NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm normally not overly fond of Steven Spielberg's movies. In the past, they tended to be over-simplified and generally rather following the accepted points of views rather than showing different angles and opening different perspectives.

This one, however, seems to have caused quite a stir even before being released by actually taking a dialectic approach to its subject.

The War on "Munich"

By Michelle Goldberg

Neoconservatives launch a pre-emptive strike on Spielberg's latest, which dares to break the rules of post-9/11 political correctness.


Steven Spielberg's "Munich" doesn't open until Dec. 23, but a backlash charging the film with fuzzy-headed liberal naiveté and moral relativism began weeks ago. Political critics are berating the movie for suggesting that the violence wracking the Middle East is a cycle that both sides have a part in perpetuating. Spielberg, ironically, is accused of being insufficiently Manichaean, and the charge threatens to ossify into conventional wisdom before the movie's audience can get to theaters to see how misguided it is. As New York Times media columnist David Carr wrote in his awards-season blog, "'Munich' finds itself in a seemingly endless spanking machine." Spielberg's film tells the story of the Israeli response to the massacre of its athletes by Palestinian terrorists at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The killings were the work of Black September, a terrorist wing of Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization. Determined to both wreak vengeance and to project a message of strength to the world, Israel deployed hit squads from Mossad's Caesarea unit to find and assassinate those behind the attack. Often, the men who were directly responsible could not be located, and so other Fatah activists with more ambiguous involvement were targeted instead. The story is full of moral ambiguities -- few would dispute that Israel had the right to retaliate, but its pursuit of revenge became an end in itself, sometimes compromising both Israel's ethics and its own security.

The analogy to our own time is obvious, and in some ways the argument about "Munich" is really one about America. Post-9/11 political correctness, which demands that stories about terrorism and counterterrorism be limned in starkest black and white, seemed to have dissipated these last few years. In the debate over Spielberg's movie, though, it's returning with a vengeance. The result is not just the mischaracterization of a movie; it's the resurrection of the taboo against depicting the war on terror in shades of gray....


Whole article can be found here (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,391525,00.html)

Political critics are berating the movie for suggesting that the violence wracking the Middle East is a cycle that both sides have a part in perpetuating.
Erm. I can see how stating the obvious can get annoying if repeated too often, but...so...? :confused:

Ah, Controversy. Nothing sells quite like controversy. You could make millions selling freshly squeezed turds if you convince people they're controversial. :p

It no longer matters if 'Munich' is a good or not. It'll make a fortune.

Erm. I can see how stating the obvious can get annoying if repeated too often, but...so...? :confused:

Thats what i thought. Apparently some people think that you're breaking the mould if you say its a cycle caused by both sides. I thought that was a given :confused:

Thats what i thought. Apparently some people think that you're breaking the mould if you say its a cycle caused by both sides. I thought that was a given :confused:
Nope, those in power here would like to have us believe that we have had no part in terrorism, that it was all done by "them", and that you're either "with "us" or with the terrorists."

wow, this sounds really amazing

Ah, Controversy. Nothing sells quite like controversy. You could make millions selling freshly squeezed turds if you convince people they're controversial. :p

It no longer matters if 'Munich' is a good or not. It'll make a fortune.
It may not matter in terms of how much money it brings in...but it still matters...I mean...I still won't watch the Passion of the Christ...I don't care how contraversial it was.

Quote from an article on it.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20654
When Steven Spielberg began filming Munich in June 2004, he set the tone for his fictional movie about Israeli agents who hunted down the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Spielberg abruptly stopped filming and closed up shop. Why? Because the 2004 Summer Games were happening in August, and Steven Spielberg didn’t want to upset the terrorists.



That’s what Munich is about: not upsetting the terrorists. And rolling over while they attack and kill us. In Steven Spielberg’s world, not going after terrorists brings peace. In the real world, not going after terrorists brings more bloodshed.



When Spielberg began filming in 2004, it was well known that his film was based on George Jonas’ Vengeance – a book discredited as bunk by both Israeli Mossad agents and Palestinians with actual knowledge of the events depicted. So Spielberg claimed the movie was not based on Vengeance. If it’s not based on the book, then why do the credits of this film say it is?



Spielberg lied.



But not as much as he and admittedly anti-Israel scriptwriter Tony Kushner lied in this two-and-a-half-hour-plus celluloid fairy tale. Like the book on which it’s based, Munich is long, boring, and filled with fakery.



Spielberg’s Golda Meir is unsure about going after the Munich terrorists. She wavers and constantly seeks reassurance that this is the right thing. But the real-life Golda Meir could not have been more certain and intent on killing these terrorists.



Spielberg’s “Black September” terrorist group is named after the Munich terrorists, who murdered the Israeli athletes in September. The real-life “Black September” is so named after Jordan’s massacre of 10,000 Palestinians in September 1970 – causing many Jordanian Palestinians to flee for safety in the West Bank and Israel.



Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have deals with CIA officials in which they are paid not to harm American diplomats. Real-life Palestinians in 1973 beat to death U.S. diplomats, like Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore in the Sudan, with Yasser Arafat personally giving the orders. (They were tortured to death and beaten so badly, authorities could not tell which of the two was black and which was white.)



Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have cute, young, innocent, piano-playing daughters who will be fatherless. But he never shows the cute, young daughters of the Israeli athletes who were made fatherless – and whose fathers, unlike the Palestinian terrorists, were innocent victims with no choice in the matter.



Spielberg’s Mossad agents say bigoted things like, “The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood,” and go around killing innocent people at whim. The real-life Mossad agents who hunted the Munich terrorists went to great pains to avoid killing innocents (whether or not they were Jewish), a reason it took so many years and financial resources to get all but one of them. (Jamil Al-Gashey lives safely under the protection of the terror-state Syria.) In real-life, they killed only one innocent man whom they mistakenly believed to be a terrorist – a Moroccan waiter in Norway – for which those Mossad agents responsible were tried, convicted, and imprisoned, something that does not happen in the Spielberg version of events. Spielberg’s Mossad agents complain that Israel has no death penalty, so killing the terrorists violates Israeli law. Real-life Israel does have a death penalty for Nazi war criminals, like Eichmann, and recognized that the Munich terrorists were equally worthy.



Spielberg’s Mossad agents cry and brood a lot, unsure of themselves and why they are pursuing terrorists. Been there, seen that before – in the left-wing Israeli film Walk on Water. But it bears little resemblance to the real Mossad agents who hunted the terrorists. They were not metrosexual, sensitive guys – as badly as Spielberg and Kushner would like them to be. Like Golda Meir, they could not have been more certain of the just purpose of their mission.



Spielberg’s Mossad agents question why they should kill terrorists who murdered innocent people, when they will be replaced by other terrorists. Using that fallacious logic, why have a justice system at all? Bank robbers who go to jail will be replaced by more bank robbers. Ditto for child molesters, rapists, al-Qaeda terrorists, etc.

... Art. cont.

Mmmmm, moral relativism and historical revisionism at it's finest.

It either interests me or it doesnt. Contraversy doesnt attract me-in fact the more stink, the less I care.

I'm not remotely interested in this new film.

It either interests me or it doesnt. Contraversy doesnt attract me-in fact the more stink, the less I care.

I'm not remotely interested in this new film.
Come on now, there's bound to be shooting, and blood and guts, and a few bared bosoms...you know you want to see that...:D

I'll probably watch it. But not until it's on tv.

Come on now, there's bound to be shooting, and blood and guts, and a few bared bosoms...you know you want to see that...:D

I'll probably watch it. But not until it's on tv.

Bared bosoms? YAY!

It either interests me or it doesnt. Contraversy doesnt attract me-in fact the more stink, the less I care.

I'm not remotely interested in this new film.

I don't care about controversy. There's a large number of controverese books and movies I'd never consider.
But I wouldn't have considered to go see this movie before I read those reviews for the simple reason that I would have dismissed it as another oversimplified attempt of a big Hollywood director to get himself a name by taking "historical events" with a more than obvious correlation to current events, paint them with as much pathos and, if applicable, nationalism as will stick, and make a few millions out of a gullible audience who will leave the cinema with the warm feeling that everything they always believed has just been confirmed by a bunch of celebrity actors and a major production company.

The fact that those people that I would have assumed would enjoy that kind of movie seem enraged about it makes me think that maybe, just maybe, there might be something in there worth considering. I always think that if the intended audience reacts offended, a movie is not all bad.

I'll let you know what I think about it once I've seen it. The topic itself is very interesting to me, as the event took place not far from my home town, around the time when I was born, and I always took a keen interest in Germany's post war history. So that's an extra incentive for me...

I'm normally not overly fond of Steven Spielberg's movies. In the past, they tended to be over-simplified and generally rather following the accepted points of views rather than showing different angles and opening different perspectives.

This one, however, seems to have caused quite a stir even before being released by actually taking a dialectic approach to its subject.



Whole article can be found here (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,391525,00.html)

you score 5 friendship points

Come on now, there's bound to be shooting, and blood and guts, and a few bared bosoms...you know you want to see that...:D

I'll probably watch it. But not until it's on tv.


I'll watch "Braveheart" again. I'm not THAT shallow.

I will do whatever NS tells me too you guys are too right too often to be ignored

Looks interesting. LG is right, the more people rail against this movie the more money it will make because everyone (except CL) will have to go see what all the fuss is about.

I'll probably end up seeing it when it comes out on DVD.

Looks interesting. LG is right, the more people rail against this movie the more money it will make because everyone (except CL) will have to go see what all the fuss is about.

I'll probably end up seeing it when it comes out on DVD.


You're right. And also-I will likely never see more than a trailer for it when I go to see some other movie. I can be one dense son of a bitch.

You're right. And also-I will likely never see more than a trailer for it when I go to see some other movie. I can be one dense son of a bitch.


What is it about this movie that turns you off?

What is it about this movie that turns you off?

Obviously the fact that I posted about it ;)

Obviously the fact that I posted about it ;)

Naw CL is a level headed guy
I'm sure his reason is because you didn't post a picture of your breasts.

I would have more trouble with it if it was telling lies and not all truths. (Well compared to regular Hollywood remakes).

I would have more trouble with it if it was telling lies and not all truths. (Well compared to regular Hollywood remakes).

Naw CL is a level headed guy
I'm sure his reason is because you didn't post a picture of your breasts.

No way in hell :p
Those remain where they belong... on my hard drive :D

Looks interesting. LG is right, the more people rail against this movie the more money it will make because everyone (except CL) will have to go see what all the fuss is about.

I'll probably end up seeing it when it comes out on DVD.
Oh don't be fooled...CL will watch it. He'll just pretend he didn't.

No way in hell :p
Those remain where they belong... on my hard drive :D

I don't believe you even have any pictures of your breasts. Theres nothing you can do to prove this, unless there is some way you can prove it, then I'd like to see it.:p

Oh don't be fooled...CL will watch it. He'll just pretend he didn't.


Especially now that you promoted it as having bared breasts.

Especially now that you promoted it as having bared breasts.
Hehehee...don't all movies have some flashes of cleavage? Or maybe I'm projecting...

Hehehee...don't all movies have some flashes of cleavage? Or maybe I'm projecting...

Project them over this way.

I don't believe you even have any pictures of your breasts. Theres nothing you can do to prove this, unless there is some way you can prove it, then I'd like to see it.:p

*lol

A number of people here can witness their existence ;)

It just isn't convincing enough, unless one of those people here is me. :fluffle:

Personnaly I think that I would rather enjoy this thread breast free thank you.

(I now am starting a study to see if people that are girlfriend free are more prone to see just about anything, while people with girlfriends have more resistance.)

PS: You guys are now the subjects.

It just isn't convincing enough, unless one of those people here is me. :fluffle:

Well, you see, that's the problem. Why would I want to prove anything to you?

Personnaly I think that I would rather enjoy this thread breast free thank you.

(I now am starting a study to see if people that are girlfriend free are more prone to see just about anything, while people with girlfriends have more resistance.)

PS: You guys are now the subjects.


not sure what you mean... I am getting married in April

Well, you see, that's the problem. Why would I want to prove anything to you?

*jedi hand wave* because you just want to

*jedi hand wave* because you just want to

Mind powers no worka with me...

http://www.starwars.moviesection.de/v2/cont/bilder/watto.jpg

lol

:D

well I dont want to see them anyway
/reverse psychology

Well, you see, that's the problem. Why would I want to prove anything to you?

Well why do you ask? And no thank you. (Well that is a one in favor of my theory).


not sure what you mean... I am getting married in April

Well one against.

lol

:D

well I dont want to see them anyway
/reverse psychology

Hm. I've got that one picture of my pussy, if you want to see that...

Hm. I've got that one picture of my pussy, if you want to see that...


I'll show you mine if you show me yours

damn that never works.. I'll show you mine anyway

http://myspace-199.vo.llnwd.net/00006/99/11/6311199_l.jpg

his name is Clyde

I saw the trailer today..I thinks it sucks

I'll show you mine if you show me yours
wanna see cabras pussy ?
whatcha wana pay ?

omg Sinner I think you were right about Munich:

One of the film's most clarifying moments occurs when two members of the team kill a European hit woman. She has previously killed a member of their squad, and they take time off from their official duties to have their revenge. They find her at home, wearing a robe, and she dies with it open, her naked body sprawled out pornographically. Avner tries to cover her, but a colleague yanks the robe back open. Later, this bit of spite torments him -- "I wish I had let you close up her housecoat," he tells Avner. These scenes encapsulate "Munich's" concerns with the way violence degrades both perpetrators and victims. Spielberg isn't equating the Caesarea agent with the assassin-for-hire he kills, but he is showing the way the former loses a bit of his soul to hatred.

wanna see cabras pussy ?
whatcha wana pay ?


Are you pimping Cabra out? Shame shame!

Mmmmm, moral relativism and historical revisionism at it's finest.

What's wrong with moral relativism? Hell, being a good historian and a moral relativist go hand in hand. Any historical piece not written from moral relativism is inherently biased.

What's wrong with moral relativism? Hell, being a good historian and a moral relativist go hand in hand. Any historical piece not written from moral relativism is inherently biased.


I would think that all history is biased no matter what

Are you pimping Cabra out? Shame shame!
if you can hush. I ´ll for the half ;)

/me can hush :p

Incidently, I will be seeing Munich with a bunch of Jewish friends on Christmas day before going to eat Chinese food to discuss the film.

Expect a full report on Monday.

What's wrong with moral relativism? Hell, being a good historian and a moral relativist go hand in hand. Any historical piece not written from moral relativism is inherently biased.
Two things. Firstly these are basically modern day events and/or refer to modern day events which means that as human beings if we were to practice moral relativism society would collapse like a poorly built house of cards. It is especially bad when combined with the historical revisionism found in the film, or were you too lazy to read the second part of the sentence?

Two things. Firstly these are basically modern day events and/or refer to modern day events which means that as human beings if we were to practice moral relativism society would collapse like a poorly built house of cards. It is especially bad when combined with the historical revisionism found in the film, or were you too lazy to read the second part of the sentence?
Oh come on. The actual movie does not engage in relativism. It does not in any depth cover the reason for why Palestinians did these things.
The movie is primarily concerned with the effect the violent, revenge-driven response by the Mossad had on the Israelis themselves. It also leaves out various incidents were Mossad agents killed innocent people by accident.

This movie is not relativist, nor is it anti-Israeli. But it does cover an important concept, with which Israel had to deal then, and the US sorta has to deal with now.

And all that being said: Relativism is reality, and everything else is superimposed.
Do you want to know why evil never triumphs? Because no side ever admits to being evil - and so the good guys are bound to win always.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours

Well, here's mine :
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/cabrawest/pointyendup2.jpg

Definitely NOT the pic that Hullepupp would have shown you ;)

That is a very cute pussy indeed!

What's it's name?

And why is Hullapup so special while I am nothing to you? NOTHING!

Don't answer that... I don't need any more complexes.

That is a very cute pussy indeed!

What's it's name?

And why is Hullapup so special while I am nothing to you? NOTHING!

Don't answer that... I don't need any more complexes.

Her name is Rakete (that's German for Rocket)

There's no reason for any complexes, really. But I know Hullepupp a good while longer and a good deal better, that's all ;)

She's so cuuuuuuuuute!

I was just kidding about complexes :p I could always use a few more. Excess is the way to go baby.

She's so cuuuuuuuuute!

I was just kidding about complexes :p I could always use a few more. Excess is the way to go baby.

Well, she's lying pointy-end-up on that picture, you wouldn't want to get your hand anywhere near her at that moment :p

And, no thanks, I've got plenty of complexes, I don't need any extra ;)

And why is Hullapup so special while I am nothing to you? NOTHING!

If you are interested in Cabra i will take a step beside ... ;)

If you are interested in Cabra i will take a step beside ... ;)

Will you please STOP that? :mad:

Will you please STOP that? :mad:
ok

If you are interested in Cabra i will take a step beside ... ;)

lol

I have a fiancee and am very happy in my love life... I was just playing about the nudies

Not that I would ever deny myself a look at them were they in my grasp as i am sure they are lovely.