Mona Charen rips "Munich" apart.

[S-T]

Here is an excellent column (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/charen200601060710.asp) at NRO. From everything I've read, Spielberg really misses the mark with Munich.

:claps::claps::claps:
:claps::claps::claps:
:claps::claps::claps:

[Maggie_T]

One of liberals' problem is their self-loathing. Spielberg's distorted Munich is proof of that.

And Mona is quite right. To liberals, being weak, caving in to the enemy, allowing our enemies to destroy us (and indeed, abetting that), is considered "enlightened," "sophisticated," "peace-loving."

Liberals have a death wish, especially Hollywack liberals. They hate themselves for being American, Jewish, and rich (but they are curiously disinclined to give away their wealth). I would be more than pleased to grant their wish to them if it wasn't that they are so bent on extending it to the rest of us.

I've said it many times, I'll say it again. Liberals are the most dispicable, the lowest form of life that ever walked the face of the earth.

[DesertFox]

Liberals have a death wish, especially Hollywack liberals. They hate themselves for being American, Jewish, and richActually, that's merely a pose. They think it's chic to hate themselves, so they do. If it were chic to go around with toilet paper hanging out the hind end, they'd do that.

[Patriot Heart]

Oh how that nauseates me. I knew that movie was slanted but I didn't know how badly. Shame on you Speilberg, to spit on the graves of your forefathers that way!

[Kathy29]

Her remark about nations having a moral right and obligation to protect its citizens is the one probably the most descriptive.

Liberals dislike morality. Morality implies a judgment and as we all know, enlightend people don't make judgments. Without that moral right and obligation imposed, nations have no right to protect its citizens. In fact, nations have no rights at all. Not even the right to existence.

[Trevelyan]

Of course this article omits some of Spielberg's own words from other interviews. Spielberg has said he does not denounce taking action. I will see if I can find what he has said, because I saw him say this on television the other day, and I am not sure what it was on.

Anyway, I also find it funny that some people are outraged at how "anti-Jewish" the film is, yet others are up in arms about how Palestinians are treated unfairly throughout the movie.

I have noticed that when certain characters in films express particular opinions, people take what they say and run with it as being completely what is felt by the people making the film. Well, in the case of "Munich", there were key characters that expressed very pro-Israel views, and views similar to the author of this article, but of course they are not mentioned. God forbid people see the film and make up their own minds based on all the arguments occuring from various points of view available within it. This is exactly why I avoid reading articles about films until after I have seen them.

I don't know about others, but when I see the words "Inspired by true events", I am not expecting a film that is trying to be some sort of documentary with 100% accuracy of actual occurances. Of coure there is going to be dramatization and speculation.

As for me, I personally have no sympathies for either side of this struggle really, so if that opinion helps you to shed light on my thoughts on the film, then so be it.

I think it would be just ever so amazing if some were to actually see a film before criticizing it. I constantly see articles on here about movies, yet nobody seems to ever see the films themselves. I read a lot of these articles and comments from people who have not seen the films and wonder if I saw the same movie, because often times politics seem to be interjected into places where they really don't belong, and controversies are created where they never were to begin with. Granted, "Munich" is an inherently political film, so this is really just a general statement.

Finally, this was thus far the best film of 2005 I have seen, and go ahead and call me a "liberwhacko", though I know a conservative who also felt it was one of the better films of the year, because I don't care. I just try to avoid being so uptight about movies, and to rather view them simply as well made, entertaining, and a thrilling escape, as is "Munich."

[DesertFox]

I personally have no sympathies for either side of this struggle reallyThen you don't give a shit who wins the war between us and the terrorists. There is a good side and a bad side in the Israel versus Arabs, and the good side ain't the Arabs. If you don't see that, there's something wrong with you.

I just try to avoid being so uptight about movies, and to rather view them simply as well made, entertaining, and a thrilling escape,I once thought that way. Then I saw how most people take a movie as real life. A researcher back in the Seventies reported that even educated people took H. B. Mills's movies on ancient Egypt as how life really was back then, and it turned out to be very wrong in many ways. That doesn't indict Mills, because at the time he made those films, nobody knew and it was anybody's guess. A decade later facts were in, but nobody's mind had changed. What they'd seen in Mills' movies about Egypt was, for them, how it was.

Dramatic presentations skillfully done influence people. To dismiss them as "just movies" indicates failure to grasp the importance of drama to the human psyche. It's why Shakespeare is famous the world over centuries after he himself lived. It's why soap operas are so popular. Drama compels interest, and the better it's done, the more influential it is in shaping minds. Leni Riefenstahl understood this when she made her hagiographic film about Hitler. Liberals understand it, too, which is why so many anti-Vietnam movies very much helped turn public opinion against that war.

Grow up a bit before you talk airily about things you don't understand.

[TechnoPrincess]

How horrible that someone has twisted history again to fit their political agenda!! I am so tired of Hollyweird doing this.

As many of you know, I work for an Isaeli company...let's just say the movie has not received nice comments around here . As the reviewer says, the actions and words of many of the characters would have been totally opposed to the person's true nature. But hey, in Hollyweird anything goes, right??:soap:

[Trevelyan]

Dramatic presentations skillfully done influence people. To dismiss them as "just movies" indicates failure to grasp the importance of drama to the human psyche.

Well I can only speak from my own experiences. I do not know of anyone, myself included, that is so easily influenced by films.

Anyway, I highly doubt even the easily influenced would develop a pro-Palestinian viewpoint after viewing "Munich."

[TechnoPrincess]

Well I can only speak from my own experiences. I do not know of anyone, myself included, that is so easily influenced by films.

Anyway, I highly doubt even the easily influenced would develop a pro-Palestinian viewpoint after viewing "Munich."

I can't see how people would be less influinced by movies than TV. Would you like me to look up the number of people injured because they attempted "JackAss" stunts? :question:

Why do you think that at the beginning of some TV shows they have to put disclaimers NOT to do this at home.

"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. " from Men In Black...unfortunately it is very, very true. There are people who still don't acknowledge that ANYONE reporting the news has ever done anything wrong, that they have ever made up stories, or that there is any bias. WHY?? Because the media/TV tells them so. I know people that think that the CSI shows REALLY do show what a crime lab is like. These are not stupid people, they are not highly impressionable...they just don't know any better. When a movie starts out with a statement that it is based on actual events there will be MANY people who will assume that means that it is an ACCURATE representation of those events. While they may not walk away with a pro-Palestinian viewpoint, they may be a little more anti-Israel. And I bet they won't even realize it.

[dajoga]

Liberals dislike morality. Morality implies a judgment and as we all know, enlightend people don't make judgments.

But these "enlightened people" can quickly "judge" a pro-life, Christian, or "homophobic" POV!

[Trevelyan]

I can't see how people would be less influinced by movies than TV. Would you like me to look up the number of people injured because they attempted "JackAss" stunts? :question:

Why do you think that at the beginning of some TV shows they have to put disclaimers NOT to do this at home.

"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. " from Men In Black...unfortunately it is very, very true. There are people who still don't acknowledge that ANYONE reporting the news has ever done anything wrong, that they have ever made up stories, or that there is any bias. WHY?? Because the media/TV tells them so. I know people that think that the CSI shows REALLY do show what a crime lab is like. These are not stupid people, they are not highly impressionable...they just don't know any better. When a movie starts out with a statement that it is based on actual events there will be MANY people who will assume that means that it is an ACCURATE representation of those events. While they may not walk away with a pro-Palestinian viewpoint, they may be a little more anti-Israel. And I bet they won't even realize it.

Ok, I can kind of see where you are coming from. This is just a knee-jerk reaction, because I don't desire to be labeled for enjoying certain films. I just sometimes have difficulty seeing it from the viewpoint of others who may not be as discerning, or that may not be able to view something as purely entertainment and leave it at that.

When it comes to "Munich", some people may make certain assumptions as to why I may have enjoyed it, but politics really has nothing to do with it. I would enjoy a "conservative film" if it were well made and entertaining. I actually thought "The Passion of the Christ" was a good film, and I certainly do not sync up ideologically with all the beliefs expressed by the film, or held by its most common fan-base. Also, it is another instance in which I seem to disagree with Jewish groups, because I did not find the film anti-Semitic at all.

But yeah, I just get tired of how seemingly everything gets politicized, such as films that do not really have much to do with politics at all. "Munich" is somewhat political in nature, however, but my reaction is coming out of constantly seeing this happen and rolling my eyes. I think it would do a lot of people good to lighten up a little. :)

I see stuff such as ,"Liberals dislike morality. Morality implies a judgment and as we all know, enlightend people don't make judgments. Without that moral right and obligation imposed, nations have no right to protect its citizens. In fact, nations have no rights at all. Not even the right to existence.", and though I know they are broad and sweeping stereotypical statements, they sometimes get to me as someone who considers themself a liberal.

Finally, I would still like to see more people seeing films before criticizing them. I didn't really get all the same impressions from the film the author of that article did, and who knows, maybe others would not completely agree either, but this cannot be known until a film is viewed.

[aaron11]

"Finally, I would still like to see more people seeing films before criticizing them."

Do you also believe one has to smell the crap in order to identify it as crap? I seen enough of "Munich" to know I won't waste any money on watching it.

[omegatrump]

Well I can only speak from my own experiences. I do not know of anyone, myself included, that is so easily influenced by films.

Anyway, I highly doubt even the easily influenced would develop a pro-Palestinian viewpoint after viewing "Munich."

Well that is just the point, it's obvious Trev that you haven't stopped to consider that you don't have any experience.

You highly doubt? Trev boy, have you ever stopped to consider why the visual stimulation of a 15 second add during a foot ball game costs the advertiser big big bucks? 15 seconds can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, the limit being placed on how big the game is. Why?

It has a high price tag because it brings in big returns. A two hour movie jammed full of subliminal, suggestive material is how many of those 15 second adds? In the case of Munich it is the combination of what is twisted and what is not represented that gives great cause for concern.


I won't pay any money to see the film.

[Maggie_T]

God forbid people see the film and make up their own minds based on all the arguments occuring from various points of view available within it.

Well, why should they bother? According to your next paragraph

I just try to avoid being so uptight about movies, and to rather view them simply as well made, entertaining, and a thrilling escape, as is "Munich."

those seem to be the only things anyone should pay any attention to in films. No, don't give me any "I was speaking for myself." If you really had been, that's all you would have posted, and you would have dispensed with all the crap you posted above.

And BTW, nice escapist excuse, that one. You just view films as well made, entertaining, etc. I wonder if you would apply the same principle on films that were even remotely pro-conservative.

Fortunately, for you, it will be a cold day in hell before Hollywack produces a film even remotely pro-conservative. So you're off the hook, kid. You don't have to worry about answering that one. What a relief, huh? ;)

[Etaoin]

Actually, that's merely a pose. They think it's chic to hate themselves, so they do. If it were chic to go around with toilet paper hanging out the hind end, they'd do that.

Wasn't it Tom Wolfe who wrote "MAU MAUING THE RADICAL CHIC?" All those elites kissing the butts of the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Army, etc...? He really skewered Leonard Bernstein et. alia... but exposure and identification didn't slow the march toward Political Correctness at all.

[S-T]

After watching it, I have to say that Mona Charen's description and commentary on Munich is spot on.

[Trevelyan]

And BTW, nice escapist excuse, that one. You just view films as well made, entertaining, etc. I wonder if you would apply the same principle on films that were even remotely pro-conservative.

Fortunately, for you, it will be a cold day in hell before Hollywack produces a film even remotely pro-conservative. So you're off the hook, kid. You don't have to worry about answering that one. What a relief, huh? ;)

I believe I mentioned something about "The Passion of the Christ" in a later post.

[aaron11]

I believe I mentioned something about "The Passion of the Christ" in a later post.

What the heck does that have to do with Conservatives?:rolleyes:



Idiot...

[Trevelyan]

"Finally, I would still like to see more people seeing films before criticizing them."

Do you also believe one has to smell the crap in order to identify it as crap? I seen enough of "Munich" to know I won't waste any money on watching it.

Well I am just glad some others here actually decide to see films and make up their own minds. Off the top of my head:

Melz does not agree with "Million Dollar Baby" being labeled liberal, pro-euthenasia propaganda.

Egalad did not agree with all the flack "Jarhead" was receiving.

Beowulf did not feel "Schindler's List" was anti-gun propaganda.

[aaron11]

I hope that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside...


*Shakes head...

[Trevelyan]

What the heck does that have to do with Conservatives?:rolleyes:



Idiot...

How does it not fit the "even remotely pro-conservative" criteria? Christianity is not inherently conservative?

Now if you want to get into purely just politics when talking about conservatism, please give me some film titles you would consider "conservative films."

[aaron11]

How does it not fit the "even remotely pro-conservative" criteria? Christianity is not inherently conservative?

Sad


Now if you want to get into purely just politics when talking about conservatism, please give me some film titles you would consider "conservative films."

Dirty Dozen---
Green Berets---
Tora Tora Tora!---
It's a Wonderful life---

Well hell, just dial back 30-40 years, I have yet to watch a "pro-conservative" movie that was made in my lifetime, and that's no shizz.

[Trevelyan]

Well that is just the point, it's obvious Trev that you haven't stopped to consider that you don't have any experience.

You highly doubt? Trev boy, have you ever stopped to consider why the visual stimulation of a 15 second add during a foot ball game costs the advertiser big big bucks? 15 seconds can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, the limit being placed on how big the game is. Why?

It has a high price tag because it brings in big returns. A two hour movie jammed full of subliminal, suggestive material is how many of those 15 second adds? In the case of Munich it is the combination of what is twisted and what is not represented that gives great cause for concern.


No, I said that not in regards to the influence a film can have, but rather because there is simply nothing in the film that would lead one to develop this viewpoint. Palestinians are not portrayed as sympathetic heros. There have even been people who have complained that they are treated unfairly.

So what is this film really? Pro-Israel? Pro-Palestinian? In my opinion, it is neither.

[Trevelyan]

Sad

So are you going to actually explain some of your insults, or are you content to continue slinging them?



"Dirty Dozen---
Green Berets---
Tora Tora Tora!---
It's a Wonderful life---

Well hell, just dial back 30-40 years, I have yet to watch a "pro-conservative" movie that was made in my lifetime, and that's no shizz"

I enjoyed "The Dirty Dozen." Haven't seen the others.

Anyway, you listed three war films, so do you consider "Patton" a "pro-conservative" film, because I absolutely loved that movie.

[aaron11]

So are you going to actually explain some of your insults, or are you content to continue slinging them?

.

Wasn't an insult, it was pity.

[DoctorDoom]

I just try to avoid being so uptight about movies, and to rather view them simply as well made, entertaining, and a thrilling escape ...You grossly underestimate the power of films.

If I could control the medium of American motion pictures, I would need nothing else in order to convert the entire world to Communism.
-- Josef Stalin

[Maggie_T]

Forget it, guys. You know the saying: There's none blinder than he who refuses to see. Or words to that effect.

[Trevelyan]

And BTW, nice escapist excuse, that one. You just view films as well made, entertaining, etc. I wonder if you would apply the same principle on films that were even remotely pro-conservative.


I forgot to mention this earlier.

If it were all about politics with me, then why would I, a person who could be considered "pro-homosexual", not have only yet to see "Brokeback Mountain", but also have absolutely no desire to? The film just does not seem that interesting to me, and appears as though it would be rather boring to tell you the truth.

[Trevelyan]

Hah, I came across this and thought it was appropriate. :grin:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20714

It is about "Conservative Cinema." If you buy into how "conservative films" are being defined by the conservative author of the article, then it turns out that three of the top ten "conservative films" of 2005 made my own personal top ten best films list. These films being "Cinderella Man", "King Kong", and "Batman Begins."

[Trau]

You guys really come off looking stupid making the comments you do about a film you have not seen. Just like those who were calling the Passion all the things they did before it was even released.

"Munich" in no way comes off on the side of the Palestinians. Eric Bana's makes a convincing argument against their cause that goes unchallenged.

The Israelis are shown to be concerned greatly with innocent casualties while the terrorists are shown to be murderers.

[ConspiracyBuff]

Originally Posted by Trevelyan
"Well I can only speak from my own experiences. I do not know of anyone, myself included, that is so easily influenced by films."

Just by looking at your own pictures you disprove your point, Trev, that people are not affected by movies or television. Just look at a movie like "Sarface" now rappers quote it in songs (50 cent, Jadakiss, Game)Teenagers quote it in their profiles. I can name a number of films like this, "The Boondocksaints" (more conservative than "The Passion" mind you). Im sure you get the point. This is what liberals do though, they go and see films done by liberals then them and their liberal family members get together and talk about how great of a movie it was, so "entertaining".
To me entertaining would imply you were influenced by it to some degree. So you cant on the one hand say that you dont know anyone influenced by a movie, and on the other say it was a "thrilling escape", i take it you mean an escape from reality as is the case with most liberal films. Hollywood is overtly liberal, and those of you who sit and watch the bull that comes from Hollywood are influenced in a liberal fashion. You cannot deny this, as much as you would love to back yourself out of this hole. You gave away too much, we all know you love Hollywood, you Ebert you. TechnoPrincess is on to something witht the whole sub-conscious thing, you people continue to pay for an "thrilling escape" and like it or not it has alot to do with your non-realistic liberal views, which these films give credence to.

[Wyatt_Junker]

So what is this film really? Pro-Israel? Pro-Palestinian? In my opinion, it is neither.

Which is entirely Mona Charen's point, the fact that it is neither.

There is no such thing as 'neither'. 'Neither' is not an option. Unless, of course, moral equivalence is the basis for which life is to be judged. In a universe of moral equivalence, rapists are not at fault. The woman typically has a role in rape. Either she asked for it or wore something provocative. It is the same for Israel. In a universe of 'neither' or moral equivalence, the Jews asked for it. That is what terrorism translates into; the horribly misguided idea that a people deserve to die based on irrational, deluded data and a warped ideology of fomented, practiced hatred. The other side had absolutely nothing to do with the ideology. They merely existed, just like the Israeli atheletes. And that was enough of a justification, their existence itself, which to most Arabs in the region is a stench.

One doesn't have to read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to know which side is more guilty than the other. History is clear enough. Arafat invented 'soft' targets. The world did not condemn him. They gave him a pass. When the world gives you a pass, you build momentum. Terrorism was born out of this momentum. If 'soft' targets were okay then, so is 9/11 now. The Jews purchased land deeds from bedouin squatters at the early part of last century. They transformed that land through hard work and farming, employing Arabs throughout the region. Indeed, many Arabs migrated to the area looking for work from the new industry. The propaganda that you now currently hear, did not emanate from this region. It came from Egypt, from Jordan and from Syria. The actual region 70, 80 years ago was peaceful and getting along quite well.

[RayChuang]

What I find interesting is that because Munich has offended quite a lot of Jews in the USA, the movie might not be in the running for winning any Oscars. People forget many of the people involved in the operation to hunt down those terrorists and close family members to the Munich terrorist attack victims are still alive today, and just about all of them have denounced this movie.

In short, Tony Kushner--the writer of the script for Munich--is finding out really fast that he has less friends in the movie industry than he thinks.