It's late and I'm tired but I had to take a moment and note that I've just finished watching the DVD of your film, Munich, for the second time. This time I watched your introduction, in which you describe why you wanted to make this movie and what your goals were. You noted that while you are not opposed to a policy of retaliation, we must all be cautious and be aware of the consequences of our retaliation. We must be mindful of those because there are unintended consequences, which are the most dangerous of all. You also emphatically state that your film was not and is not intended as an assault on Israel.
I wish I had seen that film. I wish you had made that film. Alas....
Since we all know so much about you, it's only fair that you know something about me. I am not a Jew. I am Catholic by birth, reinforced with nine years of nun-based education. I am not a practising Catholic or Christian. Indeed, since I do not accept the notion that I must accept Christ as my salvation, there are many who would say I am not a Christian at all. So be it. I prefer to make my amends with God directly, never mind the "middle man."
I am also an ardent supporter of Israel. If I had been born in another age, in another place, I would probably have been a Zionist. I make no bones about my bias here; I believe Israel is a valid country and has every right to exist on this planet. Israel has the right to respond to any efforts to change that. Period.
So when I watch a movie that says the contrary, I take exception. You claim you had no such intention, but how else to explain much of your film. The Arab-Palestinian side of the argument gets lots of air time, but no one comes back with a proper response, or much of any response at all.
Consider the scene where Avner is talking with the Palestinian in Greece. We hear all the arguments about why the west supports Israel, including the canard that it's because of the Holocaust. No rebuttal is made. In context of the film, you could argue that Avner had to bite his tongue or risk being discovered. But even later, when it might have been a point of debate among his collegues...nothing. The Palestinian argument stands without rebuttal or rebuke, or even a serious challenge.
There are moments like this throughout the film. The Palestinian giving the "interview" so they can plant a bomb in his phone. He gives all the Palestinian arguments for why Israel should cease to exist. Never is a contrary thought uttered. Ever. And behind all of this is "Papa", the shadowy figure feeding the Israelies information. Family; to him it's all about family. A man must do what is necessary to feed his family. Thus he provides the justification for all acts of terrorism against Israel because, after all, the Palestinians are doing what is necessary for their "family".
It all keeps getting worse as you declare that what the terrorists did at the Munich games is the moral equivalent of what the Israelies are doing. Again, time and again the argument is made that Jews should be righteous, that they don't have the death penalty, that they're breaking a staggering variety of laws, etc. It becomes a drum beat. It reaches a nauseating crescendo during the Israeli raid into Lebanon. The actions of the Mossad troops are hauntingly similar to the actions you depict the Black September members performing, right down to costume changes. The film screams: "See, the same!"
But it's not.
You are honest enough to show the Mossad agents attempting to only kill their three targets, or anyone attacking them. Except for the one woman who gets caught in the cross-fire, all others are avoided. In contrast, the Black Septemberists just kill.
There's more to it than that, however. The murder of a cold-blooded killer is not the same as the murders that killer commits. That is, the assassination of a terrorist is not the moral equivalent of the murder of innocent civilians that the terrorist causes. Yet your film refuses to make that distinction. Worse, none of the Israeli agents even try to make that point. The closest you get is when one declares that the only blood he cares about is Jewish blood. In short, he's a racist, but at least he tries to make a distinction.
Marvelous.
Amazingly, Munich reaches even lower by saying that fighting terrorism causes terrorism. This "point" is made explicitly when the agents discuss how many acts of terror have been committed since they began their targetted assassinations. "Since we began...." But that is such a crock. The implication is that terrorism didn't really begin until then, but how does that explain the Munich massacre itself? Or the bombings and the like which had happened prior to the Munich games, several of which are listed near the film's end?
At best you buy into the terrorist argument that they've been provoked, which is nonsense. They were in business before any retaliation, and they continue is business today whether there's retaliation or not. And the end result of such an argument, that fighting terrorism causes terrorism, can only serve to undermine any assertion of self defense. I can hear the police investigators now:
"Our investigation concludes that this woman was killed because she hit her husband after he punched her. Her improper act of self-defense brought about her murder. Thus...no crime."
You might say I'm being extreme, but am I? How else do you explain the film's closing shot, the towers of the World Trade Center standing in the background. The film screams that the Israeli acts of retaliation caused 9/11! 9/11 was the most severe of unintended consequences, the consequence of Israel and the United States fighting back against terrorists. How dare we!
I could go on, but frankly it sickens me. I am a great admirer of your films. I defend any of them against all comers. Hell, I even liked 1941. But there is no defense of Munich. It is reprehensible. While on a techinical level it is a decent thriller, an echo of the great thrillers of the Seventies, it is morally bankrupt, ethically hollow, and almost thoroughly dishonest.
I am not saying you should have made the film 100% pro-Israel. I am not saying you should have swung completely the other way, just showing all the justifications for the Israeli actions. Your desire to show that there are many aspects of the Middle East problem is admirable. However, I am saying that there should have been honest rebuttal to the Arab-Palestinian points being made. In other words, I'm saying there should have been a real argument presented, leaving something real for viewers to debate, and not just a one-sided didactic.
I wish you had made the film you describe in your introduction. I really do.
I wish I had seen that film. I wish you had made that film. Alas....
Since we all know so much about you, it's only fair that you know something about me. I am not a Jew. I am Catholic by birth, reinforced with nine years of nun-based education. I am not a practising Catholic or Christian. Indeed, since I do not accept the notion that I must accept Christ as my salvation, there are many who would say I am not a Christian at all. So be it. I prefer to make my amends with God directly, never mind the "middle man."
I am also an ardent supporter of Israel. If I had been born in another age, in another place, I would probably have been a Zionist. I make no bones about my bias here; I believe Israel is a valid country and has every right to exist on this planet. Israel has the right to respond to any efforts to change that. Period.
So when I watch a movie that says the contrary, I take exception. You claim you had no such intention, but how else to explain much of your film. The Arab-Palestinian side of the argument gets lots of air time, but no one comes back with a proper response, or much of any response at all.
Consider the scene where Avner is talking with the Palestinian in Greece. We hear all the arguments about why the west supports Israel, including the canard that it's because of the Holocaust. No rebuttal is made. In context of the film, you could argue that Avner had to bite his tongue or risk being discovered. But even later, when it might have been a point of debate among his collegues...nothing. The Palestinian argument stands without rebuttal or rebuke, or even a serious challenge.
There are moments like this throughout the film. The Palestinian giving the "interview" so they can plant a bomb in his phone. He gives all the Palestinian arguments for why Israel should cease to exist. Never is a contrary thought uttered. Ever. And behind all of this is "Papa", the shadowy figure feeding the Israelies information. Family; to him it's all about family. A man must do what is necessary to feed his family. Thus he provides the justification for all acts of terrorism against Israel because, after all, the Palestinians are doing what is necessary for their "family".
It all keeps getting worse as you declare that what the terrorists did at the Munich games is the moral equivalent of what the Israelies are doing. Again, time and again the argument is made that Jews should be righteous, that they don't have the death penalty, that they're breaking a staggering variety of laws, etc. It becomes a drum beat. It reaches a nauseating crescendo during the Israeli raid into Lebanon. The actions of the Mossad troops are hauntingly similar to the actions you depict the Black September members performing, right down to costume changes. The film screams: "See, the same!"
But it's not.
You are honest enough to show the Mossad agents attempting to only kill their three targets, or anyone attacking them. Except for the one woman who gets caught in the cross-fire, all others are avoided. In contrast, the Black Septemberists just kill.
There's more to it than that, however. The murder of a cold-blooded killer is not the same as the murders that killer commits. That is, the assassination of a terrorist is not the moral equivalent of the murder of innocent civilians that the terrorist causes. Yet your film refuses to make that distinction. Worse, none of the Israeli agents even try to make that point. The closest you get is when one declares that the only blood he cares about is Jewish blood. In short, he's a racist, but at least he tries to make a distinction.
Marvelous.
Amazingly, Munich reaches even lower by saying that fighting terrorism causes terrorism. This "point" is made explicitly when the agents discuss how many acts of terror have been committed since they began their targetted assassinations. "Since we began...." But that is such a crock. The implication is that terrorism didn't really begin until then, but how does that explain the Munich massacre itself? Or the bombings and the like which had happened prior to the Munich games, several of which are listed near the film's end?
At best you buy into the terrorist argument that they've been provoked, which is nonsense. They were in business before any retaliation, and they continue is business today whether there's retaliation or not. And the end result of such an argument, that fighting terrorism causes terrorism, can only serve to undermine any assertion of self defense. I can hear the police investigators now:
"Our investigation concludes that this woman was killed because she hit her husband after he punched her. Her improper act of self-defense brought about her murder. Thus...no crime."
You might say I'm being extreme, but am I? How else do you explain the film's closing shot, the towers of the World Trade Center standing in the background. The film screams that the Israeli acts of retaliation caused 9/11! 9/11 was the most severe of unintended consequences, the consequence of Israel and the United States fighting back against terrorists. How dare we!
I could go on, but frankly it sickens me. I am a great admirer of your films. I defend any of them against all comers. Hell, I even liked 1941. But there is no defense of Munich. It is reprehensible. While on a techinical level it is a decent thriller, an echo of the great thrillers of the Seventies, it is morally bankrupt, ethically hollow, and almost thoroughly dishonest.
I am not saying you should have made the film 100% pro-Israel. I am not saying you should have swung completely the other way, just showing all the justifications for the Israeli actions. Your desire to show that there are many aspects of the Middle East problem is admirable. However, I am saying that there should have been honest rebuttal to the Arab-Palestinian points being made. In other words, I'm saying there should have been a real argument presented, leaving something real for viewers to debate, and not just a one-sided didactic.
I wish you had made the film you describe in your introduction. I really do.
Comments