posted
I agreed with much of OSCs column about the Oscars, but not his comment about Munich.
I have not seen Munich and will not comment on its quality. But Steven Spielberg is Jewish, and it seems unlikely to me that he defending the view that "all terrorist acts by Muslims are justified as long as they're killing Jews." First of all, I have never personally known anyone, including my friends who are Marxists and my Palestinian Muslim friend, who has ever been anything less than horrified by acts of violence committed by Hammas and other terrorist organizations. Secondly, I suspect that Spielberg was trying to make his characters seem realistic and allow the audience to understand them, even if they do not approve, something which OSC does well himself, as do all talented artists.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wanted to see if there was the slightest possibilty of OSC responding to this one. Does it count as baiting if I am nice about it?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to know if he actually watched the movie. The purpose of the movie was to show the damage committing acts of violence, even "righteous" acts, does to one's soul. As a human rights activists, I am tired of everyone saying I support terrorists just because I believe they should have a fair trial and be treated humanely. I believe violence leads to more violence and someone needs to break that cycle. That was the message I saw in Munich. If you respond with violence, it damages your soul.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no knowledge about this particular instance, but in the past, OSC has had little problem with reviewing (and trashing) movies he hasn't seen.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Krauthammer's arguments make me wonder if there's a difference between being anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. I think so, but it's not a topic I've explored in great depth.
A different take reaching the conclusion that Munich was too muddled and dishonest to be taken seriously.
quote: The purpose of the movie was to show the damage committing acts of violence, even "righteous" acts, does to one's soul
Except, as pointed out on the other (Oscars) thread, and in the second linked article, the Israeli assassins didn't feel that any damage was done to their souls. This dishonesty in the face of historical fact (again, the second link purports that the conviction of the Israeli assassins is well documented) is why Spielburg and Kushner (who wrote the script, and according to the third link, directed dialogue) are being accused of forwarding an agenda that is at least, anti-Israel.
Not that Israel doesn't have a lot to answer for. Assassination is sentencing without trial; I don't know that such a thing can be justified.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't you place them on trial? If they are so well protected that you cannot arrest them or use diplomatic measures to get at them, then chances of assassination are low (not impossible as assassinating someone is much easier than arresting). So, I would argue that pursuing those measures vigorously would be the best response. While the movie may not be accurate, I would still argue that its purpose is not to say terrorism is ok, just that certain responses to terrorism are wrong.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, one can certainly be horrified at the actions of Israel without being even anti-Israeli, as evidenced by the Israeli Labour Party, and other Israeli groups who oppose the more egregious violations of human rights by the IDF, in violation both of international law and The IDF Purity of Arms Code.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Post Scriptum, B'Tselem is an Israeli group that provides perhaps a better example than the Labour party.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think the film was anti-semitic. I do think the film was made in such a way that it clearly changed historical events, and that's bad.
I don't mind films that take "liberties" with history by adding context (ie, dialog for Abraham Lincoln) but I do mind films based on history that change what happened.
Imagine this: I'll do a history film, except in it, Japan doesn't really want to attack Pearl Harbor, and they are paid big money under the counter by a US military company to do it. Sure, it has no basis in reality, but I mix it into a film and I influence people with it.
So, you can add nuance to history, but you cannot change the fundamental events without altering it in such a way as to make the outcome worthless.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
