While in Chicago recently I had the opportunity to see Spielberg's latest film - Munich. While I don't think it was the best film of 2005 - that honor belongs to Gegen die Wand/Head on - Munich is still a very powerful film and should be seen. The film has come under attack by neo-conservatives in the US for not being sufficiently pro-Israel (that is, not being anti-Palestinian). Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com does a good job of exposing the stupidity of the neo-con critics. Her piece was picked up by Spiegel-Online.
The latest right-wing attack on Spielberg and Munich was launched last week by the neoconservative pundit Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post: Munich, The Travesty. Krauthammer is widely admired in the American press for his nuanced and "sensitive" defense of torture. But while Krauthammer finds shades of gray in making his case for torture, his attack on Spielberg's film is black and white, echoing the US policy of pre-emption: either you're for us or against us.
The only true part of the story is the few minutes spent on the massacre. The rest is invention, as Spielberg delicately puts it in the opening credits, "inspired by real events."
But the events at the Munich Olympics run through the entire film - in snippets - and haunt the dreams of the central character, the Mossad assassin Avnar. It is the horror of the massacre of the Israeli athletes that provides the backdrop for entire story.
Krauthammer then goes off on a diatribe where he accuses Spielberg of 'humanizing' the Arab targets of Mossad while depicting the Israeli's as crazed avengers:
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. The first Palestinian we meet is the erudite translator of poetry giving a public reading, then acting kindly toward an Italian shopkeeper -- before he is shot in cold blood by Jews.
Then there is the elderly PLO member who dotes on his 7-year-old daughter before being blown to bits. Not one of these plotters is ever shown plotting Munich, or any other atrocity for that matter. They are shown in the full flower of their humanity, savagely extinguished by Jews.
But the most shocking Israeli brutality involves the Dutch prostitute -- apolitical, beautiful, pathetic -- shot to death, naked, of course, by the now half-crazed Israelis settlingprivate business. The Israeli way, I suppose.
This is simply not true. The PLO members (or sympathizers - it is never entirely clear) remain for the most part ciphers, while we learn quite a bit about the Mossad assassins and their sympathizers. The Isaraelis are three dimensional characters, with real fears, desires and complex motivations. But for Krauthammer, ascribing any human characteristics to the Palastinians is a travesty. They are sub-human terrorists who must be hunted down and killed like animals. Here Krauthammer is consistent with his widely-admired torture essay where he complains that the "terrorists" at the Guantanamo Bay gulag are treated too humanely.
Spielberg is asking a question in Munich and the same question is floating about in the minds of his characters in the film: where does the cycle of violence lead? The answer is contained in the final frame of the film, as the camera pans to a view of the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan. My own criticism of Spielberg is that he wants to have it both ways: yes, violence begets viloence, but isn't it cool to watch these Israeli action heroes? His entire cinematic genius is used to portray violence incredibly effectively: that is what keeps our eyes riveted on the screen.
Spielberg Movies Film neoconservatism
Recent Comments