|
 |
|
|
| Tuesday, January 03, 2006 |
The Munich cinema massacre
Forgive the critics of Munich. They are a reactionary lot, easily riled up by the name Tony Kushner (screenplay by) and the film's focus on the Israeli reprisals rather than the Munich Olympics massacre that prompted them. Without even seeing the film, some have gone so far as to denounce it as an anti-Israel betrayal on the part of Mr. Spielberg (he of Schindler's List and the Shoah Foundation), a dangerous attempt at "moral equivalence."
There are no two words more froth-inducing to pro-Israel reactionaries than "moral equivalence." I use it in quotations, because it's often a load of bunk and an excuse for dehumanizing the Palestinian population, and it's even more a load of bunk in the case of Munich.
Before going into exactly why the criticisms lobbed at Munich are so utterly dumb, let's get one thing out of the way. I don't ever want to watch this film again. Spielberg has crafted the most torpid affair in recent cinematic history. This is not a good film, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a bad film. This is Spielberg, and though he may have made his missteps, he is nothing if not proficient at the craft of filmmaking.
However, technical proficiency does not a fine film make. In this case, it makes a plodding flick that lumbers on for almost three hours with little in the way of actual plot. The Israeli hit squad finds a target. They craft a plan to kill the target. Then they kill the target, usually with some hiccup meant to induce tension and show the dehumanizing strain of their job. But mostly, it's just a hiccup, and then on to the next round.
By the time the film gets around to showing the emotional and moral devastation wrought on the assassins who cling to their basic righteousness despite the acts they find themselves compelled to commit, most of the audience has stopped caring. I just wanted the film to end already.
And it ended. It came to its close with nary a whimper, right in front of the New York skyline -- World Trade Center and all. One imagines this is Spielberg's way of linking the past with the present, the Israeli experience with the newly evolving American one. Or perhaps he is trying to show us that the purpose of his tale is larger than pro-Israel or anti-Israel polemics, that its about humanity in an age of violence and fear.
Whatever it was, it was also ham-handed. I'm beginning to seriously doubt Spielberg's ability to craft a decent ending.
* * *
Now that it has been established how little I like this film, let me present a defense of it. Sadly, so little has been made of whether the film is something anyone would like to watch. Far too much has been made of whether or not it's anti-Israel or not. Has Spielberg betrayed his people?
This idiot certainly thinks so (and no, it is not too strong a word). Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic also thinks Spielberg has gone round the bend. He said so on December 9 in his own magazine. David Brooks of The New York Times thinks Spielberg is an apologist for evil. Neither of them are idiots, but they act like ones more often than they should.
What's wrong with this film exactly? Apparently because it bothers to humanize Palestinians, including Palestinians who turn themselves over to acts of terrorism. It shows, horror of horrors, the moral struggle of men who act in defense of Israel but question how far they can go before losing their humanity. It conveys a complex reality. This is, so it turns out, unforgivable.
Critics like the idiot, Howard Galganov, would rather Spielberg have shown a simple story about evil Palestinians, utterly devoid of human decency and thus undeserving of the slightest sympathies. The Israeli assassins would never have a doubt in the world that they were righteous warriors, and we'd all go home content in the knowledge that Israel is good, Palestinians are bad, and the sooner we wipe them out (or at least totally break their will militarily) the better off we'll be.
Give me a break. I can't begrudge these people as much as I'd like. Many of them are fine people, decent people, even complicated people. And in a world where Israel's detractors, anti-Semites among them, are so quick to portray any semblance of failure, misconduct, or weakness as proof of the inherent unworthiness of Israel, it's easy to be reactionary. In a time when the war in the media (where Israel is utterly flumoxed) is often more important than the one on the ground (which, as it turns out, is where Israel has the advantage), it's easy to blanche at the thought of a film showing Israel's warts alongside her virtues.
Nevertheless, these people have to get a grip. Every time they assert that this is a black and white issue, they undermine their own credibility as well as the credibility of more reasonable supporters of Israel. Few people, though not few enough, are willing to stomach the line that ours is a black and white world. Because it's not.
Moreover, understanding does not need to convey sanction. Because we can come to understand why a Palestinian decides to take up arms and kill civilians does not mean we condone that killing. We can fight it and understand it at the same time. Indeed, without some understanding, we'll never be able to overcome that evil. We can only be consumed by it, forced to destroy a people or surrender to them.
And that, ultimately, is the point of Spielberg's film. However poorly it was done, he is begging us to use our minds to understand. Fight terrorism he says, never surrender in the face of evil, but seek out an understanding of why that evil is born. If that means you must recognize the underlying humanity in your enemies, then so be it, and if that makes it difficult to simply wipe them out without a second thought, then why is that so bad?
This is actually pro-Israel. It shows the humanity is never lost in these Israeli assassins, that they struggle with what they must do more than the Palestinians who never tried to see the humanity in their Israeli victims. Based on the reaction of Israel's supporters, one wonders if Spielberg is giving too much credit to the Israeli side.
This message of understanding alongside strength, of recognizing the humanity in our enemies as a way of preserving our own decency in the face of violence and war, is a fundamentally Jewish one. Shame on those who are so shrill in their defense of the Jewish state that they forget the values of the Jewish people, and shame on Spielberg for making such an utterly dull film.
Both have done a disservice to the struggle of our time, the battle against fundamentalism and terrorism. I'll leave it to you as to who has done the greater disservice.
|
|
|
|
