So…isn’t what she just described, in fact, actually equating the IDF who went after murderers and the terrorists who killed innocent athletes simply because they were Israeli?
UPDATE: A reader says I read that too quickly. I agree:
Spielberg’s Munich looks to belong to the 1930s, but I
don’t believe that the quote you mention is bad.
“We didn’t feel it was an affront or a negative thing,
or an equation between the terrorists and the people
who were trying to eliminate them _ not innocent
people, but people who would try to make another
“We didn’t feel it was an affront or negative thing”
ok so far.
“or an equation between the terrorists and the people
who were trying to eliminate them” she rejects the
criticism of the movie, claiming that it does NOT
equate the Israelis with the terrorists. She may be
wrong, but her reasoning is fine.
“_ not innocent people, but people who would try to
make another Munich,” I believe that this refers to
the terrorists, and says that they are not innocent,
but they, the terrorists, are people who would strike
again. This implies that their deaths were justified.
“Munich” ought to have shown outrage at the murderers,
outrage at Germany’s collaborationist response, and
relief at the death of the terrorists (we ought to be
doing the same thing with the guy Germany released to
Lebanon). But that would be a Ridley Scott film.
The good news is that whatever message Spielberg
intends, what most Americans will learn is that Israel
takes this s**t personal, and that we need to learn
from them. The Israelis will be heroes in the US no
matter what Steven “I love Castro” intended.
We took over “Dr. Strangelove”, we can do the same to “Munich”.