Terrorism is the act of using a terrfying medium (like blowing shyte up, etc...) to inspire fear in a body of people; be that body the government, or those the government represents.
Munich and Shindlers' List are possibly the only Spielberg films that are worth watching for more than just the cool special effects. Having said that, there were some very good points made here:
1) someone said something about spielberg trying to hammer his 'weepy' message in to the audience, over and again.
2) someone said something akin to terrorism being horrible when it's done by muslims for whatever reasons, but when the israeli army does it in the occupied territories, it's not terrorism at all.
Both are valid , albeit sarcastic points. Spielberg does try to hammer his message in, and I really hate this about 'hollywoods'. Fark you, 'hollywood' and fark your message. How about they pretend we have a brain of our own, and can form our own conclusions?? Also, I find it repellant; I'm actually embarrassed to be a human, alongside other 'humans' who think terrorism is something only muslims are capable of.
In case you people haven't been watching the news, the american government -with the help of the media- is the largest terrorist organisation in the world. They use fear and intimidation through dire warnings about impending doom, be it through the news, or such, to inspire a state of terror in the populace. I even have to wonder if the "terrorists" are actually involved in this "war" in anything more than just name!!! I mean, if the terrorists really were at war with the americans, why haven't they paid the family of some non-arab muslim (1.2 billion muslims in the world, 17% of which are arab, the rest are NOT arabs) a heap of money to go to the usa, buy a bunch of guns, and go on a shooting spree in -god forbid- times square, or some other place that I don't care about, but is nevertheless largely populated??? Or somthing equally horrific??? Makes me wonder if the terrorists really do have any part in this.
Anyway, back to the subject matter: Munich is an attempt by spielberg to use his 'brand name' to get the very well thought out and well made film a larger exposure. It's not about blindly hating muslims, and killing them righteously. It's about the moral struggles of a team of quite normal men, who have to do some quite un-ordinary things. Its about how the reality of a thing can make one doubt the original desire for that thing. It's about how using violence to end violence doesn't end well, and only inspires more violence. It questions the "right-ness" of killing. Carl/ Karl has some very insightful things to say on that very topic. The discussion between Avner and Ali in the "safe-house" in Athens shows how both sides are motivated not out of hatred, but by a desire to belong; to have a home. The Israeli's want to keep what is their god-given home, and the palestinians want to get back what they feel is their home. unfortunately 'home' is the same strip of land, thus ensues the conflict....
Anyone who didn't appreciate Munich is -in my opinion- not paying hard enough attention. I'm an Egyptian. I'm also a Jew. I have very strong feelings about the subject matter, and it goes both ways. I hate seeing the Jews as terrorists in Israel, but I see it, nevertheless. I hate seeing the palestinians as terrorists, but I see that too. The film Munich is, in my opinion, very sensetive to the tense notions and political undercurrents at play here, and does it's best to portray them accurately, rather than flatteringly. I just wish the arabs could stop wanting to kill Jews, and that the Knesset could grant this new breed of arab the same rights to citizenry as an Israeli.
reply
share