George Jonas: The Spielberg massacre. My book was all about avenging evil...

georgejonas.ca ^ | January 7, 2006 | George Jonas

[firebrand]

Thanks for the ping, but no one said it was an anti-Semitic screed. It seems to be far more dangerous than that, softening our edges and appealing to our compassionate hearts, which want desperately to love everyone equally--in order to speak a lie. (I haven't seen the film. Going by Medved and others.) But I respect your take on it too. I am boycotting, otherwise I would go and judge for myself.

[kenavi]

I just saw this movie last night, and I did NOT see all the so-called moral equivalency that people are screaming about.

"If we had not killed those people, what would have prevented Black September from continuing its reign of terror?" askes Michael Bar Zohar, co-author of "The Quest for the Red Prince," a 1983 book that deals with the Munich aftermath... (quoted in The Jerusalem Report, 1/9/06)

Spielberg again has warped the historical facts to fit into the Hollywood movie frame for a "blockbuster" ("Schindler's List" was another example). His movie does not argue the real issues that were involved, but SS's own sophomoric plot devices. You are the poorer for more than the cost of admission and your lost time, if you watched this as a basis for engaging yourself with a situation that demands our urgent attention.

[dennisw]

most excellent post

[RaceBannon]

I never read that book, but I did see the movie

Maybe you should before you pontificate on whether I lost money on it or not.

[Borges]

Spielberg again has warped the historical facts to fit into the Hollywood movie frame for a "blockbuster" ("Schindler's List" was another example).

Once again, all dramatizations based on historical events do this. If you want the unadorned truth then read a history book and/or watch a documentary.

[dervish]

I am willing to consider that point of view but for two issues. I read a review (Jason Apuzzo)that described the movie the way you did, but for the last half hour, which he described as a didatic polemic on moral equivalency and the intransigence of both sides. Is that innacurate?

Two, why did Spielberg choose Kushner who is openly hostile to the existence of a Jewish State?

The problem of moral equivalency is not the same as the disease of anti-Semitism. I don't know anyone who has faulted Spielberg for the latter. Nevertheless the tyrants of the world find the utopian naivete, the lack of moral clarity, and concommittant hubris of the Spielbergs of this world to be useful idiocy. I just find them dangerous.

[marajade]

I'd love to read his book... but its out of print. They want $40 at amazon for a paperback used.

[dervish]

Thanks for ping and post.

The choice of Kushner is telling.

I especially like the hubris comment. I find that to be a Hollywood staple.

[SJackson]

It certainly wasn't antisemitic. I don't know that anyone has made that charge. I think the moral equivalence was certainly there, but much less of an issue to someone familiar with the events and with formed opinions. I thought the terrorists came of looking like terrorists. From what I've read, and no one can no, the concerns about their actions on the parts of the participants, particularly "Avner" are fabrications, as I understand it is his move to New York. He still lives in Israel, his dispute with the Mossad was purportedly about his compensation, and an unwillingness to continue in his Mossad role. Plenty of reasons unrelated to conscience for a decision like that. Family might be at the top of the list. For what it's worth, the Jonas book Vengeance isn't considered to be reliable. For an interesting look you might like reading COUNTERING TERRORISM: THE ISRAELI RESPONSE TO THE 1972 MUNICH OLYMPIC MASSACRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENT COVERT ACTION TEAMS . It's a masters thesis from the Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Also relies heavily on the Jonas book.

[Victoria Delsoul]

I once heard Spielberg proudly call himself "Peter Pan".

Hmmm, is he related to Michael Jackson?

[RaceBannon]

But I think the statements of moral equivalency are overblown

Showing the Palis as humans is NOT a moral equivalence

Having the lead hero state that he is confused how their revenge is causing more attacks and is it right therefore is not moral equivalence, it is him being drawn out and tired

In each of those scenes, the idea of Israel surviving comes out on top

His mother backs him all the way, and tells him all that matters is that Jews are never treated the same again

Golda Mier is not some wishy washy character, she is someone with a little depth, human!

Just because the movie shows that the Palistinians love their families, too, does not lessen the lesson that they were a bunch of murderous thugs.

All serial murders of our century loved their Moms, right? They were still murderers.

Same in the movie, it is just that the movie shows the Palis loving their families, is that so hard to believe?

NONE of that is a moral equivalence that makes ANY comparison of actions taken by the Mossad vs the PLO or the Fedahyeen.

In each and every case cited of Avry doubts, someone is there to counter his statements and remind him it was all for the safety and security of Israel, a theme that was profound throughout the movie.

Remember: I went into this movie reading some of the same negatives you all did. And all here know I am a huge Israel supporter and would NOT speak well of some Pali sympathetic flick.

This was not some Pali sympathetic flick, just an honest look at the human condition; how a terrorist can love his kids before he tries to kill yours. And how trained killing machines can show mercy to an armed teenager who was about to shoot them.

I am not going to lie, though, it could have had a stronger message of just how evil the Palis were, but this movie showed more even handedness to the characters as humans.

It is not the movie that I think should have been made, but it was fair, and the Jews were the good guys, that was clear!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Hollywood's chief export is pretentiousness.

:0)

[JoeFromSidney]

A friend of mine is a well-known science fiction writer. One of his novels has been "in Hollywood" for years. At SF conventions he sometimes speaks about the problems of getting a book made into a film in Hollywood. Too many people can say "no," no one can say "yes." The end result is that when a book does get made into a film, it's been blenderized first.

[dervish]

What about that last 1/2 hour?

Per Apuzzo who liked the film and found it pro Israel as a whole:

"Rather than build to a climax, it’s at this point that the action stops, and the movie devolves into a series of static philosophical discussions about the ‘cycle of violence,’ etc. - and this, really, is where one senses the deadening hand of Tony Kushner. It’s this last 30 minutes or so that contains all the dialogue that has the cultural Left delighted and atwitter, and this is where - unfortunately - so much of Spielberg’s good work is dissipated. There is literally a point in the film where Avner is asked, “What have you learned?” - the sort of obvious, didactic question that should’ve been answered by the first 2 1/2 hours of the film! [The answer? War is hell.] There’s even an an embarassing, utterly pretentious montage intercutting the death of the 11 Israeli athletes with a sex scene (non-graphic) between Avner and his wife. It’s meaningless, film school-level drivel. Again one senses here the hand of the tendentious, sex-as-death obsessed Kushner.

Munich also contains a few gratuitous pot-shots at the CIA, which is accused - admittedly, by the French - of paying/protecting the head of Black September in order to prevent the assasination of American diplomats. This is the kind of snarky historical swipe Kushner apparently specializes in - and it grated on me, deep into the film. It’s one of Munich’s few departures into conspiracy la-la land, and it goes against the overall flow of the story. American audiences should have some explanation from Spielberg about whether he endorses this view of the CIA."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548223/posts

[GOPJ]

Very Interesting! Thanks for the ping.

[JasonC]

The bombshell here is just staggering. They have the writer of Bladerunner and Unforgiven for this story, surely the most perfect casting ever for a writer. Fair unflinching grit from start to finish, he could have told it as epic. And they fired him. The moral kindergarden was in session, and so they dumped Aeschylus for Howard Dean.

[RaceBannon]

As long as it shows him as a terrorist, I see nothing wrong with showing him as a human, I think it makes it more revealing, actually, more sick; that on one hand he can act nice and play nice and then tomorrow slice your throat!

None of the Palis were made out to be heroes, just humans.

[RaceBannon]

The last half hour was sad, Avner did openly question whether his actions had any real effect, but when his Mom told him it didn't matter, all that mattered was that no one would ever be allowed to do those things to Jews again without fear of reprisal, that explained it all to me.

I just didnt see it the way others saw it.

The CIA scene was sickening, though, I have doubts it is real.