![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Beyond Faint Praise
Posted by Stephen Green · 13 January 2006
Charles Krauthammer has seen Steven Spielberg's "Munich" and had this to say: Munich, the massacre, had only modest success in launching the Palestinian cause with the blood of 11 Jews. "Munich," the movie, has now made that success complete 33 years later. No longer is it crude, grainy TV propaganda. "Munich" now enjoys high cinematic production values and the imprimatur of Steven Spielberg, no less, carrying the original terrorists' intended message to every theater in the world. I don't think he liked it very much. Comments
This from the director that gave us 'Schindler's List'. How surprising and disappointing. -S Posted by: Stephen Kohls at January 13, 2006 11:07 AMHuh. I haven't seen it yet. Probably won't until it comes out on DVD. But I ran across this review a few days ago. Paints a bit of a different picture. Posted by: Garrett at January 13, 2006 12:05 PMTO: Stephen Green He's definitely off the deep end in this one. I think he was trying for 'appeasement', but what he got was a propaganda piece for the enemy. Is he Jewish? If so, talk about self-loathing. I wonder why they hate themselves so much. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 13, 2006 12:21 PMI had heard that this was going to be an apologetic for the barbarians. It is sad the Spielberg would stoop to this. In an interview he did a while back he said he wanted this piece to somehow be part of the peace process. Well, I think he screwed the pooch. Barbarians are to be killed, not glorified or even humanized. I have several preferred methods to help the barbarians achieve room temperature. All which only cost time and a very small price for some hardware. The hardware isn't adversely effected during the extermination. ;) Posted by: wayne fielder at January 13, 2006 06:21 PMI haven't & probably won't see Spielberg's film. But it reminded me of a made-for-TV flick about the massacre and subsequent manhunt, Sword of Gideon. It was a straightforward actioner, with no moral equivalence in it. It in turn was based on the book Vengeance, by George Jonas. Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at January 13, 2006 06:53 PMImagine this movie being made, instead, by Michelle Malkin about Filipinos. We'd all be heartily sick of the phrase "self-hating race traitor" by now. Posted by: Mike Anderson at January 14, 2006 08:46 AMThat Libertas review that Garrett links to above is the only positive, conservative review I've seen of Munich. And even they say the film's morality goes severely off the rails in its last act. I was awestruck by Schindler's List and admired, with reservations, Saving Private Ryan, but when it comes to Munich, as a Hollywood mogul from a different era was fond of saying, include me out. Posted by: Ed Driscoll at January 14, 2006 10:24 AMSpielberg has finally smothered in the insular Hollywood world view. Considering that he has been able to turn events such as WWII and the end of the world (and, for that matter, Schindler's List) into metaphors for his own neurotic daddy and abandonment issues, it's probably no surprise that he has come to this... Posted by: richard mcenroe at January 14, 2006 11:11 AMIt's funny, watching the TV previews, they've been marketing it as a straight up revenge for Munich, no sign at all that they're going the moral relevance route, now I know trailers almost always give a misleading picture of the movie itself, but by not showing the moral relevance to the customers until AFTER they pay their tickets aren't they admitting that they're views are out of step with those of their customers? If so, why do they keep doing it? That kind of bait and switch only works for so long. Posted by: MarkD at January 14, 2006 03:09 PMMarkD, There was a fair amount of that going around Hollywood's promo efforts in 2005. Posted by: Ed Driscoll at January 14, 2006 08:58 PMI have seen the film and I think that Spielberg left it ambiguous. I think that he paints a picture of continued struggle on both sides and that they are each fighting a losing battle. I don't know if I would say he glorified the Palestinians. Neat blog. Posted by: Cooper Gillan at January 15, 2006 12:03 PMHmm, am I the only one who thinks this film and its creator haven't a clue about the workings of the Mossad? Haven't seen any mention of it in the reviews. In the beginning of the movie it said 'based on real events', I wonder how loosely. The 'assassins' were such amateurs, such bungling fools. I can't believe Mossad would send such people to do that job. I can't believe they would send a family man. Barbarians are to be killed, not glorified or even humanized. I have several preferred methods to help the barbarians achieve room temperature. All which only cost time and a very small price for some hardware. The hardware isn't adversely effected during the extermination. ;) Now that's what I call a barbarian mindset. Posted by: Alex Knapp at January 15, 2006 11:07 PMEd Driscoll -- I had the same thought about Hollywood hiding the message in its trailers, but I thought of Million Dollar Baby. Did anyone just seeing the trailer think it was going to be a pro-euthenasia picture? No, it looks like a Girl Rocky, that's it. Posted by: denise at January 16, 2006 10:05 AM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Best Free Booze on the Internet... and that's saying something!"
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |