at September 8, 2005 8:45 AMSteven Spielberg is making a movie about the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes and guess who is feeling left out - the terrorist subhuman who planned the massacre, of course!
In Reuters’ own words -GAZA - The Palestinian mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics raid, in which 11 Israeli athletes died, said director Steven Spielberg should have consulted him about a new film on the episode to be sure to get the story right.UN-FRICKING-BELIEVABLE! So if someone makes a movie about the Mumbai blasts, we will have to consult Dawood Ibrahim? If we want to make a movie about the sub-sub-humans that mercilessly killed the children in Besslan we need to consult those that did it so we can the atmosphere and the details right? If we make a movie about Ted Bundy and Charles Manson, we need to make sure we get to hear his side of it so we can “understand” the poor souls? How pathetic is this! Of course, the icing on the cake is Spielberg’s response to the idiot’s rant -In an irony worthy of a John le Carre novel, Mohammad Daoud echoed veterans of Israel’s Mossad spy service in questioning the sources used for “Munich,” a thriller chronicling the massacre and the Israeli revenge assassinations that followed.
“I know nothing about this film. If someone really wanted to tell the truth about what happened he should talk to the people involved, people who know the truth,” Daoud told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location in the Middle East.
He has vowed that “Munich” will be sensitive to all sides.I had great respect for Spielberg - he has squandered it to the point I don’t feel like watching his movies anymore. There is nothing wrong with taking a stand. There is evil in the world and there is a time to look for gray areas and there is a time to expose evil in it’s horrible glory. Equivocating as a rule is nothing but cowardice. It will not change my mind about not bothering to watch the movie that…
An Israeli actress cast in the film confirmed press reports that it is based, at least partly, on “Vengeance”, a book on the reprisals campaign that has been widely discredited.
Why even bother spending money and making a movie about history if you choose to ignore the facts of the matter?
Posted by shanti at September 6, 2005 1:50 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realwomenonline.com/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/3292
Uh, this is pretty unbelievable. Sheesh.
Posted by: MD at September 7, 2005 9:50 AM
You conveniently left this out:
While not in any way supporting Daoud, he does consider this a war and in any war there are two sides to a story - he just wants to make sure that both sides are represented. Oh and before you start saying this is a terorist act, its not like the Israelis have been saints, their hands are as bloody with the blood of innocents as anyone - assasinations, political murder, some of the finest torturers in the business….
Posted by: Ck at September 7, 2005 10:34 PM
Ck, if I was in the business of leaving things out, I could have left the link out. I cannot quote everything and the link is for people to read it in full as they say int he blogs ;)
Regardless of what Daoud wants to be portrayed in the movie, he has lost the chance to be considered when he caused the murder of 11 innocent human beings - on purpose. This is like asking Bin Laden to help out with a movie on 9/11. He considers it a war too - doesn’t mean his side has any moral authority to stand on.
I don’t have a problem with context and background. No single event stands out by itself and there is always context to be provided for anything. That doesn’t mean the context has to come from the bad guys of hte event. History is available for everyone to see and we don’t need to seek the guidance and blessings of mass murderers before we can tell their story.
Posted by: shanti at September 8, 2005 8:45 AM
Leaving aside the buffonery of the Palestinian gunmen who want their viewpoint expressed, there is another depressing fact here - the general decline in American film, particularly fiction.
Hollywood can no longer produce original dramatic films that resonate with the audience. Instead, they use biographies, such as Ray Charles (Ray) and the upcoming film on Johnny Cash (Walk the Line), since they can no longer create a fictional character that has the same effect on an audience. Or, as in this case, use the drama of a real-life event.
Of course, the problem with solely relying on real-life tragedy as a source for films is that all parties involved in the real-life story believe they should have a say in the ree-life version as well. So, to avoid offending anybody, what is produced is often a watered down re-creation of events. Look at Kingdom of Heaven - technically impressive, but the main characters deliver dialogue that are more appropriate for jaded 21st century Americans, not religious warriors who genuinely believe they are carrying out God’s will.
While big studio dramas have suffered, some indie flicks can still impress me. The indie flick “Layer-cake”, is a terrific film that is polished and well-acted. It takes the old reliable “drug dealer looking for one last score” storyline and re-energizes it.
Posted by: KXB at September 8, 2005 10:55 AM
KXB, the thing that Hollywood fails to realize is that viewers are not as wussified as they assume they are. Make hard-hitting films and your viewers will throng the movie theaters. Honestly, I haven’t been to the theater in over a year now and no, I don’t miss it.
Posted by: shanti at September 8, 2005 11:22 AM