My New York Times Review of Munich (please FReep)

01.10.06 | Mia T

[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. ;)