Spy Vs. Spy: The Morality of "Munich"

rogerebert.com ^ | December 14, 2005 | Jim Emerson

[Skywalk]

ROFL!!

The premise of Schindler's List is to show not only the concentration camp but to show a TRUE STORY involving a German(or was he Austrian, I can't recall now, but they're close enough) who helped save Jews lives during the height of the "final Solution."

I've NEVER heard of Schindler's List described as "Nazis with a conscience."

Also, the fact is that mass shootings of Jews led to the Final Solution, not only for reasons of efficiency, but because it was deleterious to morale. Many men refused to participate or found ways to minimize participation. It's true the vast majority did take part in killings, but many of them turned to drink (or just shut off.) So, it's not as if all Nazi executioners were robotic killing machines. Contrast Liam Neeson's character with other Germans, it's hardly a 'humanization' of "Nazis" in general.

It took years of propaganda and escalating dehumanization and totalitarian rule to prepare Germany for the deportations and Kristallnacht, it wasn't as if Germans were born anti-Semitic genocidal maniacs.

I think the problem is the difficulty with showing the 'evil doers' as human beings without being too sympathetic. As soon as you even show killers as human (when it comes to great political battles) you get tarred as being soft or as a'moral equivalence' proponent. It COULD be that this is the case here, but not with Schindler's List.

[potlatch]

[Jar-0-Fat]

LOL, very neat looking but I'll pass on the 'collecting'!!

[SergeantsLady]

You are absolutely right about Schindler's List as a True Story...in my comparison to what I knew of "Munich" I stripped the argument to what I thought was a basic intent by Spielberg in both...to show both sides of a conflict. Until the discussion began, I'd always considered "Schindler's List" as film specifically made to illustrate the horror of the Holocaust upon the Jewish population.

But, in thinking about "Munich", I thought if Spielberg's only intent had been to detail the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust...he could have chosen from a thousand other stories which did not have any sympathpethic German characters. Instead, he chose to make Schinler's List...the true story of a man who did participate in the use of Jewish Slave Labor, but also through that act was able to "rescue" hundreds from the even worse horrors of the death camps.

And although I've read the story on Schindler I could not recall his personal politics. To succeed in his business...I'm sure he was thought to be sympathetic to the Nazis...so to my mind "Nazis with a Conscience" made a descriptive phrase that fit my intent...and possibly Spielberg's...given the rumors that he's fleshing out the Palestinian Terrorists as being more than just brutal killers and implying that the Israelis may by their need to engage such a vicious enemy have been forced to make choices that go against what they previously defined as "Moral".

(Supposition...I won't be seeing the movie... I'm a soldiers wife and to pay money to see something depressing seems silly since I can have that from the Army for free).
It would be interesting to see if Speilberg ever considered making JAWS from the viewpoint of understanding the Shark....

[Sally II]

I was kind of excited to hear that Spielburg was making a movie about the Olympic terrorism. I saw the movie "One Day in September," and I thought there were a lot of interesting things that were suggested that would make for interesting plot elements in a movie --and make Germany look cowardly and E. Germany look suspicious. But I have a feeling Spielburg isn't going to touch on those interesting international dynamics. Speaking of Spielburg's Jewishness, Isn't Spielburg more into that UFO nonsense than God?

[Restorer]

My point was that Jackson and Gibson each have few, if any, constraints on what movies they make and how they go about making them.

Gibson because he has the enormous bankroll he got from The Passion, which means he could make the biggest-budget movie ever out of his own pocket if he feels like it. Jackson because he has made three in a row of the biggest hits in recent years, although KK may or may not live up to his previous performence. As such, either of them can have few constraints on what movies they make.

My comments were not as to whether either of them is an artist in Spielberg's league.

[fnord]

this guy doesn't seem to want to be specific about his complaints against the complainers, so his tirade kinda melts away

it could be an interesting movie, but a sympathetic portayal of terrorists is pretty lame, even for Spielberg

will have to wait and see

[Darkwolf377]

Neither of them are as free as Spielberg for various reasons, but I'm too tired to discuss it right now. ;)

[Darkwolf377]

Just a quick PS, my point was that Spielberg is artistically freer because of those decades of success. It doesn't matter how big a success or two or three you have; you're still going to bump up against so many, many more roadblocks in terms of not distribution--if it makes money, it's gonna get a distribution deal--but trust from the studios. Spielberg has more money than almost any director, but directors don't get strings of hits like his by paying for them himself. Gibson did that once; he can't keep doing it because his next movies won't have the same box office guaranteed. He may use his own money, but one or two bombs and he's through.

Jackson, on the other hand, is already getting a colder eye this very weekend because Kong isn't doing what they hoped it would. He'll still have a huge hit, and still be courted by studios, but he was given a huge amount of leeway here, and just two months ago got a huge pile of cash, and a new composer, to lengthen the movie. Next time they'll be wondering if they should have let him have all that.

My initial point was about their artistic freedom. That's tied to their box office successes as Spielberg's is not, due to his track record; studio people think that even if Spielberg makes a Hook or Always, he'll still be back with a hit eventually. Gibson and Jackson have nothing like that level of street cred.

[sauropod]

I found it hard to get past the slam about Fox News "feel-casts."

I kinda stopped reading right there.

[jeltz25]

True. Black September was a PLO front group. Arafat was involved, as was current Bush admin favorite Abbas(the money man). you vould say black september was the PLO's Delta Force or Task Force 20. Their top specal forces unit. like the british SAS, if you will.

[roadrunner96]

There was one of the Israeli strikes early in the movie, I thought, hey, they said when the original Bronson "Death Wish" came out, the audience stood up and cheered. I'm no redneck, but glad I held back, cause in a way I felt that way. But nobody else did. The movie could have been made to evoke such emotions; that might be faulty as well.