![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)
« Blog roundup for a new year | Home | More Gazan Illogic »
January 02, 2006
Munich massacre cont.
Munich Massacre anniversary series here. And more on the movie and reactions to it.
Reviews and reactions are still pouring in. Bret Stephens reiterates a list of the movie's biases and misstatements of fact.
Via Banagor, an audio interview with Tony Kushner in which he discusses "the challenges he faced in constructing a work of historical fiction." I'm glad we're clear about that. (But, you know, it's "fake but accurate.") Kate Wright at RCP compares the movie's "historical fiction" to fact, and considers the political implications of creating this particular fictional narrative. (For the record, I think fiction can express the truth of a situation, but claiming that something is "true" even if the facts are false is a lazy way of not taking responsibility for making certain narrative choices.)
The Washington Post review concludes:"The problem with "Munich" is simple: It asks hard questions and finds easy answers."
Roger Ebert interviews Spielberg, who positions himself as a brave dissident:
I knew the minefield was there," says Steven Spielberg, describing the storm of controversy over his new film "Munich." He has been attacked on three fronts, for being anti-Israeli, being anti-Palestinian, and being neither -- which is, those critics say, the sin of "moral equivalency.""I wasn't naive in accepting this challenge," he says about his film. . . . "I knew I was going to be losing friends when I took on the subject," he told me during a phone conversation Thursday afternoon. "I am also making new friends." The film, which opened on Friday, had already generated fiery discussion from those who've seen it in previews -- or not seen it, but objected to the very idea of it.
It's true that some of us linking to criticism of the movie haven't seen it. But most of the people we are linking to have seen it. And the historical inaccuracies are indisputable.
VDH refutes Spielberg's claim to dissident status by placing "Munich" in the context of other recent Hollywood movies, which cast the US as a scheming manipulative oppressor of innocent liberal Muslims. Muslims and Arabs simply cannot be bad guys as far as Hollywood is concerned. If Spielberg portroyed the threats to civilization as they truly exist, he would be bravely dissenting from Hollywood dogma.
Callimachus takes "Munich" personally because he takes his Jewish ancestry seriously.
Judith | 01/02/06 at 10:52 AM | Categories: - Munich Massacre
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/4405
Blogs which link to Munich massacre cont.:
» Munich from Exit Zero
After everything I'd read about Spielberg's Munich, I expected the movie to piss me off. It didn't.
It was an entirely fictional work - the film was based on the book Vengeance, writ...
[Read More]Tracked on January 3, 2006 11:20 AM
Comments
What on earth is "courageous" about doing something that will only be applauded by the circle of people who actually have the power to do you good or harm?
It's sickening to watch so many entertainers and professors patting themselves on the back for their "courage" while going along with the crowd.
David Foster | January 2, 2006 07:01 PM
Don't you know, it's courageous because Spielberg -a proud son of Hollywood - is helping the fight against American and Israeli imperialism. The two forces of evil which are currently ruining our world.
alcibiades | January 2, 2006 10:33 PM
