My New York Times Review of Munich (please FReep)

01.10.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

My New York Times Review of Munich (please FReep)

CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND

January 9, 2006

Reviewer: miat22 (Mia T)

... to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence.

Munich, with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, he has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Munich is less about Meir avenging the Munich massacre than it is about Bush waging the War on Terror. The historical (Munich) allusion is key to understanding Spielberg.

The core of his anti-war argument: By fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with Munich, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware.

Hollywood IS DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.

To mitigate its danger, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood venues.

The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.



Was this review helpful to you?
VOTE HERE

also:

AFTERWORD
MUNICH: A CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
(please see post 38)

THE 'MUNICH' ALLUSION:
THE DANGER OF SPIELBERG AND THE AMERICAN LEFT
(Please see post 60)


WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[Mia T]

As an avid moviegoer who decided to no longer financially support anyone in Hollywood who is undermining this country, I thought I'd have a tough time reconciling my appreciation and support for fine creative works with my new algorithm of moviegoing.

Not the case. My algorithm has actually been more effective than the typical movie review in weeding out the bow-wows, bombs and bozos.

[freema]

Bump

[Mia T]

moral equivalence bump

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

thanx Yehuda :)

[SuzanneWeeks]

Freeped & Bump!

Very well written as always Mia :)

Suz

[Quilla]

You have a wondrous way with words.

I voted yes!

[citizensgratitude]

MiaT is the best ! A real patriot.

When I saw the adverts for the movie on TV and heard Spielberg was the director, I automatically wrote the movie off.

In fact, I do this concerning most movies out of Hollywood. Do you not find that no matter the content, they will always portray America as the bad guy, no matter what.

[Mia T]

Thanx Suz ;)

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

It's what liberal directors do best: Twist historical fact to suit whatever their agenda is.--Chewie84

Liberal historians, too....

Someone--was it Maupassant?--
once called history "that excitable and lying old lady."
The same can be said of historians.

Surely it can be said of Doris Kearns Goodwin,
the archetypical pharisaical historian,
not-so-latently clintonoid,
Lieberman-Paradigmatic
(i.e., clinton is an unfit president;
therefore clinton must remain president),
intellectually dishonest,
(habitually doing what the Arthur Schlesingers of this world do:
making history into the proof of their theories).

History Lesson
by Mia T
COMPLETE ARTICLE

[Mia T]

Thanks Quilla. :)

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[pawdoggie]

Your comments are, as usual, very thought provoking. Other commentators/reviewers have noted that Spielberg "humanized" the terrorists, but they suggest that this was an "afterthought", to avoid criticism that he was being too partial to the Israelis. What they may have missed (and what I wouldn't know, not having seen the film) is the notion of "Munich" as an analog for the War on Terror. Should I take that to mean that we will ultimately have to abandon the War on Terror, just as the Israelis had to abandon their anti-Black September operation because one (presumably) "innocent" Arab was whacked by mistake?

[oh8eleven]

Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now
I had to read that three times ... slowly. Well said!

[Brian Allen]

Great piece, Mia.

I read and scored the whole list, top to bottom, so also advanced yours relative to all of the others.

Which quite well suits the tone of the Spielberg [With whom, somewhat sad to say, my producer son quite often works] modus operendi.

Blessings - Brian

[Brian Allen]

operandi

[Brian Allen]

<< .... the notion of "Munich" as an analog for the War on Terror. Should I take that to mean that we will ultimately have to abandon the War on Terror .... ? >>

Long associated with the image of Arthur Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister whose downfall was to have been too-literally-representative of his electorate [Which, least one forget, was then and, insofar as its relationship with terrorists of every color and creed, remains pathologically ostrich-like and abjectly-appeasement-oriented] - Munich came to be synonymous with appeasement.

And you may bet Tel Aviv to a Wad el Mansi mud brick that Spielberg and his gang, Tony Kushner preeminent among them, are au fait on their nuances.

And their [View of] history.

And share the same desires, obsessions even, insofar as the outcome of the present Crusade ... um, "War on Terror" is concerned.

Munich, the movie, is a [Not too] cunningly crafted morale booster for the islamanazis.

[Mia T]

Sorry for the unwieldiness. I suspect that it was 'verisimilitudinous' that took it over the edge. ;)