An e-mail: “Your comment [on Spielberg’s in-progress movie about the Mossad killings of the Munich Olympics massacre monsters] suggests that you don’t think it’s valid to make a movie that examines the moral uneasiness of even the most righteous violence. What you’re asking for is a vengeful shoot-’em-up in which killing the bad guys is an easy decision carried out with assurance and moral authority….Why would anyone want to “celebrate” Israel’s decision to carry out a series of murders? Even if we think they were necessary (I suspect they were), there’s no need to attach that sort of chest-puffing bravado to the act of murder. The best stories are the ones that understand that even the right decisions are fraught with moral potholes and ambiguities – or at least can cause some serious mental stress. For whatever reason, you seem to want Spielberg and Kushner to ignore those uncertainties and paint a picture of good old fashioned unquestioning heroes who kill without remorse, utterly certain of their moral superiority. State sanctioned murder may be a political necessity, but it’s not one we should ‘celebrate.’ Recognizing the need for violence is difficult; what Spielberg wants to do is even more difficult – recognize its cost.”

Me: If Spielberg were an “artist” capable of portraying such ambiguities, then perhaps he would earn a pass. He isn’t. He’s a sentimentalist of the first order, as the intolerable ending of “War of the Worlds” demonstrates. Given the simple-mindedness of his thought processes, one can assume only that his film will either be hopelessly confused or that it will portray these acts of heroism — and they were acts of heroism as surely as soldiers on the battlefield commit acts of heroism — as fundamentally illegitimate. And yes, the killing of disgusting terrorists is something that should be “celebrated.” Saluted. Lionized. Trumpeted to the heavens. Without qualification.