Posted on 12/25/2005 6:19:46 AM PST by Pikamax
Spielberg defends his 'Munich'
December 25, 2005
BY ROGER EBERT Film Critic
'I knew the minefield was there," says Steven Spielberg, describing the storm of controversy over his new film "Munich." He has been attacked on three fronts, for being anti-Israeli, being anti-Palestinian, and being neither -- which is, those critics say, the sin of "moral equivalency."
"I wasn't naive in accepting this challenge," he says about his film, which begins with the kidnapping and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympiad, and follows a secret Israeli team assigned by prime minister Golda Meir to hunt down those responsible and assassinate them.
"I knew I was going to be losing friends when I took on the subject," he told me during a phone conversation Thursday afternoon. "I am also making new friends." The film, which opened on Friday, had already generated fiery discussion from those who've seen it in previews -- or not seen it, but objected to the very idea of it.
In his film, a character named Avner, played by Eric Bana, heads the assassination squad, and begins to question the morality and utility of his actions. Others in the film articulate a defense of the strategy of revenge. Spielberg says that his film deliberately supplies no simple answers.
"It would make people more comfortable if I made a film that said all targeted assassination is bad, or good, but the movie doesn't take either of those positions. It refuses to. Many of those pundits on the left and right would love the film to land somewhere definite. It puts a real burden on the audience to figure out for themselves how they feel about these issues. There are no easy answers to the most complex story of the last 50 years."
Spielberg said he has been particularly struck by charges that his film makes him "no friend of Israel."
"I am as truly pro-Israeli as you can possibly imagine. From the day I became morally and politically conscious of the importance of the state of Israel and its necessity to exist, I have believed that not just Israel, but the rest of the world, needs Israel to exist.
"But there is a constituency that nothing you can say or do will ever satisfy. The prism through which they see things is so profound and deeply rooted and so much a part of their own belief system that if you challenge that, you challenge everything they believe in. They say the film is too critical of Israel. The film has been shown to Palestinians who think it is too pro-Israel and doesn't give the them enough room to air their grievances.
"I guess what I'm trying to say is, if this movie bothers you, frightens you, upsets you, maybe it's not a good idea to ignore that. Maybe you need to think about why you're having that reaction."
Spielberg, who is the most popular filmmaker in modern history, has regularly chosen to make serious and thoughtful films, some of limited appeal, along with his box-office blockbusters. It is striking that the director of "Jurassic Park" (1993) and the Indiana Jones movies is also the director of "Schindler's List" (1993), "The Color Purple" (1985), "Amistad" (1997) and now "Munich."
"Some of my critics are asking how Spielberg, this Hollywood liberal who makes dinosaur movies, can say anything serious about this subject that baffles so many smart people. What they're basically saying is, 'You disagree with us in a big public way, and we want you to shut up, and we want this movie to go back in the can.' That's a nefarious attempt to make people plug up their ears. That's not Jewish, it's not democratic, and it's bad for everyone -- especially in a democratic society."
Yet what is he saying that has people so disturbed? Careful attention to the film itself suggests that it's not so much what he says as that he dares even to open up the Middle East for discussion.
"My film refuses to be a pamphlet," Spielberg said. "My screenwriter Tony Kushner and I were hoping to make it a visceral, emotional and intellectual experience, combined in such a way that it will help you get in touch with what you feel are the questions the film poses. He said he was taught by his parents, his rabbi and his faith that discussion "is the highest good -- it's Talmudic."
But what about the issue of "moral equivalence," the charge that he equates the Israeli and Palestinian causes, when the rightness of one (or the other) is seen as not debatable?
"Frankly, I think that's a stupid charge. The people who attack the movie based on 'moral equivalence' are some of the same people who say diplomacy itself is an exercise in moral equivalence, and that war is the only answer. That the only way to fight terrorism is to dehumanize the terrorists by asking no questions about who they are and where they come from.
"What I believe is, every act of terrorism requires a strong response, but we must also pay attention to the causes. That's why we have brains and the power to think passionately. Understanding does not require approval. Understanding is not the same as inaction. Understanding is a very muscular act. If I'm endorsing understanding and being attacked for that, then I am almost flattered."
In "Munich," there is a scene where Ali, a member of the Black September group that carried out the 1972 attacks, talks about his idea of a Palestinian homeland. Also a scene where Avner's mother, an original settler in Israel, defends their homeland. And a scene where an Israeli spymaster, played by Geoffrey Rush, provides a strong response to Avner's doubts.
"The whole Israeli-Palestinian idea of home suggests that there are two enormously powerful desires in competition," Spielberg said. "Two rights that are in a sense competing. You can't bring that to a simplicity. The film is asking you to surrender your simplicity on both sides and just look at it again. There was an article in USA Today by a Los Angeles rabbi, accusing me of 'blind pacifism.' That's interesting, because there is not any kind of blind pacifism within me anywhere, or in 'Munich.' I feel there was a justified need to respond to the terrorism in Munich, which is why I keep replaying images of the Munich massacre throughout the movie.
"In 1972, when Black September used the Olympics to announce themselves to the world, they broke all the rules and broke the boundaries of that conflict. Israel had to respond, or it would have been perceived as weak. I agree with Golda Meir's response. The thing you have to understand is, Munich is in Germany. And these were Jews dying all over again in Germany. For Israel, it was a national trauma. The Avner character, in the end, simply questions whether the response was right.
"Sometimes a response can provoke unintended consequences. The Rush character and Avner's mother reply. But people feel my voice is represented in Avner. The movie says I don't have an answer. I don't know anyone else who does. But I do know that the dialogue needs to be louder than the weapons."
Spielberg, a onetime boy wonder who directed his first commercial project at the age of 22, is now 59.
"I guess as I grow older," he said, "I just feel more responsibility for telling the stories that have some kind of larger meaning. Most of my movies sum everything up. I try to make movies to give audiences the least amount of homework and the most amount of pleasure. The majority of my movies have done that. But as I get older, I feel the burden of responsibility that comes along with such a powerful tool. I certainly have made movies by popular demand. There is a distinction between moviemaking and filmmaking. I want to do both."
He repeated that he was wounded by the charge that he is "no friend of Israel" because his film asks questions about Israeli policies. "This film is no more anti-Israel than a similar film which offered criticism of America is anti-America," he said. "Criticism is a form of love. I love America, and I'm critical of this administration. I love Israel, and I ask questions. Those who ask no questions may not be a country's best friends."
Is the Middle East without a solution? I asked. Will there be an endless cycle of terror and reprisal? What about the startling fact that Israel's entrenched political enemies, Ariel Sharon from the right, and Shimon Peres from the left, have resigned from their parties and joined in a new party that says it is seeking a path to peace?
"What I believe," Spielberg said, "is that there will be peace between Israelis and Palestinians in our lifetimes."
'Everybody is sort of saying they wish I would be silent' The telephone rang, and it was Steven Spielberg once again. After our previous conversation, I sent him a defense of "Munich" written by Jim Emerson, editor of rogerebert.com (his article appears on the Web site). It includes quotes from many Jews highly critical of Spielberg.
I heard an urgency in Spielberg's voice.
"[Emerson's article] brought together some sources and some criticisms I hadn't seen," Spielberg said, "and it made me want to be more specific about the responsibility of a Jewish artist.
"Everybody is sort of saying they wish I would be silent. What inspired me by what I read in Emerson's article is that silence is never good for anybody. When artists fall silent, it's scary. And when Jewish artists fall silent about Israel, it's maybe not so much because we think asking questions will do damage to Israel, but because we're intimidated by the shrillness and hysteria with which these questions are received sometimes.
"And I guess, because I'm a Jewish-American artist, that means that I'm not willing to shut up because somebody who claims to speak for the Jewish community tells me to. I guess I have a very deep faith in the intelligence and in the fairness and in the intellectual courage of the Jewish community, and I know that the questions I'm posing with 'Munich' are also questions that many Jews here and in Europe and Israel are asking.
"I think that Jews have always understood that the combination of art and advocacy are not the work for the shy or the timid, and that's why Jews down through history have produced so many important advocates -- because the Jewish community traditionally celebrates a variety of thought. I do not believe that 'Munich' will polarize and was not intended to polarize that community which I love."
I'll pan it just because Speilburg thinks he has to defend it.
Anythingh worthy of resting on it's own laurels doesn't need to be defended. A concept that evades Hollywood, Good movies don't have to be defended.
It stinks therefore the scam.
Don't go see it then. I like to make up my own mind- thanks.
Didn't read the article. Just looking forward to the movie.
'Sword of Giddeon' or Gideon's Sword...something like that....good movie...
He shoulda been pro-Israel and anti-Pali...any foolio can see who has the moral high ground in that conflict.
what a schmo.
Good review- thanks for that!
He sure didn't have a problem picking a side in Amistad or Schindler's List.
why equivocate over Israel's right to seek retribution against those who murdered their athletes?
the Israeli government has come out against this film btw
Have you seen it? I don't care one way or the other. I just would never be able to say whether it was political trash or not until I saw something for myself. I don't like letting the talking heads, pundits and columnists (who are for sure pushing their own agenda when they say 'Don't see it') make up my mind for me. Usually, the more the talking heads- even when they're on 'my side' say 'Don't see it' it makes me want to see it that much more.
I quite liked Amistad. Except for the cheesy bit where the actor is saying 'Give us us freedom'. Not that I had anything against that sentiment- just a bit cheesy for my taste. Same with Private Ryan. I found the soldier saluting at the end a bit overdone. But that's just me and my taste.
The only movie Spielberg has made that I just thought was really... I don't know... Not right... Was A.I. It was a good movie up until the end. I couldn't figure out where he went with the ending.
But you know, I loved Lord of the Rings- thought P. Jackson did a great job. But King Kong sucked. At the end, I was just wanting the monkey to hurry up and fall off the skyscraper so I could leave.
That's what this movie is about.
It's a dumb movie
And merry Christmas to you and your family
Why do liberals like moral ambiguity, and wear it like a virtue? The fact is, the Israeli's did the right thing, and they did it well, for the most part.
The "dialogue" is a smokescreen anyway. Maybe Spielberg should have done a movie about Saladin. His idea of "peace" was regrouping. He hates violence, but apparently Spielberg hates the hard decisions more. Nihilism is an easy way to avoid having an answer for problems.
Well, how should I know that until I go and see it? If you've seen it and you didn't like it- well, that's ok with me. I don't care what you watch. I haven't seen it yet though and will not be able to judge until I do. I'm looking forward to seeing it though.
because their first choice was to be French full of wry irony.
Um, YEAH.
Steven, diplomacy is precisely by its nature an exercise in moral equivalence. We did not send Colin Powell up to Afghanistan on 9/12 to have a sitdown with bin Laden.
There is also a great documentary on the subject -- I just ordered it on Amazon. I am sorry but the name escapes me at the moment. It should arrive this week and I will review it for y'all.
You know what made Jaws such a Great Movie....
The Shark is killed in the end.
Maybe they ought to rename this movie "Jews" and re-release it making the terrorists the victims, at least that way there would be no ambiguity for Speilburg to defend.
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.