Thursday, January 26, 2006

Spielberg continues to blubber on.

Entertainment: At this point he is pretty punch drunk as the article referenced in Reuters earlier this week comes out. I am not going to rehash the entire article because this is the most important part.

"SPIEGEL: You are celebrated enthusiastically by the critics, and you have also been slammed. But rarely has a director been attacked and vilified so personally for a film as you have now. You have been called a blind pacifist, even a traitor to the cause of Israel. Spielberg: Fortunately, the people who write that kind of thing are a small but very loud minority. It saddens me to see how narrow-minded and dogmatic some of the right-wing fundamentalists here in the USA are. I thank God that people who are important to me see "Munich" quite differently. Liberal American Jews, for example, but also some families of the victims from that time in Israel. They have embraced the message of the film. SPIEGEL: The main charge against "Munich" is political or, if you wish, ideological: you are accused of morally equating the Palestinian terrorists with their Israeli pursuers. Spielberg: That is utter nonsense. Those critics are behaving as if we all had no moral compass. Naturally, it is a terrible, despicable crime when, as in Munich, people are taken hostage, people are killed. But probing the motives of those responsible and showing that they are also individuals with families and have their own story does not excuse what they did. Wanting to understand the background to a murder doesn't mean you accept it. To understand does not mean to forgive. Understanding has nothing to do with being soft; it is a brave and very robust attitude to take. SPIEGEL: Your opponents say that you "humanize" terror. Spielberg: Do these critics really mean that terrorists are not human beings? I try not to demonize them. Again, this has absolutely nothing to with relativizing their acts or sympathizing with them. But I do believe that it sullies the memory of the victims if we do not ask questions about the reasons, about the roots of terror. My film is not supposed to be a pamphlet, not a caricature, not a one-dimensional view of things. I refuse to give simple answers to complicated questions. "
Fearfully of demonizing terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children, but no problem demonizing his critics which includes the Israeli government, Mossad agents. But as long as his liberal friends are okay with it, then he must be correct. I already went over here and here in detail. People already know about the terrorist having families and their roots, you are trying to mask your liberal(talk till you are blue in the gills) views as hard hitting commentary that is pushing everyone to talk about the conflict like it hasn't been discussed at length before you came along. That is just arrogant or ignorance. Now a bit of advice.
SPIEGEL: Your film is based on a controversial book written in 1982 by the Canadian author George Jonas called "Vengeance"... Spielberg: ... which I believe to be authentic. I wouldn't have made the film if I hadn't been convinced of my sources. Together with scriptwriter Tony Kushner, I met the former agent described by Jonas and known as Avner, and more than once. We spent many hours together. I trust my intuition and my common sense: the man is not lying, he is not exaggerating. Everything he says is true.
Oprah found out the hard way where that type of attitude can get ya, it would be wise for you to learn.

Forums||
Copyright Narbosa 1998-2006
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com