The Directors Guild of America recently gave a nod to Steven Spielberg,”Munich” as one of the year’s best flicks. I tend to agree, though, and I can’t be too sure, but this might be the extend of acclaim that his historically based fiction about an Israeli terrorist group gets. If it doesn’t sweep the awards, though, it’s certainly garnered its share of blog attention and punditry. It’s been an interesting read. Munich, in political circles, gets little in the way of love.
Among those strictly reviewing it as a cinematic endeavor, it fares pretty well. But when it gets to those with axes to grind on any particular side of the Israeli/Palestinian thing, the vitriolic prose flow. Those who have come to see the Palestinians as an indigenous people being pushed into nonexistence by an occupation force find no shortage of flaws and colonialist apologies in Spielberg’s film. Those who harbor some belief that a certain literal reading of the Old Testament transforms it into a 2,000-year-old land deed for The Promised Land (or just like having an excuse to pursue more wars in the middle east), the film is an act of treason from the guy who brought us Schindler’s List.
In the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, who I’m sure is comfortable being described as a Zionist, describes the film thusly:
It is an axiom of filmmaking that you can only care about a character you know. In “Munich,” the Israeli athletes are not only theatrical but historical extras, stick figures. Spielberg dutifully gives us their names — Spielberg’s List — and nothing more: no history, no context, no relationships, nothing. They are there to die.
The Palestinians who plan the massacre and are hunted down by Israel are given — with the concision of the gifted cinematic craftsman — texture, humanity, depth, history. The first Palestinian we meet is the erudite translator of poetry giving a public reading, then acting kindly toward an Italian shopkeeper — before he is shot in cold blood by Jews.
Then there is the elderly PLO member who dotes on his 7-year-old daughter before being blown to bits. Not one of these plotters is ever shown plotting Munich, or any other atrocity for that matter. They are shown in the full flower of their humanity, savagely extinguished by Jews.
Meanwhile, over at the The Angry Arab News Service, As’ad Abukhalil writes:
The thrust of the Spielberg movie is simple, fanfare notwithstanding: Israeli killers are conscientious and humane people, while Palestinians are always–no matter what–killers.
And
The Arabs are worse than they were in Renoir’s painting, the Mosque, as an unidentifiable blob. They were just armed, with no humanity. They were not supposed to evoke emotions, and you were not supposed to see them bleed, and if you did, you had to cheer for their killers. The only ones that you had to feel sorry for: were the Israelis who get killed, including the killers when they kill. The music that played when Israelis die, was different from the music that played when Palestinians died. And no speaking roles for Palestinians were necessary. Why bother. Give one a line, and you have done your “objective” duty.
I didn’t come away from the film with either of these writers’ ideas. But then, I liked the movie too, so whatever.
What’s interesting in both these rant/reviews of the film, is that at one point, Krauthammer describes the film as “propaganda” with the intent of espousing “the Palestinian narrative.” Meanwhile, Abukhalil writes: “But why should this movie, a Spielberg’s movie for potato’s sake, bother with facts, especially if they come in the way of a smooth pro-Israeli narrative?”
In the end, Krauthammer’s review slides into what reads like a sunday school lesson on the Old Testament while Abukhalil goes on to delve into the historical realities surrounding the Munich killings and their aftermath, which included the 1973 massacre in Beirut and indiscriminate bombing of refugee camps.
There is much more said on the film elsewhere on the web. Google it. Maybe take a look at these offerings:
- THE WAR ON “MUNICH” by Michelle Goldberg at Salon
- SPIELBERG’S MUNICH — MYTH AND REALITY at Jewish Voice for Peace
Krauthammer’s review is a good synopsis of why the religious right and its various neocon pals hate the flick. Abukhalil offers, from a vastly different perspective, much in the way of Munich’s shortcomings and, once that’s done, you’ll actually learn something of the time period.
But I saw nary a sign of what I’d describe as either the Palestine or Israeli “narrative.” Being that the protagonists were an approximation of the Israeli death squads that were running around at the time, one can’t really make the argument that there was a Palestinian narrative at play. There were Palestinian characters, but this isn’t their story. Spielberg wasn’t putting forth the narrative one finds from trolling Birthright Israel’s site either.
I came away with the idea that Spielberg found Israel’s military policies to be immoral and ultimately self destructive. More than that, though, in a movie geared for a western audience, Spielberg showed what it might be like to be a part of a militant cell in humanistic terms. If he had picked a Palestinian group as opposed to an Israeli one, I doubt even his name could have gotten the film released into the nation’s mega-theaters.
Humanistic portrayals are a two-way street. On the one hand, a group that has been demonized for centuries can be shown in a better, more rational light. On the other hand, a group that has been looked at as angelic beyond reproach can be seen more honestly (and thus, more rationally): human but replete with faults.
Krauthammer points out that Tony Kushner, who cowrote the screenplay, believes that the creation of Israel “was a ‘historical, moral, political calamity’ for the Jewish people.” I agree with him that this idea was apparent in the film. But Krauthammer is wrong to suggest that this is a Palestinian narrative. May 15 in Occupied Palestine, is “Nakba” — or “the Catastrophe” day: That refers to what happened to Palestinians as the result of Israeli statehood, not the Jews in the region.
This is the narrative of people hired to kill. It’s also a look at the immorality and brutal methods of Israel’s military policies.
It’s not enirely fair to compare Krauthammer to Abukhalil. The former is writing for the Washington Post and his words will be seen by scads and will carry the notion of authority that the paper’s masthead tends to bring with it. The latter is writing on on the same blogging service that hosts this one and will be seen by maybe a few more people than mine, but will not get nearly the hits that a Washington Post page gets. The same results seem to play out in the movie industry.
Far more people will see Spielberg’s story about Israelis than will see any Palestinian-based film. If Krauthammer is that worried about Americans somehow being exposed to the Palestinian narrative, he should be happy that Spielberg’s movie is filling so many theaters while the two or three movies from the occupied territories can’t seem to find much in the way of distribution.
It would be neat if the Palestinian narrative could actually get in more theaters. Munich is not really packing the theaters, but even fewer people will get around to seeing Paradise Now, which tends to be making the small arty theater circuit.
If we want to discuss films portraying the Palestinian narrative, let’s look at some about and by Palestinians.
Remember that comedy that came out of Palestine a few years back? Of course not.
Very little has been said or published in the U.S. about “Divine Intervention,” directed by Elia Suleiman.
“Divine Intervention” is rare not so much because it’s a comedy, but because it’s a film from a place with no film industry. On the occasion that something gets put on celluloid by Palestinian people about themselves and the occupation, someone chose to make it humorous.
It’s essentially a story of forbidden love mixed with fantasy-escapist moments that have a sort of low-budget kinship to the film, “Brazil.” It’s also almost completely missed by Western audiences thanks in large part to the good people of the Academy Awards, who “as a rule” don’t consider films made in the Palestinian territories.
Recognizing that a good film was made, Oscar would have apparently had to recognize that a people exist. After the film received some global press for taking the Cannes Film Festival’s International critics’ award, it was roundly snubbed by the Academy, which follows the United Nation’s policy of not recognizing Palestine as a country. It’s an odd decision since it’s film makers that win awards and not governments, but a familiar move for Western culture that sees the word “Palestinian” as a movement, cause, force, or rabid political entity rather than a description for humans, let alone humans capable of artistic expression.
Divine Intervention is Palestinians making a movie about themselves. It’s a Palestinian narrative — just one of many.
Back to Munich, though. Jewish Voice for Peace writes about the reaction to the film:
But to hear the way the film has been characterized by some so-called supporters of Israel, one would believe that Munich featured some exploration of the Palestinian point of view. Indeed, when I saw it, I expected some minor sub-plot where a Palestinian character was somewhat explored. There was none. Again, this is not an indictment of the film—the movie was about Israel and Israelis. But this underscores just how extreme the critics of the film are.
It doesn’t bother me so much that Spielberg made a humanistic look at what’s essentially a terrorist group blowing people up around Europe who may or may not have been involved in the Munich killings. While some critics in the progressive camp have decried the portrayal of assassins “shooting and crying,” that didn’t bother me too much either.
There are accounts where the actual killers in these real-life militant groups say that they weren’t bothered at all by what they did. However, since I’m not buying the propaganda about why they were out killing people in the first place or that they have some sort of age-old-handed-down-from-God right to some biblical plot of land, why would I believe them on this count either. I’d bet some of them did find what the were doing to be self-destructive, whether they’d admit it or not. There are still a few alcoholic, heroin addled homeless Vietnam vets around who will tell you there was nothing wrong with thier tour of duty either.
In the end, what’s disappointed me most about Spielberg is not his film. I enjoyed it as a work of cinema and thought it raised some uncomfortable issues for people who tend to couch things in more back-and-white terms. But in the interviews that have come since, Spielberg is lacking. Instead of further discussing the issues raised in his movie, he seems to backtrack a little, describing it as simply his own little “prayer for peace.”
It’s not that one doesn’t get from the film that Spielberg is against the violent tactics he portrays. It’s just that his oft-repeated quote circumvents the larger discussion to be had. His own movie makes a much stronger statement, which he seems reluctant to fully embrace.
Krauthammer, who finds the movie downright repellent, gets closer at what Spielberg seems to be saying than the director does himself:
This is hardly surprising, considering that “Munich’s” case for the moral bankruptcy of the Israeli cause — not just the campaign to assassinate Munich’s planners but the entire enterprise of Israel itself — is so thorough that the movie concludes with the lead Mossad assassin, seared by his experience, abandoning Israel forever. Where does the hero resettle? In the only true home for the Jew of conscience, sensitivity and authenticity: Brooklyn.
It would be nice if Spielberg did more fully explore the messages of his film in interviews, instead of letting it be framed by zealots (as seen in the paragraph above). I don’t know that Spielberg is referring to the whole “Israeli cause” (ask 100 different Israelis what they think that is and see how many answers you get. Ask where the borders are, while you’re at it. There are a few people who’d like to know), but he is saying something about about the outcome of Israel’s current pattern. By extension, one could look at U.S. activity in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Latin America and elsewhere and see parallels: If more people knew the truth about how these nations hold power, would they want to be a part of it?
Tags: activism, film, Israel, occupation, Palestine, politics, Stephen Speilberg
Recently commented