Posted on 12/11/2005 12:41:55 PM PST by avile
It remains to be seen, literally, if Steven Spielberg has switched sides, from kosher ("Schindler's List"), to treyf. His movie, "Munich," will be opening in a few days and early word has it that he has indeed gone "Hollywood." This means that he's joined the trend to the Left, and that's the way to go if you want to do lunch in that town again.
If advance screenings prove accurate (the movie is set to open December 23), Spielberg has used the Olympic Massacre of 1972 to send a message that brings to mind the words of MGM tycoon Louis B. Mayer: "Movies are for entertainment. If you want to send a message, send a telegram."
E.T. Director Speaks Out
Spielberg: Israel entitled to strong response / Yitzhak Benhorin
Influential movie director tells Time Magazine ahead of release of upcoming movie about Munich Olympic massacre he is ‘always in favor of Israel responding strongly when it’s threatened. However, a response to a response doesn’t really solve anything’ Full Story
Regardless, Spielberg's message is that the bad guys who murdered 11 Israelis are not all that bad, and that the Israeli secret services that pursued the killers, the good guys, are not all that good. They're troubled by second thoughts. There isn't much difference, according to Spielberg's telegram, between killers and avengers.
Observers of our culture may conclude that Spielberg has bought an even bigger script than the one at hand, featuring moral equivalency as a sub-title.
No doubt Spielberg is serious, and that's the problem. People aren't buying popcorn as much as they used to and altogether box office numbers are down. People want to laugh, or cry. They don't want to be sold. I know this from experience. I still get questions about "Indecent Proposal." Why did I let Hollywood make those changes?
Well, when you sell a novel to Hollywood it's gone with the wind. Hemingway suggested that we (writers) throw our novels over the Hollywood border, grab the money and run. That's more or less what I did.
The interior voice of my novel - "what would you do for a million dollars – would you sell your wife for a night?" - was the Arab-Israeli conflict, mostly on the side of Israel. For Paramount Pictures, that was too much of a message, so they made changes, and guess what, I agree.
What about Exodus?
Or rather, I agreed then, not so much now. For some time I've asked this question - would Leon Uris get "Exodus" to the screen in this climate? I keep coming up with the same answer. No! Things have changed and not only for movies but for books as well. Again, personal experience, as with my latest, "The Bathsheba Deadline," that's running as a serial on Amazon.com. Lucky for me that Amazon.com came along, the largest of them all put together.
But not so fast. The novel was turned down by a dozen New York publishers for being too pro USA and much too Jewish, too pro-Israel. One top publisher said it plainly, or half plainly: "I really got caught up in your novel; enjoyed it very much; powerful stuff. But I will not make an offer, and I think you know why."
Yes, I knew why and I know why.
Don't look at me. A thousand other writers of my persuasion have had similar brush-offs from New York and Hollywood. Tom Clancy writes a novel that features Arabs as the bad guys, but Hollywood, for reasons of sensitivity or box office, conveniently changes these villains to neo-Nazis. "The Sum of all Fears" may well have been titled "The Fear of all Sums."
French-Israeli filmmaker Pierre Rehov travels deep into jihad territory, exposes the universe that indulges and glorifies terrorism, and he's been getting some attention, but he is struggling to find a major distributor for his eye-opening documentaries.
Spielberg has no such problems, first because he's Spielberg, and second, in the case of "Munich," he's produced a baby that Barbra Streisand, Vanessa Redgrave and Oliver Stone could love - and these people can do lunch in Hollywood any time they want, and maybe that's what it's all about.
Telegrams should go back and forth
In Hollywood today, where David is Goliath and Goliath is David, you never want to be labeled a conservative or a fan of Israel. Hollywood is all about being trendy and Israel is not the trend. You won't get invited to the right parties and you won't win any Oscars if your heart bleeds for a nation that is always on the verge of being wiped off the map.
My problem? If Uris could not get "Exodus" funded in an atmosphere that still reeks of "Durban" (and where is the movie about all that, Steve?) then Spielberg should not be green-lighted for "Munich." Sure, Hollywood, go ahead, make your day. Show us their side of the story, but what about our side?
Where is the counterpoint? If you are trending toward political themes, yes, that is your right, but where is our Right, in which decidedly I mean the Right side of politics that has us walking with a target on our backs, meaning those of us who differ on moral equivalency and other trends?
Jews pioneered Hollywood. If, as our enemies say, we own Hollywood, well, here's the plot twist - we have lost Hollywood, and we have lost Spielberg. Spielberg is no friend of Israel. Spielberg is no friend of truth. His "Munich" may just as well have been scripted by George Galloway.
Yes, Hollywood, send a telegram, but, to communicate and to get the message fair and straight, telegrams should go back and forth.
Jack Engelhard is the author of the bestselling novel and movie "Indecent Proposal"
ping
Saying what we already know is true:
Hollywood is far too open minded, tolerant and willing to look at every side to allow a conservative opinion in anything. Interesting how the people who live in the medium of freedom of speech deny it to everyone else.
Ping of interest
A.A.C.
Spielberg has always been a leftist. But I hadn't known that he was also an apologist for Islamic terror. Bad news.
ping
.....
In Hollywood today, where David is Goliath and Goliath is David, you never want to be labeled a conservative or a fan of Israel. Hollywood is all about being trendy and Israel is not the trend.
Sad but true. On the other hand, the reverse side of the coin is the fact that those "stars" will have to pander to us. If we can't be bothered to pay to watch their movies, those lunches will be very frugal indeed.
He supported the war in Iraq.
I'm afraid I'm going to tend to disagree here (please don't flame me, everyone). We don't know for sure until the movie comes out, but I think it will take a serious look at terrorism and its causes, getting into the mindset without actually supporting it or being anti-Israel. But we'll see.
Someone needs to explain to me the adoration of Schindler's List.
And how making that movie ever made Spielberg "Kosher".
I wish people would go see the damned movie before deciding that they have a problem with it. This guy is relying on second-hand info, and that's a pretty dumb way to form an opinion about something as subjective as a movie.
If Jack Englehard is just figuring this out, the Hollywood is no friend of Israel, and neither is Spielberg, then I feel sorry for the guy.
A lot of Jews seem to believe that following either the social or religious aspects of their faith means laying your head upon the block for the barbarians to cut off. I dunno where this death-wish comes from. Can you see Moses worrying about Pharaoh's inner angst?
And... I dunno if Spielberg, who is uncommonly talented even measured against other talented artists, has pulled this off against usual experience... but movies about the inner angst and moral waffling of combatants usually are soporific. Cf. inter alia Oliver Stone's "Alexander the Gay," or the dreadful "The Thin Red Line," neither of which is capable of holding a normal person's interest.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
When it comes to Israel, many seem to confuse who started it and who will finish it.
Thats true. I am curious about it. You got it right. We dont know for fure until we see it.
Review by someone who has seen the movie
"Don’t think for a minute that I’m saying this is a political movie. Munich is doggedly apolitical. Instead Tony Kushner’s script tries something that for Michael Moore would probably be unimaginable: it’s fair. Neither side is exactly squeaky clean, and whether their deeds are evil or not, often even the worst killers are motivated by the same things we all are. When under attack, they try to protect their wives and children. A dying assassin stops to say goodbye to her cat, before collapsing in a gut wrenching pool of blood. Some try to escape, some turn and sacrifice themselves to save their brethren. Every death in this movie hurts, not just the deaths of the good guys, but the apparently bad ones as well."
http://www.cinemablend.com/review.php?id=1266
If the death of the bad guys hurts the viewer then the good guys are in fact not good guys.
Moral equivalence.
Next a movie on how the 9/11 terrorist really suffered when the planes hit the buildings.
I doubt he'd even be able to get it published.
I'd like to find out that Spielberg does not believe in moral equivalency in the Middel East, and in fact I hadn't really been expecting to hear that he did. Let's hope the article is incorrect.
Wait-and-see is not a bad idea. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.