More on Munich

Steven Spielberg in an interview with Roger Ebert that is worth reading in its entirety (hat tip:  Richard Baehr):

“Some of my critics are asking how Spielberg, this Hollywood liberal who makes dinosaur movies, can say anything serious about this subject that baffles so many smart people.  What they’re basically saying is ‘You disagree with us in a big public way, and we want you to shut up, and we want this movie to go back in the can.’  That’s a nefarious attempt to make people plug up their ears.  That’s not Jewish, it’s not democratic, and it’s bad for everyone -- especially in a democratic society.”

I don’t think the critics are questioning his intelligence (even though he responds by questioning their Jewishness).  They’re questioning his judgment, and his views. 

But for some reason, “Hollywood liberals” think that, in a free society, they should be free to present their views without criticism.  So Spielberg equates criticism with censorship (“we want you to shut up”), responds to the criticism by accusing his critics of being “not Jewish” (on grounds they are criticizing him?), and suggests this is “bad for everyone” when in fact it is simply bad for Spielberg.

Spielberg tells Ebert that he has been misunderstood:

“There was an article in USA Today by a Los Angeles rabbi, accusing me of 'blind pacifism.' That's interesting, because there is not any kind of blind pacifism within me anywhere, or in 'Munich.'”

Well, maybe not “blind” pacifism, but as Samuel Freedman notes in an article in The Jerusalem Post (that is admiring of Spielberg’s career and that of his screenwriter, but not of his latest movie), the ending of the movie -- with Avner refusing to return to Israel and taking up residence instead in Brooklyn (portrayed as a “refuge designated in part by the pealing of church bells” in the background) -- does suggest pacifism:

On the surface, the anguish of Avner in Munich brings to mind another one of Stephen Spielberg's troubled warriors, the American captain played by Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan. As the captain fights his way through Normandy after D-Day to rescue the title character, his hand keeps trembling, every palsied twitch the evidence of all he has endured. But when Hanks completes his duty, he does not decide to move to Switzerland because war is hell.

Ebert reports that Spielberg:

repeated that he was wounded by the charge that he is "no friend of Israel" because his film asks questions about Israeli policies. "This film is no more anti-Israel than a similar film which offered criticism of America is anti-America," he said. "Criticism is a form of love. I love America, and I'm critical of this administration. I love Israel, and I ask questions. Those who ask no questions may not be a country's best friends.”

If criticism is a form of love, Spielberg should be happy:  a lot of people seem to love his movie.  He should think more about the questions they are asking -- unless he meant his film only to provoke thoughts in others.

Comments

[Elan]

Richard Just, the editor of The New Republic Online, says:

“[T]he thing that bothered me most about Munich -- and that has received little attention in the early round of reviews and commentary -- was the film's final scene. The movie concludes in New York, and after the dialogue ends the camera pans away from the actors and towards the Manhattan skyline, where it comes to rest on a shot of the Twin Towers. . . .

“One can view the last shot as drawing a loose but linear link between decades of Israeli counterterrorism and September 11. This false yet potent link already exists in the minds of some Americans and many Europeans. It is reasonable to fear that after millions see Munich, the link will exist in the minds of many more.” (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051219&s=just122405&c=2).

It is an interesting question whether the movie most harmful to the Jews in 2005 was “The Passion” or “Munich.” The first was a passion play that energized the most fervent supporters of Israel in America. The second was an endorsement of moral appeasement and a criticism of Israel with a reprehensible visual attack at the end.

[jaundicedeye]

Spielberg is a typical Hollywood liberal wallowing in self-adulation and blinkered by his perceived moral superiority. A man who can sit through eight hours of Fidel Castro's inane rants and then proclaim it the most profound and moving experience of his life is a moron whatever his technical brilliance or professional virtuosity.

[Kate Wright]

Going to film school to "study" film, and going to journalism school to "study" journalism is like going to Walgreen's to "study" medicine.

Kate Wright's "Munich" stands for "Appeasement" was published on The American Thinker, and picked up by Real Clear Politics. Read the historical perspective!

[Elan]

In the old joke, comedy is you slipping on a banana peel; tragedy is when I do. For Spielberg, his own criticism of Israel and Bush is “a form of love.” But criticism of him and his movie is censorship, non-Jewish, anti-democratic and “bad for everyone.”

[muse]

This post is featured on Havel Havelim #51.

Here it is. Choose your venue.
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2006/01/havel-havelim-51.html
or
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/2006/01/havel-havelim-51.html

Please put a blurb on your blog, advising your readers to visit. And send around the links for people to read it. There's quite a variety of posts.

Shavua tov, chodesh tov and Chanukah Sameach,

[Robbe Richman]

A good commentary and the last line does say it all, however Spielberg makes a point that some people want his film "back in the can." I have spoken to people who are boycotting the film only based on the reviews. He also makes the point that this is stirring something up in people that goes much deeper than a three hour film. To a certain extent it seems that Spielberg is being killed as the messenger of that emotion.