The cunning deceit behind `Munich'

[barb162]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0601160175jan16,1,3345593.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

The cunning deceit behind `Munich'

Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist based in Washington: Washington Post Writers Group
Published January 16, 2006


WASHINGTON -- If Steven Spielberg had made a fictional movie about the psychological disintegration of a revenge assassin, that would have been fine. Instead, he decided to call this fiction "Munich" and root it in a real historical event: the 1972 massacre by Palestinian terrorists of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Once you've done that--evoked the actual killing of innocents who, but for Palestinian murderers, would not be much older than Spielberg himself today--you have an obligation to get the story right.

The only true part of the story is the few minutes spent on the actual massacre. The rest is invention, as Spielberg delicately puts it in the opening credits, "inspired by real events."

By real events? Rubbish. Inspired by Tony Kushner's belief (he co-wrote the screenplay) that the founding of Israel was a "historical, moral, political calamity" for the Jewish people.

It is an axiom of filmmaking that you can only care about a character you know. In "Munich," the Israeli athletes are not only theatrical but historical extras, stick figures. Spielberg dutifully gives us their names--Spielberg's List--and nothing more: no history, no context, no relationships, nothing. They are there to die.
snip

[villager]

1. You're trusting Krauthammer to discuss this film?

n/t

[barb162]

3. Since he's not discussing acting skills, but the various slantings

in the movie, yes. In any case he has a Pulitzer Prize, psychiatric experience, etc.

[400Years]

12. He's a big-ass neocon.

[barb162]

16. He's also worked in the Carter administration and wrote speeches

for Mondale. He has worked both sides of aisle.

[400Years]

17. makes no difference, the man has an agenda

[villager]

21. well, he's kind of followed a "New Republic" trajectory...

... or maybe a "Commentary"-like trajectory: If you see what he's written in the last few years, it's all NeoCon.

I think his citing of Tony Kushner is telling: He was going to hate this film no matter what, because the script was co-authored by the guy who outed Republican hypocrisy in "Angels in America."

I think there are more intelligent, less blindered views of "Munich" around, if you wanted a DU discussion of the film's possible merits/demerits...

[barb162]

22. Well that's interesting

and I appreciate your comment here. To me that play was about gays, the GOP, politics, hate, deception, 1950s America and so many other things.

[villager]

24. well, exactly -- but Krauthammer has since become a GOP apologist

I think his agenda is assuming there's no way past the assumed agenda in Kushner's script -- i.e., there was no chance he was going to like the film once the screenwriter had been announced...

[villager]

15. but speaking of slantings... his are all inflexibly rightwing...

n/t

[barb162]

18. see post 16

[Voltaire99]

7. Why trust that sociopath to discuss anything?

Krauthammer's a virulent racist, ardently pro-war and an advocate of torture. It's an embarrassment to see him cited here.

[barb162]

19. Racist? Against whom? ETC to other comments. Got links?

The Washington Post is not on Skinner's list of hate papers or extreme right media.

[barb162]

20. I/P rules on media sources

"Please use discretion when referencing obviously biased or factually questionable material. Vanity websites are generally not as credible as the New York Times, the Washington Post ...."
--


Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist for the Wash Post and I generally see no problem with posting articles contained in the NY Times, Wash Post, etc. publications.

[yurbud]

2. the piece was mostly pro-Israel and the story was about what came AFTER

Munich.

Let Krauthammer write the movie about the lives of the Israeli athletes up until the time of the attack and see how far he gets trying to sell that.

He seems to have a bug up his ass about this.

[barb162]

4. I would hope he would be upset

that several innocent athletes were murdered. That was glossed over in the movie and he makes the point quite well. Shouldn't he be upset?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. careful...

...You are insinuating that Barb thinks all Palestinians are terrorists (or should be portrayed as such). Not all Palestinians are terrorists. Don't conflate.

[yurbud]

13. This criticism is a lot like that about Schindler's List...

People complained that since most of the Jews the film focused on weren't killed, it was an inaccurate portrayal of the Holocaust.

Spielberg correctly replied that it was A holocaust story, not THE holocaust story. THE story could probably only be a documentary.

In this case, the original poster was asking for a movie that few people would watch--the happy life of some jocks who are killed at the end.

You could make a good movie about what happened from the time the terrorist took them until the gunfight at the airport, and in some ways that would be a more exciting if less thought provoking movie.

Although I don't have this complaint, I could see someone saying that the movie was one sided because with the exception of one wife and daughter, all the Palestinians in the movie are terrorists. Likewise, someone could say the story is incomplete because it doesn't show why the guys who actually killed the athletes thought doing something so brutal and senseless would help their cause. Someone could say that makes them caricatures, and there would be something to the argument.

But I don't have that beef.

This story was told from the point of view of the guys doing the retaliatory hits. The relevant thing about the athletes was their deaths, and for that purpose they were more than adequately portrayed in flashbacks. Likewise, the Palestinians only exist as names on a list for these guys, so it was realistic for them to be ambivalent when their targets seem like very ordinary people.

If you had to kill a nazi concentration camp guard, no matter what he had done, you would notice some common humanity in him and feel a twinge of ambivalence, even though his execution would be entirely justified.

There are few cartoon villains in real life, and people who say otherwise are trying to sell something.

[Andromeda]

6. I haven't seen the movie yet,

but I think the main point of the movie is the protagonist's struggle with himself and the cause he was a part of.

Many years ago I saw a movie, sorry I forget the name of it, that was about this Mossad agent and the conflict he suffered when he did what he was trained to do. It was a personal thing with him and he quit the Mossad.

The whole theme was told from the viewpoint of the Mossad agent, his reaction to the circumstances and his dark night of the soul.

The event, the murder of innocent athletes, was merely the epic in which the Mossad agent's story was told. That's why they say "inspired by real events." Speilberg is no anti-Semite and I don't think he was trying to glorify the Palestinian's cause. He was merely showing them acting just like anybody else in everyday situations in their vulnerable moments.

That's just my take on it. I don't see it as a pro-Palestinian movie. I think it's just entertainment with a little different twist.

[eyl]

10. I haven't seen the movie either

and probably won't.

The main reason being, by all reports the movie, which markets itself as describing the events following the Munich attacks, is based fairly loosely on a book which itself wasn't really congruent with what really happened. Movies which supposedly portray historical events and then massively change things around just to make the director's point have a tendency to really irritate me.

[TomClash]

9. Charles Krauthammer discoursing on film

is like a Klansmen discussing hip-hop music. It's laughable.

That said, it's the rest of his piece that's objectionable.

[barb162]

23. That explains why he has a Pulitzer Prize and why he is a

syndicated columnist for the Wash Post. Because he writes as you indicate.

[TomClash]

25. That's nice and irrelevant

Being a columnist for the Post is not that big a deal - their op/ed page is pretty wretched. And Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize, but quite rightly no one considers him a pacifist or peacemaker, do they? In the same vein, Charles Krauthammer is hardly an expert on Cinema Verite.

[barb162]

26. Nobody said he 's critiquing the acting coaches and directorial

style.

[TomClash]

28. No

. . . but he whines about the Israeli athletes not being sufficiently developed as characters when the film is obviously not about the Israeli athletes.

He says things like, "It is an axiom of filmmaking that you can only care about a character you know." This is ridiculous.

Or this: "the Palestinians who plan the massacre and are hunted down by Israel are given -- with the concision of the gifted cinematic craftsman -- texture, humanity, depth, history." God forbid - Palestinians depicted as human beings.

Read the review in full. Besides the historical inaccuracies, the Krauthammer message is simple: Steven Spielberg = terrorist, Ahmadinejad lover, "Hollywood ignoramus." The guy even obliquely mocks "Schindler's List."

He ends his diatribe by insulting Brooklyn and the Jews who live there, a few of whom don't happen to be ardent Zionists. These are my neighbors. What did they do to deserve that?

[wolfgirl]

11. Munich was powerful and

very sad. The horror of the Olympic killings was front and center. The desire for Israel to strike a blow against those that initiated it was understood. But more importantly (IMHO) the movie demonstrated that blood begats blood, violence spawns more violence, and that in the end neither side was heroic or righteous. Anyone attempting to see this movie as pro or anti anything other than violence, bloodshed, and hatred are not paying attention.


Peace!

[yurbud]

14. I think that was Spielberg's purpose

[bemildred]

27. Krauthammer is a moron.

There is nothing in this to cause one to reconsider that opinion.