Spielberg defends Munich ... but is the "controversy" for real?

Apparently you haven't been following the controversy around "Munich" very closely in the world press, since it does exist, and it's very real and angry. There is a posse of self-appointed experts on Middle-Eastern policy and affairs that have been staging a campaign against the film before it was even in production. The majority of the stories coming out of these sources (Forward, Haaretz, The New York Post, FrontPageMagazine.com, and to a smaller extent, one writer in the New York Times being the main aggressors) not only have been using a campaign of easily dismissible lies, but they've been attacking "facts" that Spielberg has gotten "wrong," that they can no more prove truths than anyone. Worse still, some have been personally attacking Steven Spielberg, charging that he is a "liar," is a "self-loathing Jew" and "no friend of Israel." Another common refrain is that he is "squandering the good-will" afforded to him by "Schindler's List." Curious how they are now building "Schindler's List" up for its historical veracity to (by comparison) tear down what they consider the lack of veracity in a film that never makes allusions of its complete adherence to facts that very few know the truth thereof.



There are also grassroots campaigns in synagogues urging their congregations not to see this film. I've been in direct contact with one Rabbi from the East Coast heading off one such campaign who hasn't even bothered to see the film for himself before advising his congregation to ban the film. It should also be said that many of the aforementioned pundits hadn't bothered to see the film before they began their campaign against it.



And while I know this is a blog and not a source that's in pursuit of the hard news, even your very site has picked up on some of these very real, very erroneous controversies during the film's production and leading in to the release.



So yes, I'd have to call you cynical, and I'd also have to call you dead wrong if you think the controversy isn't real. Regarding the press coming out of Amblin, no one ever said that there wouldn't be any press. Steven Spielberg said his hopes were to let the film stand on its own and speak for itself. He has indeed done that for the most part, but given the turn of events, I assume he's stepping forward to face the unfounded personal charges that have been leveled against him not as a filmmaker, but as a human being. If you look into the sources I cited above, you'll see the Ebert interview is very, very significant in directly answering these charges.



Perhaps more importantly, I would assume Spielberg, Amblin and Universal are speaking out more than they had hoped to in an effort to protect their $70 million (plus marketing) dollar investment from the ravages of a smear campaign engineered by a lying extreme right-wing press that for some reason decided to make "Munich" its target before the film even went before cameras.

Reply

I have to say that the conjecture on the protecting the investment is purely mine, but I think it's a logical one. Not all good press is good press, and while negative press for films has proved to be a boon sometimes ("Passion of the Christ" being perhaps the most famous example), studios have been burned before (ironically, "The Last Temptation of Christ"). Universal was ironically holding the burning bag on Scorsese's film since an extremely powerful lobby group took the film on -- again, sight unseen -- for its message they did not want to hear (and didn't want others to hear). And I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't roll my eyes if it was my $70 million plus potentially at stake. In fact, I'd be doing everything I could to protect that investment.



Then there's the principle of it all. Sure, Spielberg could sit back and let the film do the talking completely (again he never said he would do that), but this debate is meta-"Munich." When writers who have the trust that the press garners purposefully make it their duty to attack a film they've never seen, it's extremely disingenuous and I think even dangerous.



And I tell you from my position as an editor of a Spielberg fansite (SpielbergFilms.com), I'm getting a ton of similar-minded e-mail from ignorant people who buy the lies and won't see the film on second-hand advice that "Munich" is this, or "Munich" is that. Audiences can be very individualistic, but they can also be like rampaging livestock if the right voices reach their ears. Why would I want to see a film that some over-zealous political writer I've never met tells me is "full of lies," etc., etc.



In the case of a film that has such deep-seated passions connected to it—be it religious passion, nationalistic passion or what have you—I think the negative press can outweigh turning good box-office out of bad hype. Sure, bad press drives curiosity for those who don't have a stake in the message, but when groups are forming boycotts against a film, most importantly, when the State of Israel has taken a position against the film, then you'd be a fool to let your film get overshadowed by the negativity.



I agree, it's important to ask informed questions about the power dynamics of bad press, but its misguided to think all press is good press.

Reply

Truly pathetic, indeed, to hear of grassroot campaigns in synagogues demanding that no one go near Speilberg's soul-wrenching cinematic expose on the other side of terrorism--Israel's--which started with the ruthless conquest of the Palestinians' homeland. The fact that billions of U.S. tax dollars, year after year after year, continue subsidizing the present-day subjugation of Palestinians on the West Bank (now being transformed into a series of "bantustans" by that wall) is bad enough. Speilberg simply tries to show ALL the facts of the bloody reality of this vicious cycle of terror....that it's time to stop denying the Palestinians their rights and pretending that Israeli terror tactics are magnificently pristine.

The folks that keep feeding on that steady AIPAC trough of fabrications will predictably run away as fast as possible from the troubling reality of "Munich".

If, however, enough people finally understand this status quo of terror-begetting-terror, then perhaps we'll once and for all have a reasonable hope for a just and lasting peace.

Magnificent work, Mr. Speilberg!

Reply

Mr. Kinsolving, did we see the same film? I saw nothing in that script that justified your self-righteous proclamation that the Palestinians are the poor downtrodden ones. Careful in your interpretations, sir because you are very misinformed.



Please see this post at for another view of this magnificent film.

Reply

Oops, the HTML didn't go through. The post is at http://www.onlinegreensboro.com/~spirit/?p=39.

Reply

Dear Mr. "Spirit":



The usually intriguing thing about selective perception is that it sometimes produces these "Did we see the same film?" questions that you've thrown out in your feeble effort to refute my "misinformed" observations about Israeli terrorism, past and present.



What is certain is that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homeland to make way for the state of Israel, creating a newly dispossessed nation, which spawned a vicious cycle of terrorism from BOTH sides lasting over a half-century.



I challenge you to prove otherwise, Oh Wise Spirit. Moreover, would you like to try and explain how "fair" the Partition of Palestine was to the MAJORITY inhabitants in 1947? Or describe in detail the courage displayed by Begin's and Shamir's terrorist Stern/Irgun murderers when they slaughtered over a hundred men, women, and children--the death toll was deliberately inflated by the Zionist terrorists--in Deir Yassin, in April, 1948, outside Jerusalem (which, like hundreds of other Palestinian villages and towns, was bulldozed and paved over).



The mass panic from the news of the massacre was followed by the Arab slaughter of Jewish doctors and nursers on Mt. Scopus, which was part of the cycle--NOT A ONE-WAY STREET--that Speilberg is trying to illustrate. The Palestinians, however, were unquestionably ethnically cleansed from their homeland; my only regret is that "Munich" didn't feature some flashbacks of Deir Yassin, to go with the also horrifying murders of the defenseless Israeli athletes.



If not all of the Palestinians in 1948 didn't flee willingly, Haganah regulars also joined in escorting untold numbers of families out at gunpoint, to go and rot in refugee camps in places like Lebanon.



If you really think this fate doesn't even pass the definition for "downtrodden", then you are hopelessly deluded. The fact that the Jewish people suffered the Holocaust didn't give them the prerogative to plunder Palestine. They should have founded their state on genuine "land without people", which would have been just, and wonderful, and not stained by a two-wrongs-makes-a-right notion.



Today, the two-state solution is obviously the only way out of this mess, but the Israeli government continues to threaten it by continuing to gobble up chunks of the biggest and most viable part of remaining Palestine, the West Bank.



I await for your clouds of insight, Wise Spirit, to provide new and carefully scripted interpretation.

Reply

I will give you any point you want about the beginning of the State of Israel. Much injustice was done on both sides. We cannot roll the clock back, however and create a new injustice by kicking the Jews out. I was born in 1949, so as far as I am concerned, Israel has always existed, just as the US exists, Jordan exists, Qtar exists, the Congo exists. It is what it is. The issue is, there is a regional problem of displaced peoples for which no one wants to take responsibility. It's a;ways been curious to me that the Arab countries want nothing to do with them at all.



Secondly, the film is not about any other event BUT the 1972 terrorist incident. To use your logic, we should not honor those that died during 9/11, make much of that injustice, tell the story of revenge for their murders, without showing how the US employed terrorist tactics against the Native Americans (remember Wounded Knee?) or, more recently, how we fire-bombed Dusseldorf.



One thing we both can agree upon is that both sides have little to be proud of in this conflict. In war, the only high ground is peace. However, you miss some history by claiming that Israel was totally responsible for the movement of Palestinian people. ("ethnic cleansing"? - they are all semitic - perhaps you mean relocation) You forget to take into account the forced repatriation that had already occured through the establishment of borders by Jordan. You miss the fact that Syria and Lebanon refused to allow Palestinians to settle in their countries except in resettlement camps. You don't take into account the tribal mentality of the Arab world which affects the movement of people in those countries (that was especially true in the late 40's).



Mr. Kinsolving, have you been to the area? I traveled there both before and after the start of the intifada. In the days before (1998), one could move very comfortably between Palestinian and Israeli areas and the two nationalities worked very well together. I lived there for four weeks in the heart of Jerusalem and spoke with many Palestinians as well as Jews. The majority of the population, both Jews and Palestinians wanted and had high hopes for peace.



The intifada has changed all that. On my return in 2000, the mood was very different throughout the country. Most Israelis by this point had hardened their attitude toward the peace process having been burned by what were perceived to be the broken promises of the Olso Accords (Accords which had the general support of the Israeli people). And, the intifada was (and is) thought to be a political move by the Palestinian leadership to solidify Arafat's political standing and to force Israel's hand. According to statements he made in public, Arafat was not comfortable with the concessions made in the Accords because it would mean giving up the ultimate goal of the total eradication of the state of Israel. The intifada itself put Israel on the defensive and started the terrible cycle of terror - response to terror - all over again.



Without the intifada, the terrible wall you mention would not have been politically possible in Israel. This is a result that I do not think the Palestinians bargained for. The Israeli population now feels like the only way it will feel safe from those who would utterly destroy it is to build a wall around themselves.



Spielberg looks at this as well as Avner escapes to New York and chooses not to return to the cocoon of Israel. Is he choosing not to participate in that craziness anymore?



Finally, the Palestinian PR machine has done a wonderful job of positioning themselves in the Western media as victims. Your descriptor of "downtrodden" is apt for that campaign. Many are indeed terribly poor. But the question remains: is that poverty a result of the bad Israelis oppressing them, as their propaganda is clearly convincing many is true, or is it a combination of cultural, social and political factors that are causing their problems?



Palestinian leeadership use the classic technique of scapegoating in order to distract people from real issues of economic growth, jobs, etc. Current events in the Gaza should present ample evidence that little infrastructure has been built by their government.



Finally, when feeling sorry for the Palestinians, it is good to remember that this is a leadership that has embarked on a political policy that sends young men and women on suicide missions to kill children so that they can advance their own political ambitions.



If that is what you want to support, more power to you.

Reply