Letters to the Editor
-
Munich is truly an" American" film
Many Americans believe violence and power corrupts, and that ends don't justify means. It is a very American view, and in some ways a VERY Christian view (Jesus and turn the other cheek thing). Here, Spielberg uses Mossad assassins to examine it, and irony in many ways. In this vision, the original issue is always obscured by violence as a counter tactic, especially state sponsored violence. In many ways, this explains why non-violence is the only protest tactic that works in the US- most Americans equate armed self defense with the violence of the original act. Most Americans are suspicious of power and despite political lip service to armed self-defense, most of the US public does not like it, especially when done by "others". The ANC of South Africa had to stop utilizing terror (bombing malls, for instance) to get mainstream American supprt in the 1980s. The ideas of "a pox on all of your houses" and "it is more noble to love and forgive your enemies" resound very strongly within American culture. With the exception of 9-11, the mainstream media culture has always been ambivalent about violence.
This view is not shared by most in Europe and Latin America. It is also not shared by theoretical elitists, but for different reasons. (Brooks is not conservative- he does not want to conserve the status quo- he wants to change it. He and his fellow big government politicos make Goldwater spin in his grave.) It is legitimate to disagree with it- it is not legitimate to dismiss it, as Brooks does, as naive or ill informed. The view should be engaged. It is a sad and salient point that the people GOldberg discusses are too elitist to engage or refute the view. Your average soldier can refute, or at least discuss, the impact of violence very intelligently. Why can't these think tank real commandos do the same?
"Munich", with it's introspection, is very American in it's view of violence and power corrupting . The reactionary attack is very elitist. How dare the hoi poi discuss the effects of violence! How dare anyone discuss history in this way without their political permission!
I will go to see this film. I may not agree with it (special forces personnel usually don't have time for the type of dramatic introspection discussed here), but I will see it. Any movie that makes us think and has a great story in it deserves support.
-
Paradise Now
"A film about what it's like to carry out terrorist acts (as opposed to contemplating them) has not yet been released here in the US."
Go see "Paradise Now" an amazing and devastating film about the corrosive impact of violence on all sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The tagline on the poster is "From the most unexpected place, comes a bold new call for peace." This was to make the movie palatable to American audiences. The movie is one big cry of despair and quite pessimistic.
There was a great interview with the director in Ha'aretz which you can read here:
http://www.israelblog.org/1131678036/
The above article also shows how Israelis and Palestinians can engage in thoughtful and meaningful discussion about their conflict, and rise above the level of discussion in American pundit land by a distance of many light years. That Ha'aretz interview provides an optimistic counterpoint to Abu-Assad's film.
P.S. to pukatoo: Goldberg not only describes, but defends and ultimately advocates the position. Go re-read the article. Go read her comment that starts: "It is impossible to imagine..." Maybe for Goldberg. Compare and contrast Goldberg's piece to the above article, and perhaps you'll have some insight of why I despair of U.S. liberals.
-
Neocons?
The lead in for this review mentions the onlslaught of neoconservative strikes against Spielberg's latest....Since when are the sources cited in this review -- Variety, NYT, The New Republic, and Haaretz (!!) -- at all representative of the neocon agenda?? Last time I looked, The NYT and TNR were darlings of the political left! And let's not even imagine how Haaretz would feel at being lumped in with the neocons. Of course, the feelings aroused by this movie, in many cases, exist outside of the political spectrum! Attempts to somehow make this all about the left being kicked in the belly by the right is ridiculous. Still, I found the review to be an interesting read, thought it tries too desperately to assert that Spielberg worked almost too hard at presenting Israel in a fair light. Indeed, Michelle Goldberg's citation of JJ Goldberg's statement that "Munich is as close as I've seen to an American film that's inside the Israeli head," is condescension at its height. Anyone who's spent any time at all in Israel (or anywhere else for that matter), knows that there is simply no such thing as a common "head," especially when it comes to such politically and philosophically- charged issues as terrorism and counter-terrorism. But I guess I'll have to see the damn movie after all.
-
Consider the source
Here's a question (or two). The film is based on the book "Vengeance" by Yuval Aviv & George Jonas. Why did someone as meticulous as Spielberg choose this source when a court case revealed that Aviv never--as he claimed--served in the Mossad or any other Israeli intelligence agency? In fact, he was merely a guard for El Al airlines. Arguments about the film's POV aside, if the source is bogus, doesn't that shape the end product? And shouldn't all reviewers mention the shakiness of the source material, whatever they make of the film?
-
Munich review
Or, do I miss the point? Is this a serious review or just a spoof? If it's the former, what a shocking, apologist-for-Israel/Jews review. I heard good things about Salon and this was the first ever story I read on the website. What a letdown! Salon is only liberal by Americna standards, looks like. Which means, to the rest of us in the world not brought up on neocon rantings, it is still too rabidly right.
thank god i got an early warning. i'll remember never to read salon again.