Munich

[frostfire]

inspired (not based) on real events

Just finished watching it. Had a similar after-taste to "History of Violence"

I believe Spielberg in most part fulfill the feeling and attention he wish to get from the audience. da hood boys who kept talking through the beginning of the movie was actually dead silent once the pace picked up all the way to the end.

Never been there, I can only presume the movie effectively delivers the emotional and mental toll of killing not in a self defense, but rather assasination setting.

No spoiler here, but if you are going to watch it, make sure you notice the backdrop in the last scene in relation to the last dialogue. I believe this is the message Spielberg is trying to convey.

My personal conclusion from the movie is winning hearts and minds goes way further than death squad(s).

[eva05]

I read the book by George Jonas about 6 months ago? Maybe a little longer. There's a few details left out, a few details added and few other embellished with Spielbergian weepiness. That was actually my only gripe...

The book didn't really have as much of that in it. I did enjoy the film. It was shot, scored and acted quite well IMO. I'll almost certainly pick it up on DVD or Blue Ray (if it's out by that time ^_^)

We're watching "A Bridge to Far" at the moment. War movies a many were traded on this holiday.

j

[ghuinness]

I didn't like it. I can sum up Spielberg's theories:

- violence begets violence
- the terrorists are just like us.
- condemn the war on terrorism

I can't say I liked this movie on any level, not even entertainment. The deviations from the book were a huge distraction. I lost interest at the first assassination.

I preferred the documentary 'One day in September' (account of the massacre) and the movie 'Sword of Gideon' (based on the same book: Vengeance).

[Smokin Joe]

It was okay, but a gay ending.

[ghuinness]

Discovery channel tonight, 10:00pm if anyone is interested:

Munich: The Real Assassins

This is the true story behind the extraordinary mission of revenge planned by Israel in response....

[aricbcool]

Discovery channel tonight, 10:00pm if anyone is interested:

Munich: The Real Assassins

This is the true story behind the extraordinary mission of revenge planned by Israel in response....

Taped it, and watched it today. It was a good show. While it acknowledged the fact that Spielberg's film recently came out, it wasn't a blatant advertisement. It seemed more to me like an indirect rebuttal of the film through the telling of the real story.

Thanks for the heads up.
--Aric

[Solid]

I actually very much liked Munich. Yes, artistic liberties were taken, but I think that they were taken in such a way to not really distort the story and instead more clearly illustrate the message Spielberg wishes to convey. I remember (maybe not on this forum?) participating in a discussion which led me to look a the density of palestinan terror attacks on Israel before and after the Kidon squad attacked the Black September group. The number, IIRC, more than doubled.

As such, I think that Spielberg has a point about the single-minded pursuit of blood-for-blood (one possible message of the film). Terrorism is not simply a crime, it is a systemic product. As such, by just incapacitating the terrorists themselves, we cannot guarantee an end to the terror. IMO, a multi-pronged strategy should be pursued. I see Spielberg's film as saying this more than just going out on the tree-hugging limb of "make love not war".

JMO,

Solid

[jatx]

Solid,

I also did not detect much in the way of an overtly political message. I think that some people are just being overly sensitive because of the film's timeliness, and are confusing that with an agenda. To me, the focus was really on humanizing all of the individuals involved (which is hard to disagree with) and on showing the varied ways that people respond to killing.

Was I a huge fan of the movie? No. Do I now have an axe to grind with Spielberg? No.

My recommendation: Netflix it.

[Seth]

I didn't much care for Munich.

Spielberg has the movie adaptation of James Bradley's Flag of our Fathers.

I Hope He doesn't mess with the content, too much.

Clint Eastwood's directing, Paul Haggis has the script, so there's hope for an outstanding movie.

Also, of interest is the "companion" Iwo Jima film, Red Sun, Black Sand" (it was originally Lamps in the Wind). The Iwo Jima story from the Japanese point of view. Eastwood's directing that as well.

Maybe "political correctness" requires two films, nowadays?

-Seth

[Solid]

Seth,
There are two sides to every story, and because films have to appeal to the lowest common denominator, they have to be short and fairly simplistic. Political correctness has little to do with it, it is just a shot at portraying reality.

If you want to see an excellent trailer, look up Thank You for Smoking...

Solid

[one-zero]

Solid, suggest you do some homework on the "Munich" angle as you're way off base...A good starting point would be some of the open material Ghuiness mentioned.

Some folks on this board have served in a technical advisory capacity for film-makers and writers, at the end of the day a Political agenda is exactly what was pursued and truth was only relative in the title and perhaps some relation to the event in question...
Munich may be "entertaining" in the 'bubble-gum for the mind sense", but these film-makers (apart from turning profit) hope a majority of American retards view it as sort of documentary effort a la Farenheit911 and Stone's JFK...

Peopl who look to movies for any semblance of educational enlightenment are fodder for those who wish to influence...
cheers,
1-0

[Seth]

Solid,

I applaud the ambitious project of depicting a major battle, in two films, from two perspectives. That's not been done at this scale, and it's exciting that it's being produced.

You're likely correct that director Eastwood was not motivated by "political correctness" to tackle the companion film.

What touched off my admittedly flippant comment about, "two films... political correctness, nowadays" was an article published in The Independent.

It's a long article, over 1700 hundred words, but here are a few abstracts ( Bolding type is my emphasis ):

By David McNeill Published in The Independant, 28 December 2005



The film - Eastwood's 26th as director - which finishes shooting this month, tells the story of the young marines in the iconic Rosenthal photo. Three never got off the island alive, while the rest became reluctant heroes, ferried from city to city to whip up morale and flog war bonds before disappearing into post-war obscurity. Eastwood no doubt hopes that the tragic tale of the rise and fall of ordinary American heroes, used then discarded by forces beyond their control, will resonate with contemporary US audiences weary of war in Iraq. But somewhere during filming he realised he was only telling half the story and decided, remarkably, to make a second film. "Sometimes you have a premonition ... and just have to trust your gut," he told Time magazine.

Eastwood is clearly aiming for authenticity. He has hired Japanese-American writer Iris Yamashita to write the script and reportedly intends to hire some of the cream of Japanese acting. Like all American filmmakers today, he has a monetary interest in getting Japan right: the country is the world's second-biggest market for Hollywood movies, one reason why the barbaric, buck-toothed stereotype of yore has disappeared from movies like Pearl Harbor, which showed clean-cut Japanese pilots warning American children to flee the bombing.

But the star got a taste of potential problems with the project when he met Governor Ishihara, under whose jurisdiction the island falls. In between jokes about the perils of being mayor (Eastwood was once mayor of Carmel in California) Ishihara says that Iwo Jima is a "sacred place" for the Japanese and wants "national sentiments to be respected". Ishihara's famously anti-American politics were formed during the war when he remembers being strafed "for fun" by US planes "with pictures of naked women and Mickey Mouse painted on the fuselage".

Nippon Kaigi, a nationalist lobby group that campaigns for education on Japan's war issues, said American movies until now had been deeply unfair in their portrayal of Japan: "Pearl Harbor, for example, didn't show any of the negotiations leading up to the attack and pretended the attack happened without warning. We hope Mr Eastwood will do something different."

Granted this is liberal media spinning a film project for it's own purposes, and may not reflect the producers sentiments.

It did touch my buttons, though.

However, political correctness and it's spin effect will play into Red Sun, Black Sand regardless of the producer's motivations.

Politics and big money entertainment, are just too intertwined.

It conflicts my sensibilties; somewhat, because I want to view and support a project like these films; yet, do want to propogate anti-Amercian diatribe.

-Seth

[Solid]

Granted, I overstated my point, and I apologize. What I should have said was that political correctness is not always a top consideration in film: film makers either pursue profit margins, a message, or both, with little regard for who the film will piss-off unless it might bankrupt the film maker.

One-Zero: I agree with your views on film, but posit that films (like books or any other form of expression) do not have to be factually correct to provoke thought, and that thought (even if that thought is only 'this is bullsh*t') is priceless.

Of course, if the world had better education systems, there would be less of a tendency for thought provoking yet unfactual material to become recieved wisdom for the masses.... But that's another argument altogether.

JMO,

Solid

[Razor]

One-Zero: I agree with your views on film, but posit that films (like books or any other form of expression) do not have to be factually correct to provoke thought, and that thought (even if that thought is only 'this is bullsh*t') is priceless.

So, along the same lines, you're ok with people who knowingly lie in books or films that are about actual events, so long as it generates 'thought'?

[Peregrino]

I know I'm preaching to the choir but I really wish Hollywood would clearly differentiate fact, fiction, and editorial license. What annoys me about docudramas and productions "inspired by real events" is the potential for future generations to accept the entertainment as literal truth. How many people seeing Munich will accept it as fact without knowing or caring about the real events? We already see this trend with other movies (loosely) based on books. When an archeologist 3500 years in our future examines the detritus of our civilization what SWAG will they make about our culture/history if their only reference points are the tripe produced by our entertainment industry? What erroneous conclusions have we reached about the ancient Egyptians (or any of the other precursor civilizations) based on the self serving propoganda of that age's "rock star elite" (the tomb writings of the royalty)? Maybe that's why I appreciate The History Channel's "History vs. Hollywood" series so much. Just venting a little - Peregrino

[Solid]

Razor,
When I read a book on a subject that I feel is important, I fact check it extensively. To visualize my concept of knowledge and learning, I see my brain as a box. I try to vet to the highest possible extent all ideas going into it. If there is conflict between ideas that have been vetted, I reconcile the differences and either replace or synthesize them.
As such, I don't feel that there is any harm (to me) in BS in whatever form of communication.

I added the paragraph on the need for better education in critical thinking precisely because I think that these films are currently dangerous. There is nothing inherently dangerous in incorrect information as long as those recieving it can vet it... But right now they can't.

Anyway, sorry if I've been laying out my ideas in a haphazard, ad-hoc manner.

Solid

[one-zero]

Razor,
...As such, I don't feel that there is any harm (to me) in BS in whatever form of communication.
...There is nothing inherently dangerous in incorrect information as long as those recieving it can vet it... But right now they can't.
Anyway, sorry if I've been laying out my ideas in a haphazard, ad-hoc manner.
Solid

Solid;
I'll give you the benefit of doubt as long as possible, but you are laying out your info haphazardly. We call it going through your asshole to get to your elbow.
This information we are speaking of can be vetted - thats why many of us discussing it on this board (and elsewhere) know the portrayal of events in Munich to be BS, and not for the sake of artistic license, but self-motivated and maliscious political stances in the film industry - they realize many people won't look for truth and after a while will "refer" to the movie (pick-one) to take a stand on an issue, much like the moonbats and Moore's F9/11 being touted as a documentary- laughable, but there are retards out there who look at these things as serious discourse...that is not generating "thought" - it's dumbing down.

As Perigrino stated "What annoys me about docudramas and productions "inspired by real events" is the potential for future generations to accept the entertainment as literal truth. How many people seeing Munich will accept it as fact without knowing or caring about the real events?"

Of course he's going easy by referring to potential effect on future generations, unfortunately we don't have to wait as there are people who eat this stuff up as fact in our current society. As I close out you should know they conducted some informal polling/interviews in the DC area and a great deal of mouth-breathers in our nations capitol believe West Wing accurately portrays how the executive branch works, an exceptionally bright few thought it was real...Stupidity on this level is what gets Hamas a majority of votes in palestinian territory - and and could get Hillary elected in 2008
1-0//OUT

[Solid]

Roger that, proceeding to knock 'em out.

Solid

[Huey14]

I saw this last night and wasn't really impressed. It had the usual Speilburg sentimentality, which I don't like a whole lot.

Regarding the individual hits, it seems he wanted to portray Mossad as amatuers. I have no info on how each of the hits were actually done so I'll leave my comments there.

[Cincinnatus]

Those interested in this subject, the Israeli campaign to avenge Munich rather than the movie itself, may wish to read "Striking Back" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400064279/sr=1-1/qid=1139422043/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0324645-0323110?%5Fencoding=UTF8 I thought it presented a much more plausible explanation of what transpired. The author is Israeli, and one should read it with a jaundiced eye, but FWIW I found far less to question or quibble with than "Vengeance" itself, or "Munich."

Edited to correct title of book. These mail order brains, they really should say "One size fits MOST..." Sorry for any confusion.