it got criticism for sucking ass. The historical inaccuracy was an afterthought to seeing Ben Affleck trying to emote.

Spielberg was never a hero. He's just a guy who occasionally makes a watchable movie.

I won't comment on this movie until I've seen it. I generally don't watch moives to get new political viewpoints, and I hope nobody else does.

When they told Pamela Anderson she could act?



Not all of us loved Schindler's List!:mad:


Seconded. I know a lot of people that couldnt care less about Schindler's List.

Mostly it got criticism for sucking ass. The historical inaccuracy was an afterthought to seeing Ben Affleck trying to emote.

I think I remember the actual bombing/fighting scences were good though,right? Maybe I'm remembering something else?

Ben Affleck tries too hard. He's stiff or waxy, or something.

I think I remember the actual bombing/fighting scences were good though,right? Maybe I'm remembering something else?

Ben Affleck tries too hard. He's stiff or waxy, or something.
The only films I've ever liked him in were Kevin Smith's, and that's just because I tihnk Smith knows how to write for Affleck so he doesn't have to try to act--he can just be himself (which frankly, isn't a very nice person). I think you're right--he tries to come off as earnest an awful lot, and never really seems to inhabit his characters. There are actors who are so good that I can actually forget that they're the actors portraying a character and start thinking about them, at least in the context of the film, as the character. Even at his best, I've never done that with Affleck.

The only films I've ever liked him in were Kevin Smith's, and that's just because I tihnk Smith knows how to write for Affleck so he doesn't have to try to act--he can just be himself (which frankly, isn't a very nice person). I think you're right--he tries to come off as earnest an awful lot, and never really seems to inhabit his characters. There are actors who are so good that I can actually forget that they're the actors portraying a character and start thinking about them, at least in the context of the film, as the character. Even at his best, I've never done that with Affleck.


I think his buddy Matt Damon has done better in acting- I liked him in the Bourne Identity and Supremacy.

but I also liked George Clooney in "The Peacemaker" and had hoped they would make a sequel still using his character.