57 Comments

1. Patrick Tyson:

When it comes to a movie about the problems of revenge, I would skip this mish-mash and go rent John Ford’s “The Searchers”.

Hard to do better, but John Le Carre’s “Karla Trilogy” is what first came to mind when I read about the subject of Munich. Fine BBC adaptations of the first and third books (Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley’s People) are available on DVD.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0080297/

http://imdb.com/title/tt0083480/

Jan 1, 2006 - 11:28 pm 2. scott:

Roger,

There are tens of millions of Zionists(those who love and support the Jewish homeland)in this country,the majority of whom are not Jewish.I do not know what is with S.Spielberg,but I have no intention of ever patronizing his moral equivilance rubbish.

Scott

Jan 1, 2006 - 11:42 pm 3. Richard Nieporent:

I haven’t seen the film (and I don’t intent on seeing the film), so I can’t comment on the details of the film. However, from reading about what Steven Spielberg has said about his film, there is one obvious thing that stands out – the chutzpah of Steven Spielberg. He actually believes that he alone understands the root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the intransigence of the Israelis (yes I know he spoke of both sides but he clearly doesn’t believe that) – and it is his duty to share this great insight with the world. If only the Israelis would listen to the great and powerful Steven Spielberg then the Middle conflict will be resolved. They must appease (what a fitting name for the movie) the Palestinians (maybe they should turn over the Mossad agents) and beg forgiveness for having the audacity to seek Justice (not vengeance) for the slaughter of the Israeli athletes. Like all good Leftists he cannot fathom the possibility that the Arabs could be acting out of malice. No, their actions are only in response to the injustices that have been visited on them by the Evil Israelis. With friends like Steven Spielberg, Israeli doesn’t need any enemies.

Jan 2, 2006 - 12:01 am 4. Drew22:

In one (major) respect, I couldn’t disagree with you more, Roger. I thought the film, while factually laughable, if not obscene, was brilliantly acted, shot and directed. In fact, I’d have to say that as of now, I think it’s the best film of the year. (Obviously, this could change as I see a couple more movies.) And I should say that I half-expected to hate it before I saw it.

That said, as a matter of history, the film is such a complete joke that there’s probably not enough space on your server to list all the inaccuracies and falsehoods in it. (I would highly recommend the new book, “Striking Back,” by Time-magazine correspondent and IDF Intelligence officer Aaron Klein for those interested in as close as we’re gonna get to the real story of Israel’s response to the Munich massacre.)

I look at Spielberg’s film (sorry Roger: I used to work at the DGA and old habits die hard!) the same way I look at “JFK.” “JFK” is one of my all-time favorite films, even though it’s a crock from beginning to end.

I do think that, whatever its falsehoods, the claim that the movie indulges in “moral equivalency” is somewhat overwraught. Yes, some of the Palestinian targets are portrayed as outwardly sympathetic characters (literature professors, family men, etc.), but in many cases, those portrayals are, at least to a certain extent, accurate.

Further, it’s the Mossad team that is shown going out of its way to avoid collateral damage, and it’s only Jews who are shown debating the morality of what they’re doing. None of the Palestinian characters in the film are shown in these lights, and rightfully so. (Of course, the fact that no Mossad team in the field would sit around discussing the morality of their mission is a major part of the film’s inaccuracy.)

In the end, I think “Munich” is a taut, extremely well-crafted thriller. It’s unfortunate that Spielberg (and Kushner, but what do you expect there?), for whatever reasons, chose to make such an untrue film about true events. And it’ll be even more unfortunate if people believe that what they see on the screen is the truth, but in my opinion, that’ll be their own fault, not the filmmakers.

Jan 2, 2006 - 12:13 am 5. scott:

Drew,

How can you say that?People who see this film will believe that it is true,and I don’t really think that is their fault if they do(and I am one with you on “JFK”:other than being truthful,that is one of the great films of all times).

Jan 2, 2006 - 12:49 am 6. David Thomson:

ìbut I don’t think Spielberg is any sense anti-Semitic.î

Steven Spielberg is merely a guilt tripped Jew who has been conned into believing that the Israeli ìcolonial imperialistsî victimize the Palestinians. There are far too many Jews (and non-Jews) who fall for this bovine excrement. It is most unfortunate that Arabs have dark complexions. Well meaning suckers like Spielberg would never fall for this nonsense if they were blue eyed and blond. Here is the link to my own brief review of Munich:

http://yargb.blogspot.com/2005/12/munich-is-unwitting-indulgence-in.html

I am convinced that Steven Spielberg is a mainstream representative of those Democrats who possess the veto power over the selection of that partyís presidential nominee. There is nothing aberrational concerning his views. They are also shared by Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.

Jan 2, 2006 - 1:05 am 7. Gary Rosen:

Drew22:

“And it’ll be even more unfortunate if people believe that what they see on the screen is the truth, but in my opinion, that’ll be their own fault, not the filmmakers.”

Bullshit. Is Spielberg going around saying “this is historical fiction”? No, he’s patting himself on the back for making such a “meaningful” film. Some people lambaste “Inherit the Wind” for inaccurately portraying the Scopes trial, but at least it used fictitious names. Nothing in “Munich” indicates it is not true.

As for “revenge”, it would have been revenge if Israel had turned around and slain eleven innocent Arab Olympic athletes. But Israel doesn’t do that. What happened to the Munich perpetrators wasn’t revenge, it was justice.

Jan 2, 2006 - 1:06 am 8. David Thomson:

ÔøΩbut I don’t think Spielberg is any sense anti-Semitic.ÔøΩ

Steven Spielberg is merely a guilt tripped Jew who has been conned into believing that the Israeli ÔøΩcolonial imperialistsÔøΩ victimize the Palestinians. There are far too many Jews who fall for this bovine excrement. It is most unfortunate that the Palestinians have dark complexions. Well meaning suckers like Spielberg would never fall for this nonsense if they were blue eyed and blond. Here is the link to my own brief review of Munich:

http://yargb.blogspot.com/2005/12/munich-is-unwitting-indulgence-in.html

I am convinced that Steven Spielberg is a mainstream representative of those Democrats who possess the veto power over the selection of that partyÔøΩs presidential nominee. There is nothing aberrational concerning his views. They are also shared by Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.

Jan 2, 2006 - 1:06 am 9. chaoticmanifold:

Is Munich a movie or a film? If it’s a movie, is it as good as Ronin?

Jan 2, 2006 - 4:45 am 10. marianna:

Spielberg steadfastly refuses to admit that Islamofascism is an ideology of pure evil. These terrorists deserve to be executed. To suggest that there are “moral” questions about their execution is to engage in the worst sort of faux moral skullduggery.

Jan 2, 2006 - 7:20 am 11. jedrury:

I am horrfied how anyone can attribute moral equivalency to the killing of innocents whether it be the killing of Olympic athletes or the killing of passengers on a Jerusalem bus. To arrive at a time where judgment is suspended in moral judgment; beyond outrage, beyond justice and beyond revenge, is sad. For this reason, I’ll see this movie as it appears to be one to inflame my ire, to make me scream out at our society’s insane capacity for moral compromise.

Jan 2, 2006 - 7:39 am 12. Silicon valley Jim:

When it comes to a movie about the problems of revenge, I would skip this mish-mash and go rent John Ford’s “The Searchers”.

Hard to do better, but John Le Carre’s “Karla Trilogy” is what first came to mind when I read about the subject of Munich.

Just go to your local public library and check out a translation of Aeschylus’s Oresteia trilogy (Agamemnon, Choephoroe, Eumenides). Not a movie, of course, but three plays that are foundations of our cultural heritage. More than 2,400 years later, they remain the most profound exploration of revenge, its consequences, and its morality

Jan 2, 2006 - 7:43 am 13. Yehudit:

“Is Spielberg going around saying “this is historical fiction”? No, he’s patting himself on the back for making such a “meaningful” film. Some people lambaste “Inherit the Wind” for inaccurately portraying the Scopes trial, but at least it used fictitious names. Nothing in “Munich” indicates it is not true.”

Tony Kushner is going around saying “this is historical fiction.” He doesn’t seem to realize that undermines his whole argument. I guess if you live in the “fake but accurate” world where fiction and fact are always equally “true”, you wouldn’t see that.

I think fiction can express the truth of a situation, but the lefties rely on that too much, it’s a lazy way of not taking responsibility for the narrative choices they make.

Jan 2, 2006 - 8:39 am 14. chuck:

I think fiction can express the truth of a situation, but the lefties rely on that too much, it’s a lazy way of not taking responsibility for the narrative choices they make.

In other words, they just make stuff up. The truth of fiction is only as true as the understanding of the author, not something I would rely on these days.

Jan 2, 2006 - 10:06 am 15. beautifulatrocities:

The JFK comparison is apt, brilliant filmmaking in the service of nonsense. The combo of Spielberg & Kushner is deadly. I’ve always considered Kushner a modern day Gorki, a ham-fisted propagandist who gets plaudits because he writes what the elite wants to hear. His Nation agitprop is indistinguishable from his drama.

His 7hr AIDS-a-thon has to be the most overrated dreck ever, but people were afraid to criticize it for fear of being called homophobic (Camille Paglia a notable exception). It’s a punishing lecture in which no character experiences emotional growth, but people like Frank Rich loved it because it blames the spread of AIDS not on gay promiscuity but – the Cold War! The scene with the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg is a camp classic. (Too bad Kushner wrote it before the Soviet archives were opened & she was revealed as just another vile Stalinophile)

Jan 2, 2006 - 10:32 am 16. exmaple:

“other than that they are trying to be trËs sÈrieux.”

Poor Avner. France and its cheeses won’t have him, he has to settle for the Velveeta and dim light of Brooklyn since he rejected the dim light and bad baklava of Israel. The foodie/anti-zionist theme est trËs sÈrieux, non?

Jan 2, 2006 - 10:42 am 17. 2dave:

“Is Munich a movie or a film?”

Movies are an art form. Film is a recording medium. Munich can accurately be referred to as either.

I assume what you’re really asking is whether it is high art or mass art. Though I haven’t seen the movie, I can fairly confidently state that it is mass art; a major Hollywood movie is simply too expensive to be made “for its own sake.”

Jan 2, 2006 - 10:49 am 18. Terrye:

Other than making Spielberg richer than he already is what is the point of seeing this movie? To be entertained by the suffering of others?

I can turn on the News or go on line anyday and hear or read about the unending mayhem that is life in the Middle East. Why would I want to see a movie about it?

Jan 2, 2006 - 11:36 am 19. exmaple:

“…at times and the end of the movie crosses the line into a virtually incoherent grand guignol of sex and mayhem that approaches opera bouffe.”

I thought the final sex scene approached “War of the Worlds”. In the beginning the physical motions were sonically accented with a familiar set of industrial noise: “Kachunk kachunk.” I thought, “My God, is Spielberg recycling the alien machine sounds from War of the Worlds?” And just then the noise stopped. Unfortunately the sex did not.

Jan 2, 2006 - 1:53 pm 20. markus:

2dave — regarding high art vs. mass art, it is interesting to see what passes for mass art in Russia:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR2005122300544.html

In America, such a production would only be shown on PBS, if at all.

Regarding moral equivalency, self-criticism, etc: isn’t it the sign of a civilization that is higher in some sense than ones that DON’T seem to have any ability to self-reflect? Speilberg, however, is a bore. I much prefer Sarah Silverman:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/8719206

“I love how Palestinians and Jews hate each other,” she says. “It’s so cute. Honestly, what’s the difference? They’re brown. They have an odor. It’s like sweet potatoes hating yams. It’s like how coyotes eat dogs — they are dogs! And they eat them.”

Jan 2, 2006 - 2:00 pm 21. Jim Rockford:

Roger you’re exactly right.

Spielberg (and Kushner, who has said that he wishes “Israel did not exist” and has said Israel is the greatest moral calamity to ever befall Jews) equate their world of agents and lawyers and conflict resolution consisting of cutting checks to the world of violence, terror, and nihilism. They can’t even conceive of the larger reality beyond Malibu or Central Park East. So they project their experiences onto it.

I mean, it’s laughable that Angels in America (Kushner’s Pulitzer Prize Winning Play) posited the greatest villainy of Roy Cohn being in the closet. As opposed to Red Baiting that harmed a lot of innocent people who held leftist views but were not Communist conspirators seeking to destroy America.

[Beautiful -- the Venona transcripts revealed that yes, Ethel supported Julius's activities after the fact but was a marginal player lacking even her own code name, and the real culprits were Ted Hall and Klaus Fuchs who mostly skated through unscathed. Last I checked myself support for a loathesome ideology is no reason to execute the mother of two small children. But that's just me. Most of our worst traitors did it for the money.]

The real events behind Munich were not even “revenge” … as Mossad simply shifted from chasing mostly dead Nazis protected by hostile states to terror masterminds plotting more atrocities. The movie IMHO won’t work as lasting entertainment simply because you lack real heroes who have any triumph. Even “Gladiator” allowed it’s hero a sense of triumph in the end (he joins his family in death after killing the bad guy).

Jan 2, 2006 - 2:16 pm 22. heather:

Along with Bruce Willis’ coming action flick about Deuce Four heroes, the world is ripe for a comedy, an updated “Radical Chic”, starring a Hugely Successful Movie Maker struggling with Philosophy and the Meaning of Life. That priceless expression of sanctimony on Spielberg’s face will be the place to start.

Come on, Roger, do it!!!

Jan 2, 2006 - 3:46 pm 23. lindenen:

heather, personally I’m waiting for a Muslim “Life of Brian”.

markus, did you ever wonder if the popularity of “The Master and Margarita” is inextricably bound up with Russian history and culture? Although, I could see it being popular over here given all the Biblical parts, but biblically based movies have a tough time getting made in Hollywood it seems, even despite the popularity of The Passion.

Jan 2, 2006 - 4:01 pm 24. Drew22:

Scott, Gary Rosen:

I DO believe that people who go to a movie and walk out thinking they just saw “history,” particularly when the film begins by saying, “inspired by true events,” have only themselves to blame for being uninformed. I don’t doubt that many people WILL believe just that, but I still say it’s not the filmmakers’ fault.

I know otherwise-intelligent people who think “JFK” is 100% accurate and/or believe every hysterical claim made by Dan Brown in “The da Vinci Code.” This doesn’t mean I don’t love “JFK,” or think “da Vinci” wasn’t a really fun read. In the same way, I think “Munich,” while inaccurate as hell, and reflective of a worldview I don’t share (I’m much closer to “kill ‘em all”), is still a compelling film.

I also think “Munich” is much more “nuanced” then it’s getting credit for, in the sense that I really think you can walk out of it thinking Israel acted totally morally, totally immorally, or somewhere in between. (I’m in the “totally morally” camp, myself.) It’s interesting to note that Israeli reaction has been mixed, with some loathing the film and others thinking it’s a great advertisement for the Mossad.

Is Spielberg a hypocrite? Well, yeah, probably. (Kushner’s not a hypocrite – he’s just a fool.) But what do you expect from an industry that likes to pat itself on the back for making “important” films, but which yells “It’s just a movie,” when someone accuses it of glamorizing or inspiring immoral acts?

Jan 2, 2006 - 6:50 pm 25. marianna:

Kushner is a notorious anti-Semite. Anyone who has seen “Angels in America” knows that his work positive reeks of the foul prejudice. As for Spielberg, Terminal and Catch Me If You Can, while not as overtly as anti-Semtitic as some of Kushner’s work, certainly contained hints of it.

I have no intention of seeing Munich. Frankly, I’d just as soon watch Triumph of the Will or read Mein Kampf.

Jan 2, 2006 - 7:18 pm 26. Buddy Larsen:

One hopeful thing is that those of us who don’t fully comprehend that a movie is someone else’s private notion, is probably already long-lost to brain-candy and feel-goodism (read, the idiotarian wing of the left, and its romance with the media image of Che the Palestinian).

Jan 2, 2006 - 7:36 pm 27. Buddy Larsen:

That said, how on earth could anyone make a truthful movie about Munich–and not have it be ‘unbalanced’ and anti-terrorist?

I mean, there are the actual murderers who planned apace with the planning of the Olympics, and then went there and did what they did.

That’s really sorta tough to work your way around, and still come out, aww, how sweet, nice and balanced.

Jan 2, 2006 - 7:43 pm 28. Luther McLeod:

Black or White is the nugget. It is the shades of gray that are killing us. Anyone distant from the deed can moralize, but few know what they would do when it it. A time may come when the choice is stark. Spielberg just prolongs the inevitable.

Jan 2, 2006 - 8:06 pm 29. Buddy Larsen:

Speilberg could’ve taken a stand against terror. Doing so would’ve elevated his entire ouvre, for all time, and made of him what his talent and power, combined with the times we are in and the stakes in play, offer him and the world: a major force aligned with the fundamentals of western civilization.

Instead we apparently have just some more pointless, trivializing, moral equivalence. Spectacularly polished fog, but fog. Precisely what the world *doesn’t* need, precisely what the Palestinians LEAST need.

Why accomplished folks can’t see the betrayal that their ’stick-it-to-the-Man’ form of help actually amounts to, is a question for the ages. Whether in the 9th ward of New Orleans or the slums of Gaza, you’d think the causes and effects and the right solutions would be obvious to anyone by now.

Jan 2, 2006 - 8:08 pm 30. Buddy Larsen:

“It is the shades of gray that are killing us.”

Amen.

Jan 2, 2006 - 8:13 pm 31. lindenen:

“As for Spielberg, Terminal and Catch Me If You Can, while not as overtly as anti-Semtitic as some of Kushner’s work, certainly contained hints of it.”

What are the anti-Semitic hints contained within The Terminal and Catch Me If You Can? I mean, huh?

Jan 2, 2006 - 8:16 pm 32. Buddy Larsen:

And I can’t understand that title–not at all. “Munich” in world-consciousness is Chamberlain giving Europe to Hitler; coming back waving a “peace-in-our-time” sheet of paper (peace in our time ?), an enabling act which has to be hands down history’s bloodiest and most horrific failure of ‘appeasement’.

As Churchill said, the choice was between war or dishonor; Chamberlain chose dishonor, and got war.

Jan 2, 2006 - 8:27 pm 33. Luther McLeod:

“Fog” is gray tis it not? It just seems at times as if we become enamored of the intellectual nuances, and fail or ignore seeing the fork in the road. And it is there, that fork, every day in every way.

Jan 2, 2006 - 8:30 pm 34. Buddy Larsen:

yeh, the language fails us. ‘Centrist’ is good, ‘middle-of-the-road’ is good, meeting Arafat halfway is baaaaad. That’s what poor old Barry Goldwater was trying to say, with “Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue”. Oh, boy, did the shark-machine ever shred him for that. I laughed at it, too, little snot-nosed punk-ass kid, following the heard.

Jan 2, 2006 - 8:44 pm 35. Gary Rosen:

I can’t tell whether “markus” considers Jews to be dogs or coyotes. But it doesn’t really matter, does it, since we already know he considers Israelis to be Nazis.

Jan 2, 2006 - 11:52 pm 36. Buddy Larsen:

He’s caught in the same half-thought as Spielberg, believing that all would be sweet and light if only Israel would play ball with hamas, hezbollah, and the rest.

Nice thought, assuming that hamas & hezbollah share it.

However, if you believe in the West, the facts are best served cold: “Munichs” feed the monsters.

Jan 3, 2006 - 5:17 am 37. marianna:

“What are the anti-Semitic hints contained within The Terminal and Catch Me If You Can? I mean, huh?”

Did you see either movie? Do you remember the crude caricatures of diamond merchants and lawyers? Spielberg is worse than an anti-Semite, he’s a self-hating Jews.

Jan 3, 2006 - 8:11 am 38. JBlossom:

I thought that the movie was pretty good. I agree that it was pretty herky-jerky in its plot line and editing – kind of like a big-budget indie film that could have used some more editing – but it was a pretty good vehicle for people to think out loud about how we can become our enemies all too easily when fighting terrorism. The anti-Semitic rhetoric is to be expected, but I think that his point is that we’re all standing in judgment for our actions, regardless of how we try to justify them. Our ethnic traditions and religious roots do not make us moral people: it’s what we do that makes us moral.

Jan 3, 2006 - 9:16 am 39. Buddy Larsen:

But, Blossom, that’s the whole problem–the athletes murdered in Munich weren’t given any choices.

The murderers had made theirs already–at their own pace, time, & choosing.

Why do victims have to disappear twice?

Jan 3, 2006 - 9:45 am 40. Buddy Larsen:

Is turning the other cheek on yesterday’s victim a moral act towards tomorrow’s?

Jan 3, 2006 - 9:53 am 41. Buddy Larsen:

To me, those guys who went after the murderers–forget for a moment the Mossad, Golda, Pali-spiritualist add-ons–those guys gave up a life of high-flown principles to do dirty work in service to the morality of creating a humane tomorrow. Or, in other words, they are among history’s revered “builders”.

Why are we deconstructing the heroes who create the space wherein we have such luxuries?

Jan 3, 2006 - 10:01 am 42. AlanC:

“Black or White is the nugget. It is the shades of gray that are killing us. Anyone distant from the deed can moralize, but few know what they would do when it it. A time may come when the choice is stark. Spielberg just prolongs the inevitable.”

This just high lights a hot button of mine.

As Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes creator) put it once “Sometimes it really IS black or white!”

Any time some one uses the “shades of gray” phrase I immediately look for the cop out, excuse or moral equivocating. Many choices in this world are no more difficult then the distinction between charcoal gray and pearl gray. Damn few are really all that difficult. Something about this subject also strikes me, few people on the terrorist loving side seem to believe that there has ever been anything done that can’t be traced to a single original sin. Everything that has happened since is “just” a reaction, hence not really anyone’s fault.

(sits back waiting for the “But what about…..”

avalanche.

Jan 3, 2006 - 11:02 am 43. Ripper:

After seeing the movie (I confess on a boot leg DVD but at least I did not put any money in Spielberg’s pocket) I can honestly say that Steven Spielberg is not a great thinker. He certainly is no Elia Kazan. The dialog is pedestrian, cliched and trite and the film is poorly edited and at least 30 – 40 minutes too long. One can see the heavy ideological hand of Tony Kushner particularly in the ending.

By the way, within the first 30 minutes I spotted 4 historical errors. The most glaring in my opinion was when the hit team shot and killed the Arab (Wail Zwaiter)in the vestibule of his apartment building in Rome. Why would they use a full blasting pistol insted of a silencer????

Jan 3, 2006 - 11:21 am 44. Patrick Tyson:

Why are we deconstructing the heroes who create the space wherein we have such luxuries?

Two reasons (the effect of the act and the nature of the villain) immediately come to mind. Illustrations from fiction:

I put my glass on the table, sat down facing it, and complained:

“This damned burg’s getting me. If I don’t get away soon I’ll be going blood-simple like the natives. There’s been what? A dozen and a half murders since I’ve been here. Donald Willsson; Ike Bush; the four wops and the dick at Cedar Hill; Jerry; Lew Yard; Dutch Jake, Blackie Whalen and Put Collings at the Silver Arrow; Big Nick, the copper I potted; the blond kid Whisper dropped here; Yakima Shorty, old Elihu’s prowler; and now Noonan. That’s sixteen of them in less than a week, and more coming up.”

She frowned at me and said sharply:

“Don’t look like that.”

I laughed and went on:

“I’ve arranged a killing or two in my time, when they were necessary. But this is the first time I’ve ever got the fever. It’s this damned burg. You can’t go straight here. I got myself tangled at the beginning. When old Elihu ran out on me there was nothing I could do but try to set the boys against each other. I had to swing the job the best way I could. How could I help it if the best way was bound to lead to a lot of killing? The job couldn’t be handled any other way without Elihu’s backing.”

“Well, if you couldn’t help it, what’s the use of making a lot of fuss over it? Drink your drink.”

I drank half of it and felt the urge to talk some more.

“Play with murder enough and it gets you one of two ways. It makes you sick, or you get to like it. It got Noonan the first way. He was green around the gills after Yard was knocked off, all the stomach gone out of him, willing to do anything to make peace. I took him in, suggested that he and the other survivors get together and patch up their differences.

“We had the meeting at Willsson’s tonight. It was a nice party. Pretending to clear away everybody’s misunderstandings by coming clean all around, I stripped Noonan naked and threw him to them—him and Reno. That broke up the meeting. Whisper declared himself out. Pete told everybody where they stood. He said battling was bad for his bootlegging racket, and anybody who started anything from then on could expect to have his booze guards turned loose on them. Whisper didn’t look impressed. Neither did Reno.”

—Dashiell Hammett, Red Harvest (suggested by the reference to Aeschylus above)

“He was slipping away from me and I couldn’t do anything to stop him. I’d given up talking but I was there if he wanted to change his mind. He didn’t. He would rather die than give me what I wanted; he would rather die than disown the political system to which he was committed. The last I saw of him, so far as I know, was his expressionless face framed in the cabin window of the aeroplane, watching me walk down the gangway. A couple of very Russian-looking thugs had joined us and were sitting in the seats behind him and there was really no point in my staying. I flew home, and Control said: ‘Well, I hope to God they do shoot him,’ and restored me with a cup of tea. That filthy China stuff he drinks, lemon jasmine or whatever; he sends out for it to that grocer’s round the corner. I mean he used to. Then he sent me on three months’ leave without the option. ‘I like you to have doubts,’ he said. ‘It tells me where you stand. But don’t make a cult of them or you’ll be a bore.’ It was a warning. I heeded it. And he told me to stop thinking about the Americans so much; he assured me he barely gave them a second thought.”

Guillam gazed at him, waiting for the resolution. “But what do you make of it?” he demanded, in a tone that suggested he had been cheated in the end. “Did Karla ever really think of staying?”

“I’m sure it never crossed his mind,” said Smiley with disgust. “I behaved like a soft fool. The very archetype of a flabby Western liberal. But I would rather be my kind of fool than his, for all that. I am sure,” he repeated vigorously, “that neither my arguments nor his own predicament at Moscow Centre would ultimately have swayed him in the least. I expect he spent the night working out how he would outgun Rudnev when he got home.”

Some 800 pages later it ends…

“George, you won,” said Guillam, as they walked slowly towards the car.

“Did I?” said Smiley. “Yes. Yes, well I suppose I did.”

—John Le Carre, Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley’s People

Jan 3, 2006 - 12:16 pm 45. Buddy Larsen:

Great examples (and great le Carre). I think you’re exactly right. Lost in those two tertiary reasons is the big one, the purpose of it all, the reason that good people sacrifice innocence (and more) to hold the line in the trenches: nothing else will matter if your people lose.

Jan 3, 2006 - 1:18 pm 46. marianna:

“It is the shades of gray that are killing us.”

There is no gray in the real world.

You are evil or you are good.

You are for the president or you are for the terrorists.

You are honest or you are a liar.

You are right or you are wrong.

Period.

Jan 3, 2006 - 3:26 pm 47. truepeers:

There was a mini-series that i think was based on the same JOnas book, and came out in the early eighties, a Canadian production, i believe. As I recall that film, it had its hokey elements but it was decidedly pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, largely ignoring the Arab killers, and showing the moral struggles with which the acts of revenge were taken. I don’t plan to see the present film, but for anyone who does, there might be an instructive compare and contrast opportunity here.

Jan 3, 2006 - 3:33 pm 48. Buddy Larsen:

“No man can serve two masters, for he will love one and despise the other” Jesus is reported by Matthew and Luke to’ve said. I’m sure the warnings against moral equivocation go even further back in time, if only we had records.

Jan 3, 2006 - 4:15 pm 49. truepeers:

Come to think of it, why call the Israeli killings revenge, instead of self-defense? As I recall the miniseries noted above, Golda Meir makes a case that killing the terrorists is a necessary act of self-defense, but for some reason the protagonist, Avner, goes through a moral crisis, comes to see himself as a vile revenge assassin, moves to New York, drives a cab when his bank account is cleaned out by his boss, rejects the invitation of his former boss to return to Israel and get the money that had been promised him. But, as I recall, when money and assasination is not the issue, he does end up returning to Israel, back to the army to fight in the 1973 war. ANd so ends the miniseries.

Jan 3, 2006 - 5:41 pm 50. Orson2:

JBlossom illuminates:

“I thought that the movie was pretty good,… but I think that his point is that we’re all standing in judgment for our actions, regardless of how we try to justify them. Our ethnic traditions and religious roots do not make us moral people: it’s what we do that makes us moral.” If you’re a pacifist, yes – but what about why we do what we do when we defend ourselves?

Which is why the HBO film “Sword of Gideon” (1986) is enormously better than Speilberg’s laughable “Munich” (which ryhmes with ‘eunich’). Truepeers alludes to this far superior film. It’s taught, illuminates spy/assassination tradecraft, and doesn’t insult the audience while thoughtfully developing JBlossom’s theme of the reciprocally corrosive effects of systematic killing.

In fact, “Munich” lifts at least three sequences from “Sword,” which is plausible since both are based on George Jonas much criticised book “Vengeance.” The latter is Spielberg’s film’s title in France, but implausibly (”grand guinol” indeed!) develops a far reaching indictment of “eye-for-an-eye” justice (which is not what the Mossad campaign was about – ie, preventing the murder of further innocents), implied by the novel.

It’s true to say that, technically and in its baroque pretense of ‘drama,’ this is in effect the “JFK” version of the 1972 Olympic Massacre. In both, reality is totally distorted. For instance, the fact that West Germany simply strove to capitulate to terrorism, but Israel resisted it and ultimately succeeded in vanqishing PLO terror in Europe is lied about in “Munich.” That’s just one thing makin it obscene.

Another is its claim that nationalism is bad, and its venom would abate if we only grant every aggreived terrorist land – all could be peacful in the world. We’re talking Left-Liberal La-La fanstasy land here. This too is offensive!

As moral equivalence, putting “Schindler’s List” together with “Munich,” we see that Spielberg believes this: Killing fascists in brown uniforms is good – but killing fascists in black hoods wielding AK-47s also against innocent people is bad. This is mindless hash, Speilberg substitues for “thought.”

Which leads us to where “JFK” succeeded and Munich” simply sucks. If you think about how to do counter-terrorism and the seriousness and passion and skill demanded by it, neither the flabby, boring character of Avi nor the thoughtless guilt-ridden dialog of his team members make any sense! It’s simply not believable and therefore boring and (for reasons explained above) morally outrageous! By contrast, “JFK” kept the focus on a lawyer-prosecuter turned crazed pursuer of the Truth, ultimately revealed to be a murky, albeit – in the shadow of the Watergate-generation’s experience – chillingly plausible government conspiracy. “Munich” lacks thrills if you’re thinking about dramatic plausibility; “JFK” simply sedeuces and overwhelms initial thinking!

Thus, the comparison is vitiated, and “Munich” had me walking out in the face of its predictable martinettes on display. It’s worth asking when Speilberg became an anti-semitic agit-prop “artiste”? Note the obsession with food throughout “Munich,” no doubt Marxist Kushner’s contribution. It implies that Israeli’s are rich because Pale’s are poor and unjustly dipossessed of their land! Again, simplistic reductionism is used to indict anti-terrorism instead of explaining and developing credible characters to drive a story forward.

Nevertheless, as someone says above, the film does faithfully correspond (cf, most mainstream reviews) to conventional Left-liberal, pacifist, Nation-reading, Hollywood, Michael Moore worshipping views. Their capacity for confusing fiction with reality, and “realism” for Truth is what elevates “Munich” into dangerous agit-prop – which “JFK” never approachs. Spielberg rides on the fantasy-ideology of the Left-loonies, squelching all reality testing. In this view, Bin Laden and Al Qa’ida supporters just want what we want out of life, instead of an anti-woman, anti-gay, totalitarian theocracy and the pursuit of eternal martyrdom. “Munich” is dangerous appeasment in the West’s time of trial by implacable Jihadist terrorism.

Jan 3, 2006 - 7:46 pm 51. Buddy Larsen:

This is instructive, in many ways.

Jan 3, 2006 - 8:02 pm 52. sparrow:

Thinking back on the LeCarre novels and how believable they were, with all kinds of tradecraft and believable characters, several parts of the Munich movie were not believable:

1. The Herbert Lonsdale character, older Frenchman and source of the whereabouts of the Munich murderers has Israeli Agent come (blindfolded) to his country estate. And the Agent then sees all of the Frenchmans children, wives, etc. This would never happen.

2. The 5 Israeli Agents in the team stay together alot in the same hotel in different rooms or in the same room in a hotel. How could this be?

3. The infrequent, or nonexistent, presence of the local police before, during, and after the Agents kill a target. Not credible.

Jan 3, 2006 - 8:22 pm 53. truepeers:

That’s an interesting comparison with JFK, Orson2, and well argued. And thanks for reminding me about that title, Sword of Gideon.

Jan 4, 2006 - 3:09 am 54. Buddy Larsen:

Somehow, this is belongs in this thread.

Jan 4, 2006 - 8:04 am 55. Patrick Tyson:

Munich takes the form of a thriller matched with a procedural. —Roger Ebert

…and sinks like a stone.

The problems begin with the screenplay and end there if that is where the idea of dramatizing the later stages of that horrific day and night in Munich as if they’re playing out in Eric Bana (Avner’s) head while he’s doing other things took root. Everything else is up to Spielberg standards. While it’s not as bad a screenplay as that for War of the Worlds, it begs to be taken more seriously because of the subject matter and because of some of the comments of the man who directed both. So where to start?

It’s very likely that Sword of Gideon is a treatment of the suspect source material that could not really be improved upon and this might have been the reason that whatever Eric Roth (The Insider) produced was found wanting. At that point it might have made more sense to go for broke and turn this into a Red Harvest on an international scale. When you come down to it, what the film is suggesting is that the fight over a relatively small area of land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean has deteriorated into such a situation and that the massacre in Munich and the response to it had something to do with that having happened. That your argument? Fine. Shift the focus to Michael Lonsdale (Papa) and Mathieu Amalric (Louis) and let the dead bury the dead.

[Michael Lonsdale was so memorable as Anton Grigoriov in the BBC adaptation of Smiley's People back in 1982 and he's a welcome presence in this film.]

But no. Instead, Tony Kushner is brought in and clarity and motivation are no doubt sacrificed for, as far as I could tell, nothing of any great import. Whatever there was of a thriller and of a procedural survives a couple of cities and then collapses into an incoherence that might actually more closely mirror actual events, but is deadly in dramas of either type.

And with that I think I’ll stop.

Jan 4, 2006 - 9:31 pm 56. Buddy Larsen:

Well, who knows the medium better than Spielberg? So if the characterizations had to come apart to serve the script, then wouldn’t that indicate that the political views of the film-makers are in conflict with actual human nature? unless it was deliberate, to, as you say “…closely mirror actual events”.

But if that’s what the director was doing, then–as space was made on-screen in Band of Brothers for the actual veterans to establish the meaning of the film–space should’ve been made for the eleven terribly-injured families of the murdered athletes (since the athletes themselves cannot) to come on-screen and establish context for the politics taking place there.

Instead it seems that the film–like liberalism itself in its incomprehensible position on the war against Judaism–simply refuses to regard some of the things that many, many people feel so strongly are the actual heart of the matter, that–like Ariel Sharon–they devote their lives to it.

The logic is that *everything* is a personal choice, and vice and virtue are just different items on a menu.

Convince enough of Israel’s warriors of this point of view, and Israel will disappear.

Jan 4, 2006 - 11:56 pm 57. Buddy Larsen:

Spielberg is saying the war is just a misunderstanding–while the people making the war say everyday that they are not in the least bit confused about what they want–no Israel, maybe no Israelis.

Jan 5, 2006 - 12:01 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: