Comments on: Israeli Spooks: Spielberg’s Munich Pure Hooey

By: Mike Orton

Mike Orton — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:59:45 +0000

After watching “The Sword of Gideon” on DVD, I think its a pity that Speilberg used Yuval Aviv’s story as told to Georg Jonas as a source.
Why didn’t he approach Zamir, Shavit, Harari, or Halevy?
What a lost opportunity to set the record straight.

By: Grace

Grace — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:24:14 +0000

Not only is Speilberg a revisionist, worse, he’s an apologist. He embarasses and dishonors all Jews, everywhere.

Too bad there’s no way to kick him out of the club.

By: taltman

taltman — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:17:12 +0000

Encino Yeled: Yes, Ehud Barak did indeed take part in that hit. That’s the famous operation where he cross-dressed to get the job done. I guess that’s why they call him the “most decorated” soldier in Israeli history.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:55:41 +0000

So why didn’t Spielberg make up a more generic terrorist event to start the film? Why base the film on a real event and then claim artistic license to screw around with the details and create entirely fictional parts that never occurred to support his leftist agenda? I can’t respect these choices that Spielberg made; this film was a mistake, and a dishonest one at that.

By: josh

josh — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:38:18 +0000

So is Gibson going to do the Macabee mvie after all or will he redo the Garden of Eden suicide glorification movie that one top Israeli globus prize?

By: ofri

ofri — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:40:35 +0000

Jim, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I think most would argue that Munich was neither (solely) an attempt to entertain nor was it expected to be a cash cow. From what I’ve read, Munich will just barely cover its budget, and that doesn’t surprise me for a second. I’m sure Spielberg isn’t too shocked either, and either way he’s doing ok financially.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:08:03 +0000

When MIDNIGHT EXPRESS came out I saw it with some Turkish friends who complained about how it wasn’t realistic because the Turkish guards were ACTUALLY Greeks – speaking Turking with Greek accents.

MUNICH is FICTION.

Hell, even reality shows aren’t real.

Memo to Brit Tony Scott who directed THE FAN: Baseball games are never played in driving rain. Ever. But why let that obscure fact get in the way of your masterpiece.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:35:42 +0000

The Munich Massacre was one of the most morally repulsive acts ever perpetrated, and totally shocked the whole civilized world.

For Hollywood to take a distant historical event/story where not many facts are known and did not happen in our lifetimes and insert their imagined drama, violence and sex for purely entertainment purposes is one thing. Happens all the time.

But to take this tragic event still painfully in our memories where the real facts are known, then insert fictional drama, violence, politics and requisite sex in order to make a buck from it, is morally reprehensible in itself.

By: encino yeled

encino yeled — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:20:04 +0000

Maybe Avner was regretting his decision to come America? That is, even during sex he couldn’t relinquish that feeling of guilt, paranoia, and crave to avenge their deaths? To him, maybe a Sabra living in the Diaspora was the cardinal sin…I don’t know, I think I’m more confused than before now.

If you’re talking about the Beirut scene, I totally agree. They looked like a bunch of kids out there for the first time. Question: Was Ehud Barak in that action?

The part I couldn’t stand was when Avner was on the balcony, waiting for the bed bomb to blow up. Notice how Spielberg shoots from down below, at a profile, drawing a parallel between the Munich terrorists and Avner, equivocating their evil deed. It’s uncanny and offensive. Plus, the hotel the Arab was staying was called the Olympic Hotel. Granted, as an artist he’s got some leeway, but this shit actually happened..You can’t just revise history, fucking revisionist.

By: Nolan

Nolan — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:29:04 +0000

Israeli Americans with whom I spoke carried the same sentiments as the article-no group of idiots could have carried out a mission in the manner which spielberg portrayed. They also felt that the movie slighted the Israeli army and made them look weak. People out here in Indiana thought it was great. Show’s how much they know.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:11:28 +0000

Taltman…Almost everyone I know who saw the movie just didn’t see what the point was to Avner/the wife/the airstrip. And also felt it was in poor taste. It is good to hear that someone else liked the movie: like I said, I thought it was a pretty good spy flick.

By: shtreimel

shtreimel — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:49:38 +0000

“Don’t you prefer the original, i.e., C&M?”

C&M is one of my favorite Allen movies on many, many levels. But due to the shlock that Allen’s been putting out, Matchpoint was enjoyable, if not repulsive, in the only way that Allen knows how to be.

So yes, C&M is a better movie on every level.

By: Jewish Mother

Jewish Mother — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:20:41 +0000

Good graphic. Funny and appropriate.

By: taltman

taltman — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:49:58 +0000

Jessica: I completely agree. It wasn’t a movie going after accuracy. Why else would Spielberg base it off of the most discredited book on the aftermath of Munich (it’s obviously the one that made for the best storytelling)? And I found it entertaining, in the same way that historical fiction is entertaining (think “The Hajj”), since it is dramatizing a story from Jewish history that is very important to me.

But the conflation of Avner, his wife, and the death of the Israeli athletes was really, really poor taste. Really tacky. And pointless; it didn’t really drive home any message or point. Other than that, I liked the filming and scenes a lot in the film.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:37:26 +0000

I agree with EV above. The film never claimed to be a documentary. It was a good spy film and held my attention for almost the entire 2 1/2 hours.

I did think the last few scenes with Avner & his wife in bed contrasted with the airstrip explosions/deaths was bizarre but then again I don’t make movies for a living.

By: EV

EV — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:56:49 +0000

ck,

Have you seen the film? It opens not with the line “Inspired by Real Events.” Not even “Based on a True Story” but INSPIRED by real events. I.e., it’s a fictional imagining of what transpired after the Munich massacre. Thus the Times UK’s opener, “The new film Munich purports to be the truth about the aftermath of the 1972 Olympic massacre.” is wrong on its surface.

And Shtreimel’s right. If the film had gotten it right, the Mossad of course would’ve denied it. But I think it was never the film’s intent to depict the reality of the Mossad, but rather how Spielberg wishes the Mossad operated.

Shtreimel,
I disagree re. Match Point. It’s identical to Crimes and Misdemeanors, but w/o the interesting characters and the jokes. Don’t you prefer the original, i.e., C&M?

By: shtreimel

shtreimel — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:38:14 +0000

Claims by special ops that movies don’t reflect what they say/do is nothing new. Because if Spielberg did get somethign right, and they (mossad) admitted it, that could possibly reveal too much of what/how they do things.

Regardless, the movie was a bore.

But the new W. Allen movie rocks. And I haven’t liked any of his recent films. Note: the film is a goyishe Crimes and Misdemeanors set in London.

By: ck

ck — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:37:40 +0000

Oh Harry! Yes I did.

By: harry

harry — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:31:10 +0000

What a hoot! That is the BEST graphic EVER. Did you do that just for me CK?

By: BA

BA — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:01:22 +0000

A similar article was published by the UK's Guardian, analogizing Munich to The Life of Walter Mitty. You can read it here