Is Spielberg’s Munich The Must See Movie?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The Politics Of FilmOriginally I talked about Syriana being THE movie to see this holiday season. Why? Well, it’s the only one that deals with the war on terrorism, its roots and what could be done about it. Some commenters and fellow bloggers said they’d pass because they felt it would be too left-wing. Fair enough, but I bet you anything it’ll be compelling cinema and will make you think.
But now I read from Drudge Report that Steven Spielberg’s wants his upcoming opus, Munich, to begin an open and frank discussion about the things that divide the Middle East.
And how would he do this? By being as impartial as possible.
Here’s more from Steven and the objectivity that his film demonstrates:
‘There has never been an adequate tribute paid to the Israeli athletes who were murdered in ’72,’ Spielberg says.“I don’t think any movie or any book or any work of art can solve the stalemate in the Middle East today,� director Steven Spielberg tells TIME in an exclusive cover-story interview. “But it’s certainly worth a try,� Spielberg says.
Since filming began in June, the movie (reported to cost around $70 million) “has been surrounded by rumors, criticism, and suggestions that Spielberg was too pro-Israel to make a fair movie,� according to TIME.
“I’m always in favor of Israel responding strongly when it’s threatened. At the same time, a response to a response doesn’t really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual-motion machine,” Spielberg says. “There’s been a quagmire of blood for blood for many decades in that region. Where does it end? How can it end?”
The director tells TIMES he’s very proud of the fact that MUNICH doesn’t demonize either the Israeli or Palestinian side.
“We don’t demonize our targets,” Spielberg said. “They’re individuals. They have families.”
Personally, I think this type of honesty by one of the most famous Jews in the world is profound. I too feel that the Israel/Palestine conflict is feedback loop with no end in sight. The only thing that will solve it is one side being beaten down by the other, suffering major losses and proving that they’re not the bad guys. I don’t think that’ll happen, but change is violent and it hurts. MLK and Ghandi showed us that much.
So to revise, here are my top three “must sees” for the Holiday season:
This entry was posted on Monday, December 5th, 2005 and is filed under The Politics Of Film. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 5th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Justin: when is “Munich” opening for general release? I know you’re from the Kansas City area. Will it be playing in the less-populated hinterlands? I can’t wait. I remember watching the incident in 1972 and thinking that it was a isolated problem (ie., Israel v. Palestine).
December 5th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
I think it’s this Friday. Anybody else know? I tried to find it through the search engines, but to no avail.
December 5th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Yahoo movies said it had a “limited opening” on 12/23. Guess that means a trip to KC.
December 5th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
Lots of demons have families. By all accounts, some of the worst mass murderers in history have been loving family men. Osama bin Laden has enough family for six normal men. Does that make him a cool guy? Not in my book.
What is Spielberg “balancing” here? On the one hand, a collection of athletes from a country of survivors who came to Munich to participate in a world festival of sports. On the other hand, a collection of cold-blooded murderers who came to Munich to kill the unarmed Jews in as large a number as they could accomplish.
I think I’ll skip. One of those dead athletes had the same last name as my Jewish grandfather. Impartiality is not an absolute virtue.
December 6th, 2005 at 1:32 am
No, it’s not an absolute virtue, and from what I’ve read I don’t think Spielberg is saying that. in any event, he’s got my 8 bucks.
But you will see King Kong, right Cal? ;-)