Spielberg and Munich

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Garconis

Damnit, I wanted Duel the most!

LOL...that was said in jest I take it.

I do think Schindler's list is an important film for any library and would encourage its release on blu-ray of course. Munich sucked.

[phranctoast]

i liked munich. It wasnt a theatre movie for me..but very good none the less.

how can you go wrong with the methodical killing of terrorist for revenge.

[The Big Blue]

Munich is the only Spielberg I don't own on dvd. Don't agree with the left-leaning message. Looking forward to Indy 4.

[Garconis]

Originally Posted by Gremal

LOL...that was said in jest I take it.

I do think Schindler's list is an important film for any library and would encourage its release on blu-ray of course. Munich sucked.

Actually no. I really liked that movie/tv-movie. I dont know how much better it would look on Bluray, but I would definitely like it to be part of my collection.

[phranctoast]

Don't agree with the left-leaning message.

was in left? the concept is kind of right leaning. I may have missed the message and need to watch again.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by phranctoast

was in left? the concept is kind of right leaning. I may have missed the message and need to watch again.

Yes, watch it again if you have to. You will notice at the beginning, the screenwriter has Golda Meir saying, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." This is the movie's thesis on fighting terrorism. The position that your values are compromised by failing to go after the terrorists because you have a duty to protect your civilians is never articulated properly.

Not once were the terrorist masterminds shown doing anything wrong. Each of their scenes showed them being nothing but upstanding citizens--especially the father in his flat with his daughter--targeted by often bumbling agents. The agents were shown at their worst when they murdered a naked female (who also was not shown doing anything wrong) with bizarre blowdart contraptions. Thus the imagery in the film is very harsh on the agents fighting terrorists. They were often shown to be weak, desperate, inept, unqualified and they argued among themselves often. Spielberg turned the agents fighting terrorism into terrorists themselves. The film was a portrait of the lead agent renouncing his country that he earlier swore to protect.

I also found Spielberg's rapid strobing between the lovemaking and the act of massacring the athletes in extremely bad taste, and it was actually nauseating. I'm a fan of Spielberg, so for me to be so upset by this is not a minor thing.

In my opinion, Munich was doomed from the start. It should have been about the athletes. They trained so hard to make it to the Olympics. Like all olympic athletes, they were the pride of their country. If you think about Jewish athletes returning to where the Holocaust had emerged just a few decades earlier...if you think about them returning to participate in games in the name of sportsmanship and world competition...if you think about them being murdered in cold blood, that is really the story of Munich. Spielberg really missed the boat by failing to tell that story.

[phranctoast]

hoorraaaay hollywood.
I guess i need to see it again.

It seems there is a lot of left leaning in the industry. try watching syriana without either being bored to death or just pissed by the "america is alway wrong" concept that they like to show.

what that france..you need some actors? I can list a couple that could disapear as far as im concerned.


America **** yeah...lol

[Branden]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Not once were the terrorist masterminds shown doing anything wrong. Each of their scenes showed them being nothing but upstanding citizens--especially the father in his flat with his daughter--targeted by often bumbling agents.

well, neither were the jewish athletes doing anything wrong when they were murdered by "upstanding" terrorists.

its a non-fiction, i'd rather my non-fiction movies be accurate than be fudged with to make a fluffier story. what if jesus was poisoned in his sleep instead of crucified in the the passion of the christ? what if they dumbed down hotel rwanda to make it easier to swallow?

attenuated non-fictions have no integrity.

like it or not, left or right, its a story of justice and revenge the way it happened, not the way some people 35 years later would have prefered it to happen. i say kudos to spielberg.

[The Big Blue]

Even though it is based on real events it most definitely has a point of view and that POV is Spielberg's and his screenwriter's who are both liberal. The entire scene with Avner & the terrorist in the stairway stating their views was completely made up and written by an extremely left-leaning writer.

[jermwhl]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Yes, watch it again if you have to. You will notice at the beginning, the screenwriter has Golda Meir saying, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." This is the movie's thesis on fighting terrorism. The position that your values are compromised by failing to go after the terrorists because you have a duty to protect your civilians is never articulated properly.

Not once were the terrorist masterminds shown doing anything wrong. Each of their scenes showed them being nothing but upstanding citizens--especially the father in his flat with his daughter--targeted by often bumbling agents. The agents were shown at their worst when they murdered a naked female (who also was not shown doing anything wrong) with bizarre blowdart contraptions. Thus the imagery in the film is very harsh on the agents fighting terrorists. They were often shown to be weak, desperate, inept, unqualified and they argued among themselves often. Spielberg turned the agents fighting terrorism into terrorists themselves. The film was a portrait of the lead agent renouncing his country that he earlier swore to protect.

I also found Spielberg's rapid strobing between the lovemaking and the act of massacring the athletes in extremely bad taste, and it was actually nauseating. I'm a fan of Spielberg, so for me to be so upset by this is not a minor thing.

In my opinion, Munich was doomed from the start. It should have been about the athletes. They trained so hard to make it to the Olympics. Like all olympic athletes, they were the pride of their country. If you think about Jewish athletes returning to where the Holocaust had emerged just a few decades earlier...if you think about them returning to participate in games in the name of sportsmanship and world competition...if you think about them being murdered in cold blood, that is really the story of Munich. Spielberg really missed the boat by failing to tell that story.

This movie was based on a true story. The views in the movie were based on the Mossad's way of thinking....not the director's. I thought it was an excellent depiction of what was compared in books.
Do a search for 'black september' or 'mossad' and read up on them a little. They are nauseating!!!! I thought the movie was good, but I knew what it was about before I bought it.

A good book to relate to this story is Gideon's Spies. It has alot of different things contained in the book, but there are parts that focus on the black september masacre and Mossad's revenge on them. Good book! But gut wrenching! http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...12361525&itm=1

[The Big Blue]

While Spielberg's Munich follows the letter of my book closely enough, the spirit is almost the opposite. Vengeance holds there is a difference between terrorism and counterterrorism; Munich suggests there isn't. The book has no trouble telling an act of war from a war crime; the film finds it difficult. Spielberg's movie worries about the moral trap of resisting terror; my book worries about the moral trap of not resisting it.

George Jonas, author of Vengeance which is the primary source for Munich

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by The Big Blue

George Jonas, author of Vengeance which is the primary source for Munich: "...Spielberg's movie worries about the moral trap of resisting terror; my book worries about the moral trap of not resisting it."

That's the crux of it. The movie lost its moral compass and I'm really upset at Spielberg for allowing that to happen.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Gremal

That's the crux of it. The movie lost its moral compass and I'm really upset at Spielberg for allowing that to happen.

There are two sides of the story. What unfolded in Munich (the movie) was about the retaliatory manhunt. If you care to know, find out what happened years and years BEFORE Munich, the events that lead to that action.

This is why I love Kingdom of Heaven. It has a modern, pacifist balanced view of the two sides.


fuad

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

There are two sides of the story. What unfolded in Munich (the movie) was about the retaliatory manhunt. If you care to know, find out what happened years and years BEFORE Munich, the events that lead to that action.

Ok, let's start in Medina in the 7th century, where Mohammed slaughtered 750 Jews and enslaved the Jewish women and children, destroying the last of the Jewish tribes in Medina. It is now a Muslim-only city, as you know.

Or how about the 8th century in Morocco, where entire Jewish communities were wiped out by the Muslim ruler Idris I .

Or how about North Africa in the 12th century, when the Almohads forcibly converted and decimated several Jewish communities.

Or how about in 1465 when Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, and touching off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.

Or how about in 1785, when Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews in Libya.

Or how about in 1805, 1815 and 1830 in Algiers, where Jews were massacred and in Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854 859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century, especially Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco).

This is just some of the documented history.

This is why I love Kingdom of Heaven. It has a modern, pacifist balanced view of the two sides.

It is modern and pacifist and balanced, I'll give it that. But it wasn't accurate, as any credible historian can tell you.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Ok, let's start in Medina in the 7th century, where Mohammed slaughtered 750 Jews and enslaved the Jewish women and children, destroying the last of the Jewish tribes in Medina. It is now a Muslim-only city, as you know.

Would that be the consequence of the Battle of Badr?

From Wikipedia

Implications

The Battle of Badr was extremely influential in the rise of two men who would determine the course of history on the Arabian peninsula for the next century. The first was Muhammad, who was transformed overnight from a Meccan outcast into a major leader. According to Karen Armstrong, "for years Muhammad had been the butt of scorn and insults, but after this spectacular and unsought success everybody in Arabia would have to take him seriously." Marshall Hodgson adds that Badr forced the other Arabs to "regard the Muslims as challengers and potential inheritors to the prestige and the political role of the [Quraish]." The victory at Badr also allowed Muhammad to consolidate his own position at Medina. Shortly thereafter he expelled the Banu Qaynuqa, one of the Jewish tribes at Medina that had been threatening his political position. At the same time Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy, Muhammad's chief Muslim opponent in Medina, found his own position seriously weakened. Henceforth, he would only be able to mount limited challenges to Muhammad.

And who are the Banu Qaynuqa? From again, Wikipedia.

Background

In the 7th century, the Banu Qaynuqa were living in two fortresses in the south-western part of the city of Yathrib, now Medina, having settled there at an unknown date. Although the Banu Qaynuqa bore mostly Arabic names, they were both ethnically and religiously Jewish. They owned no land, earned their living through commerce and craftsmanship, including goldsmithery. The marketplace of Yathrib was located in the area of the town where the Qaynuqa lived. The Banu Qaynuqa were allied with the local Arab tribe of Khazraj and supported them in their conflicts with the rival Arab tribe of Aws.

Arrival of Muhammad

In September 622, Muhammad arrived at Medina with a group of his followers, who were given shelter by members of the indigenous community known as the Ansar. He proceeded to set about the establishment of a pact, known as the Constitution of Medina, between the Muslims, the Ansar, and the various Jewish tribes of Medina to regulate the matters of governance of the city, as well as the extent and nature of inter-community relations. Conditions of the pact, according to traditional Muslim sources, included boycotting the Quraysh, abstinence from "extending any support to them", assistance of one another if attacked by a third party, as well as "defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack".

The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by Ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern historians many of whom maintain that this "treaty" is possibly a collage of agreements, oral rather than written, of different dates, and that it is not clear when they were made or with whom.

Expulsion

In March 624, Muslims led by Muhammad defeated the Meccans of the Banu Quraish tribe in the Battle of Badr. Ibn Ishaq writes that a dispute broke out between the Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa (the allies of the Khazraj tribe) soon afterwards. When a Muslim woman visited a jeweler's shop in the Qaynuqa marketplace, she was pestered to uncover her face. The goldsmith, a Jew, pinned her clothing such, that upon getting up, she was stripped naked. A Muslim man coming upon the resulting commotion killed the shopkeeper in retaliation. The Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa.

Traditional Muslim sources view these episodes as a violation of the Constitution of Medina. Muhammad himself regarded this as casus belli. Modern historians, however, do not find in these events the underlying reason for Muhammad's attack on the Qaynuqa. According to F.E. Peters, the precise circumstances of the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina are not specified in the sources. According to Fred Donner, available sources do not elucidate the reasons for the expulsion of the Qaynuqa. Donner argues that Muhammad turned against the Qaynuqa because as artisans and traders, the latter were in close contact with Meccan merchants. Weinsinck views the episodes cited by the Muslim historians, like the story of the Jewish goldsmith, as having no more than anecdotal value. He writes that the Jews had assumed a contentious attitude towards Muhammad, and as a group possessing substantial independent power, they posed a great danger. Wensinck thus concludes that Muhammad, strengthened by the victory at Badr, soon resolved to eliminate the Jewish opposition to himself. Norman Stillman also believes that Muhammad decided to move against the Jews of Medina after being strengthened in the wake of the Battle of Badr.

So what does it all means? It means that looking at it all from all sides and considering the context that the events unfolded will give you a bigger picture. Your two sentences were brief and dramatic, and it shows one side - a Jewish side perhaps. I don't know much about Muslim history. What I got was Googled and compiled by a Muslim or Muslims, I believe.

Please read the two Wikipedia links. It paints the picture of Arab tribes before the unification under Muhammad and Islam. It also kinda explains how power struggles amongst tribes and communities throughout the world still help fuel wars.

This is just some of the documented history.

I did not try to present the other side of the coin on all of your points because I don't have the knowledge that you do or the Muslims' or other communities' perspective of the events. But I'm sure that there are other perspectives on those events.

But I presented the other side of your first point because that seems to be the beginning of it all.

It is modern and pacifist and balanced, I'll give it that. But it wasn't accurate, as any credible historian can tell you.

What facts modern history is based on relies on data, mostly written. Oral data through the eons can evolve into legend and fantastical history. The same can happen with written data if it is intentionally distorted, or misinterpreted or mistranslated. If the person who has the oral data dies without passing it on (a systematic killing designed to erase events) or the data is burned to the ground from the libraries (which the Romans did to the libraries of one conquered Muslim city), that data is lost forever.

If by some magic the long lost data re-emerges, credible historians will tell you that history will need to be rewritten.

By the way, all of this is WAY off-topic. Interesting though.


fuad

[spiderwing]

What was left about it....those heartless basterds got what was coming to them. The "Olympic Games" were supposed to be about everyone putting their differences aside and compete in the world of sport and sportsmanship. That word "sport" has a long and very meaningful history when it come to the olympic games. I can tell you the 5th Sep. 1972 is one day in history I will never forget. On that day I was ashamed to be a german....I was just ashamed to know I was a human being. Like the cowards doing the killing.

[Facius_Cardan]

Originally Posted by spiderwing

I can tell you the 5th Sep. 1972 is one day in history I will never forget. On that day I was ashamed to be a german....I was just ashamed to know I was a human being. Like the cowards doing the killing.

That may have been the exact purpose of the terrorists: to imprint that event on collective memory so that no one would forget. Most terrorist attacks rely on the media impact of their actions.
Munich is a great film, but one that will be misunderstood for many years. Its rumination on what response should we give to such horrible and violent actions by terrorists is too disturbing for a country that, 10 years after 9/11, is still involved in a massive "war on terror". Is it right to respond to violence with further violence? The film poses the question on a personal level for the characters, but it can also be expanded to the scale of nations.

[jkwest]

holy shit, thread revival

[Orange Green Tea]

Whole lot of politics going on in here.

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by Facius_Cardan

Is it right to respond to violence with further violence?

You have to clip your finger nails.