I haven't seen it, but I've been very wary of such predictions: Spielberg has been so heavily involved in World War II and Holocaust projects that I find it difficult to believe that he's going to suddenly head in the other direction. As for his remarks about the cycle of violence, etc., etc., I've wondered if he isn't trying to insulate himself from the left.
Now Todd McCarthy--the best straight-on film critic in America (Lane is an entirely different sort of animal; he's in his own class)--gives his verdict. He doesn't like the Munich much but has this to say about it:
Spielberg, Kushner and Roth go out of their way to try not to demonize Palestinians or anyone else, but the story is indisputably told with Jewish and Israeli concerns at heart.
I haven't seen the film either, but I don't follow your reasoning that because he's been involved in WWII projects he therefore does not have a penchant for moral equivalence in current political discussions. Remember the reason he set Indiana Jones films in WWII is because he said he wanted to go back to a time when the Americans were the good guys.
Two words: Tony Kushner. This douche bag is the poster child for moral relativism and pseudo-intellectual, post-modern hand wringing. When I saw his name attached to this movie I just rolled my eyes and awaited Israeli emotional conflict with a possible gay angle.
I have seen it, I saw it at Dreamworks a few weeks ago and it's fantastic.
It is a real look at what happened on those days and what Isreal did about it, it's a great movie.
Don't waste your time talking with people who haven't seen it.
Spielberg, Kushner and Roth go out of their way to try not to demonize Palestinians or anyone else.
Um, why not? Weren't the guys who killed the athletes pretty bad people for killing a bunch of unarmed athletes at a peaeful event?
David Brooks says the film goes the moral relative, cycle-of-violence route.
But maybe he's just a knat in the world of film criticism.
Post a Comment