Jump to content

Munich


Guest jbee

Recommended Posts

Both movies are Women's Stories (from acclaimed novels) starting with sisters ripped apart from their families and finally their sisters. Both have older viragos as villians and/or idols admired/feared by the Main Characters. Both should not have been directed by white men. Other than that, they are different movies, but not dissimiliar in the execution of adapting them to big screen.

 

 

Evan Guilfoyle

Filmmaker-www.chlorofilm.com

Baltimore, MD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But, Charles Fox ("Day of the Jackal") was interesting as a Frenchman (read: Anti-Semitic) with compassion toward Avner and his family. I found that detail insightful into the movie "Munich" could have been.

 

 

I believe you are reffering to the actor Michael Lonsdale, playing the part of "Papa", who was also in "Day of the Jackal" (the original version), a great film, BTW. I agree, he gave an outstanding performance. Wonderful to see him in a high profile movie again. Makes me long for the days of the 1970's when actors of his ilk were far more prevalent.

 

I enjoyed "Munich", thought it was a good film, and although Kaminski's work was by no means the most original approach to this type of material, I felt it was expertly done and lent a great deal of immediacy to the film. Also loved the zooms!

 

Raffi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are reffering to the actor Michael Lonsdale, playing the part of "Papa", who was also in "Day of the Jackal" (the original version), a great film, BTW. I agree, he gave an outstanding performance. Wonderful to see him in a high profile movie again.

 

Yes, you're right Lonsdale not Fox played "Papa". But besides the correction, which I appreciate, don't you find that if "Munich" could include scenes like the one mentioned, then the terrorists and their victims could have been more than ciphers for the filmmaker's agenda? Since it did include a scene like the one I mentioned, some of "Munich"'s selective compassion includes the French (who were complicit with the Nazis), but not the Palestinians who were defined by their horrible actions and political opinions, that just seems strange to me.

 

Why allow the French agents, and Avner and his men (who all did bad things), grace notes, but then treat Palestinians like Brown People with Machine Guns and myopia? The filmmakers went the extra length for some characters but then essentially depict the Black September and their ilk as sketchily as the Terrorists from "Delta Force" (yes, the Chuck Norris movie). And in a movie as long as "Munich", there was room for compassion, regardless of the Religious or Racial background of the character. Especially, since this movie was controversial for its "balanced" depiction of both edges of the sword.

 

Some one else wrote in that if you watch "Munich" from the perspective of a jew fighting this battle from the Jewish perspective then the movie has sub-text and different tones. Not to be argumentative, but the main characters ARE MOSSAD AGENTS, how else was I supposed to watch the movie if not from the Main Characters perspective? Or how about this question, doesn't the movie become more one-dimensional (and as a result, less of a movie) by only viewing it from the Jewish perspective. How about watching the movie from a humanist perspective, then and only then will we understand what compels men (of any persuasion) to commit acts of violence in the name of righteousness. Which I also believe to be the point of Kushner and Spielberg's collaboration, but maybe I'm mistaken.

 

Evan Guilfoyle

Filmmaker-www.chlorofilm.com

Baltimore, MD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I found most troubling, is how this film purports to trace the genesis of modern counterterrorism in the political powder keg we live in today; but does so in a manner that is, for all intents and purposes, safe, relatively non-controversial and seemingly one-sided/voiced. Speilberg and Kusnher spoke of "humanizing" both sides, but all I saw was a Palestinian at the corner grocery store, I'm sorry but that's not news to me. Any human will find himself at the grocery store every now and then, that's a given. Shouldn't something this important be an unbiased historical document, with something more to say than "Damn, I can't even have sex properly, anymore!"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had suggested looking at the movie from a jewish perspective, and the intention is to imagine that you were Avner NOT to be a mere observer. Why would it really matter to you, as Avner, what the other side thinks? Let's not pretend that anyone is so compassionate or idealistic that they would ignore their needs or ideology by a chance meeting with an opposing force/group/ideology. Are you willing to change your politics after a chance or random encounter with someone of the other side?

 

Soldiers do not care about the other side; they cannot or they will fail. Avner is a soldier so why split hairs? I've never seen anyone suggest that Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down should have paid any attention to the oposing Soldiers? How about Kurosawa's Seven Samurai? Or maybe Pearl Harbour? Platoon? Full Metal Jacket? This is a movie about war, about killing, about violence. Why should things be any different for this movie? If the perspective of MOSSAD agents is the main one, then accept that perspective.

 

Did Schindler's List become one dimensional because it was told from Liams characters view of what HE was doing during the war? I don't think so. Compare Munich to Hero (Jet Li), there are parallels. Home is a concept few people think to question or understand until you speak to a homeless person or are out on the streets yourself. Imagine then an entire people without a home. I do agree there was not a balanced perspective; it was very one sided, but it worked for me.

 

Humanist perspective? If someone wants to make a movie where everyone has a chance to plead their cause effectively and neutrally, the movie would be at least four hours long and boring, because I am not interested in everyone's point of view, I'm interested in the Director's and protagonists view. If the point of this movie was to present a balanced view then perhaps it failed on that level, but not on others.

 

I also agree that the violence was minimized and thought that was a weak decision on the filmmakers part.

 

Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Since it did include a scene like the one I mentioned, some of "Munich"'s selective compassion includes the French (who were complicit with the Nazis),

In regards to the complicity with the Nazis, I presume you are referring to the French characters in this movie, not the French in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had suggested looking at the movie from a jewish perspective, and the intention is to imagine that you were Avner NOT to be a mere observer. Why would it really matter to you, as Avner, what the other side thinks? Let's not pretend that anyone is so compassionate or idealistic that they would ignore their needs or ideology by a chance meeting with an opposing force/group/ideology. Are you willing to change your politics after a chance or random encounter with someone of the other side?

 

Soldiers do not care about the other side; they cannot or they will fail. Avner is a soldier so why split hairs? I've never seen anyone suggest that Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down should have paid any attention to the oposing Soldiers? How about Kurosawa's Seven Samurai? Or maybe Pearl Harbour? Platoon? Full Metal Jacket? This is a movie about war, about killing, about violence. Why should things be any different for this movie? If the perspective of MOSSAD agents is the main one, then accept that perspective.

 

 

Yeah, but none of the films you mention (other than Pearl Harbour, which I cannot speak for because I never saw) ever claimed to be a morality play intended to document history and present a clear understanding of what is an extremely important turning point in modern politics; either via it's own voice or that of it's creators. Which, I believe, Munich clearly feels it is/does.

 

As for the perspective; don't you feel you have no choice as to whose shoes you are in? Again feel free to disagree as well and as you said elsewhere, this is the choice of filmmaker and a choice he has every right to make (thankfully).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Alfred
Both movies are Women's Stories (from acclaimed novels) starting with sisters ripped apart from their families and finally their sisters. Both have older viragos as villians and/or idols admired/feared by the Main Characters. Both should not have been directed by white men. Other than that, they are different movies, but not dissimiliar in the execution of adapting them to big screen.

Evan Guilfoyle

Filmmaker-www.chlorofilm.com

Baltimore, MD

I disagree. Having a white male director tackle material centered around the struggles and triumph of ethnic women actually brings greater attention to these projects. The Color Purple is a human story. Although people in general miss the greater theme of Purple which is the search for God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Just saw "Munich" and for the most part liked what I saw. I agree that it was Pro-Israel, but I would expect no less from Spielberg. And for him, I would consider it as balanced as he is capable of producing.

 

I was taken by the discussion on the stairs where the Palestinian tells Avenir of his passion for homeland, something Avenir's mother echoes later in the film. And something that gives a clear insight into why the conflict will never be resolved.

 

My biggest beef with the film is the same beef I had with Saving Private Ryan, and to a much lesser degree, Schindler's List. For some reason, probably because he is so used to making blockbuster eye candy, Spielberg feels he needs to stick a big fu**ing shiny red bow on the end of his movies. His worst offense was that garbage ending about "Earn this" and the final cemetary scene in Private Ryan. He did it to a lesser degree with the Righteous Gentiles procession at the end of Schindler's List, and he did it again in Munich with that final shot of the World Trade Centers right after the lead character says that the violence will not end. I mean, come on Steven, WE GET IT!, you do not need to bash us in the face with it.

 

Otherwise, I thought it was a good couple of hours of storytelling. Although I was thrown a bit by the totally different saturation levels as they traveled around Europe and the Middle East, again something that I found a bit heavy handed.

 

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in Munich with that final shot of the World Trade Centers right after the lead character says that the violence will not end. I mean, come on Steven, WE GET IT!, you do not need to bash us in the face with it.

-Tim

 

What I would like to add is that I believe he missed a chance to make this movie great. You know the scene when the killer has all those visions of men he has killed (of guilt, perhaps) while banging his understanding and forgiving wife? Imagine Tammy Wynette's "Stand by Your Man" music edited with this scene!? It would be a real masterpiece then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film is absoutely beautiful.

 

The desaturation, the heavy contrast, blown out windows, the grainy texture. In everyway the image felt like a film stock from the 70's.

 

in Munich with that final shot of the World Trade Centers right after the lead character says that the violence will not end. I mean, come on Steven, WE GET IT!, you do not need to bash us in the face with it.

 

This is an over exaggeration. Filmmakers have been using symbolic imagery like this since the beginning. Panning over to the WTC was not heavy handed at all. In fact so slight I'm sure many people missed it.

 

Avner questioning what he has done and its ultimate results. Replacing one terrorist with another who is even worse. To then end up on the World Trade Center was perfect.

 

As a New Yorker I could appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
This is an over exaggeration. Filmmakers have been using symbolic imagery like this since the beginning. Panning over to the WTC was not heavy handed at all. In fact so slight I'm sure many people missed it.

 

Avner questioning what he has done and its ultimate results. Replacing one terrorist with another who is even worse. To then end up on the World Trade Center was perfect.

 

As a New Yorker I could appreciate it.

 

I disagree. I would not have minded a subtle symbol, but come on, especially being a New Yorker you should have gotten it as soon as you knew he was meeting his contact in the park by the river. I am a former New Yorker and knowing he was living in Brooklyn, and when they met at the park by the river, I immediately thought, "Wow, 1973, the towers are still standing, how ironic." And then for them to do that slow tracking shot and come up on the towers in the haze in the background, I mean come on. Bash you in the face, piss on the rug filmmaking.

 

That being said, I applaud Spielberg's effort on making this film and there is an excellent article in the LA Times this morning where Tony Kushner talks about the film.

 

Defending Munich's disputed territory

 

Defending 'Munich's' disputed territory

By Tony Kushner

 

January 22, 2006

 

 

At a recent family gathering, my cousin-in-law, Janice, asked me to respond to complaints she'd read over and over again about "Munich," the Steven Spielberg film I co-wrote with Eric Roth, which she hadn't yet seen.

 

The movie is stirring up a lot of controversy, which I anticipated when I agreed to work on it. I even considered it a side benefit that my mishpocheh, my family, an occasionally argumentative bunch, would have fresh subject matter for the discussion part of our next few Seders. Matzo balls might be flung, but arguing is good for the digestion.

 

In the last month, the co-creators of "Munich" have been accused of being apologists for the Palestinians, apologists for Israel, defamers of Palestinians and of Israel, softheaded Hollywood liberals, dupes of the radical left, dupes of the radical right, even of being anti-Semitic or self-loathing, for showing Jews talking about receipts and handling money. We're morally confused, overly complicated, simplistic. We're cowards who refused to take sides. We took a side but, oops! the wrong side.

 

I wondered which of the charges Janice had in mind.

 

Is it the case, she asked, that "Munich" is based on a discredited book, "Vengeance"? No, I answered, it's based on a book, "Vengeance," that has been challenged but never discredited ? these are not the same things. There is no definitive account of what was, after all, a covert operation. But no one is challenging the central historical fact in the debate that "Munich" is meant to catalyze: These Palestinians were assassinated by Israel, following the Palestinian murder of the Israeli athletes in Munich.

 

Next question: Why does the movie show Mossad agents having doubts and regrets about killing terrorists when apparently they never have doubts and regrets? Why did you make that up?

 

I've never killed anyone, but my instincts as a person and a playwright ? and the best books I've read about soldiers or cops or people whose jobs bring them into violent physical conflict ? suggest that people in general don't kill without feeling torn up about it. Violence exacts a psychic toll, unless you're a sociopath, and who wants to watch a movie about sociopaths?

 

"Munich" dramatizes the toll violence takes. This bothers a few people at both ends of the political spectrum. I understand why those who think Israeli agents are villainous, unfeeling killing machines disparage our conscience-ridden characters. I'm confused by those who think that a depiction of the agents as conscienceless would make them more impressive and heroic.

 

Janice asked a third question: Why do I, her cousin-in-law, apparently have a secret plan to destroy Israel?

 

I have indeed been critical of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza ? well, Janice knew that already. I'm an American and a proudly Diasporan Jew. I believe that the best hope for any oppressed minority is found in the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law, in secular pluralist democracy. I believe that governments ? and our souls ? are nourished by honesty, open-mindedness and public debate, even of scary ideas and uncomfortable truths. But my criticism of Israel has always been accompanied by declarations of unconditional support of Israel's right to exist, and I believe that the global community has a responsibility to defend that right. I have written and spoken of my love for Israel.

 

This inconvenient complication in my views has been carefully edited out of the caricature of me that's being offered up by people whose disregard for truth has informed their account of "Munich." The film is neither the simple cartoon their distortions make of it, nor a mirror image of its wicked screenwriter.

 

Janice wanted to know why I hadn't responded to my accusers. I explained that I wanted the film to speak for itself. Janice, and about 100 other people, suggested that maybe, in the midst of this storm of opinion, I could venture to speak a little for the film.

 

"Munich" is not me or my politics masquerading as a movie. It's been shaped with remarkable generosity by Steven Spielberg into a historical fiction informed by several perspectives, including mine. We have prescribed nothing more specific for understanding the Mideast conflict, and the dilemma terrorism poses to civilization, than that you allow your unshakable convictions a little breathing room.

 

I think it's the refusal of the film to reduce the Mideast controversy, and the problematics of terrorism and counterterrorism, to sound bites and spin that has brought forth charges of "moral equivalence" from people whose politics are best served by simple morality tales. We live in the Shock and Awe Era, in which instant strike-back and blow-for-blow aggression often trump the laborious process of analysis, investigation and diplomacy. "Munich's" questioning spirit is an affront to armchair warrior columnists who understand power only as firepower. We're at war, and the job of artists in wartime, they seem to feel, is to provide the kind of characters and situations that are staples of propaganda: cleanly representative of Good or Evil, and obedient to the Message.

 

Contradiction in human affairs, such as the possibility that injustice can drive people to do horrible things, is routinely deplored and dismissed in these troubled times as just another example of the naivete of the morally weak (a.k.a. liberals and progressives). But there will always be pesky people who, when horrific crimes are committed, insist on asking, "Why did that happen?"

 

This is a great annoyance to the up-and-at-'em crowd, whose unshakable conviction is that the only sane and effective response to terrorism is savage violence commensurate with the original act. To justify this conviction they offer, as so many of the political critics of "Munich" have done, tautologies on the order of "evil deeds are done by evil people who do evil deeds because that's what evil people do." If that's helpful to you as a tool for understanding terrorism, you won't like "Munich."

 

In the film, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is presented not as a matter of religion versus religion, or sanity versus insanity, or good versus evil or civilization versus barbarism or Judeo-Christian culture versus Muslim culture, but rather as a struggle over territory, over geography, over home.

 

We've followed the lead of many Israeli historians, novelists, filmmakers, poets and politicians who have recognized and described the Israeli-Palestinian struggle this way ? as something tragic and human, recognizable. We've incurred the wrath of people who reject, with what sounds like panic, an inescapable fact of human life: People do terrible things in the name of a cause they believe is just, even in the name of a cause that actually is just.

 

"Munich" insists that this characteristic of human behavior is not meaningless in the struggle against terrorism. In other words, we believe that one aspect of the struggle against terrorism is the struggle to comprehend terrorism. If you think understanding the enemy is unimportant, well, maybe there's a job in Washington for you.

 

As I write this, Janice is watching "Munich," to see for herself what all the fuss is about. It's long, I warned her; pee first. She'll e-mail me with her reactions. I eagerly anticipate the conversation. Like most cousins-in-law, we agree and disagree about many things. When we agree, there's joy or consolation. When we disagree, there's adrenaline ? and occasionally a spark leaps a previously unleapt synapse, and a new idea is made.

 

Tony-, Emmy- and Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner's works include "Caroline, or Change" and "Angels in America." "Munich," written with Eric Roth, is his first screenplay.

 

 

 

 

-Tim Carroll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having to grow up during this 'era of terra' is such a waste of freaking time. I'm sick of hearing about it, seeing it in the theater, on tV and the internet. The statistics make me sick and I'm sick of forcing myself to care.

 

<_<

 

Woohoo! We're going through the Dark Ages again!

 

Instead of radical Christianity, it's the rusty sword of Islam! Whoopdy-doo! "Big difference"!

 

I miss the pre-9/11 world. I really, REALLY miss it.

 

:(

 

Who cares about Munich. I'm going to see King Kong again instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For one example in MidNight Cowboy. Rizzo's dream is to move to Florida. A running theme in the movie are Florida orange juice ads. The ads show people drinking orange juice in a sunny happy enviroment, invocative of the enviornment Rizzo wanted to be in.

 

These ads were shown several times in various ways through the film, to my memory the director was not accused of bashing us on the head with this theme.

 

When they were standing by the East River they were in Long Island City in Queens. I was a bit distracted because some of the tall buildings across the river were not there in 1973. One prominent building in the background is the Bloomberg Tower which was just completed last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
For one example in MidNight Cowboy. Rizzo's dream is to move to Florida. A running theme in the movie are Florida orange juice ads. The ads show people drinking orange juice in a sunny happy enviroment, invocative of the enviornment Rizzo wanted to be in.

 

These ads were shown several times in various ways through the film, to my memory the director was not accused of bashing us on the head with this theme.

 

When they were standing by the East River they were in Long Island City in Queens. I was a bit distracted because some of the tall buildings across the river were not there in 1973. One prominent building in the background is the Bloomberg Tower which was just completed last year.

 

Tenolian, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

As a side note, have you ever been in the Long Island City riverside park on the Fourth of July. It may not be as bad now as it was last time I was there in the summer of 1994, but it was like a war zone. Folks were shooting exploding bottle rockets back and forth across the park sideways. They were traveling about five to ten feet above the ground until they exploded or hit something. If it were not for the families with strollers and little kids, it would have been hilariously absurd. As it was, it was more than just a little dangerous. I lived most of my years in New York on the Upper West Side, but spent about a year in Astoria, which was an interesting experience.

 

-Tim Carroll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all the cinematographic value aside, i dont think that i am going to watch munich. simply for the reason that spielberg deliberately distorted the story to such a high degree away from the real events that i have to ask myself: "wheres the point ?...if i want to see another fantasy movie i watch king kong".

i wouldnt have minded a little of the typical "hollywood exaggeration", after all the audience wants to see blood explosions and sex, but really where is the point of making a movie out of such a well documented historical drama, and then altering it so much that it has considerable inequalities to the real events ?

Edited by Dmuench
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Why not watch it and judge it for what it is, a work of drama? When you watch Shakespeare's "Richard III" does the historical inaccuracies really matter? How about "My Darling Clementine"? Either something works as a movie and a work of art, or it doesn't. "Munich" is not a documentary and shouldn't be subject to those sorts of rules. "JFK" could be practically a fantasy for all I care, but it is an involving, entertaining movie.

 

You ask "what's the point?" if it's not completely accurate? The point is to create a drama about moral conflict, that's the point.

 

I mean, how accurate is "Lawrence of Arabia"? Does it matter? If I said that Claude Rains' character was a fictional composite of several historical figures, would you refuse to therefore see the movie? If I told you that Alec Guinness' Prince Faisal should have been played by a much younger actor, would that make a difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all the cinematographic value aside, i dont think that i am going to watch munich. simply for the reason that spielberg deliberately distorted the story to such a high degree away from the real events that i have to ask myself: "wheres the point ?...if i want to see another fantasy movie i watch king kong".

i wouldnt have minded a little of the typical "hollywood exaggeration", after all the audience wants to see blood explosions and sex, but really where is the point of making a movie out of such a well documented historical drama, and then altering it so much that it has considerable inequalities to the real events ?

It's historical fiction; it's not necessarily meant to be accurate. Besides, the true accounts of what happened are still top secret and heavily denied by everyone involved, so even if they had attempted to make it true to life it would have been impossible. The events depicted probably didn't happen, but no one can say for certain how much of it is made up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What Spielberg did, that I appreciate, is that he brought up a subject that is very pertinent to the events of today. He does a story about terrorism and revenge. And he does a story about the attitude of "We are right and holy and anything we do in the name of our being right and holy is also right and holy." Sounds alot like a certain president living in Washington and a certain extreme fundamentalist living in the mountains of Pakistan. And he shows that the situation is far more morally complicated than most people want to take the time to think about. What could be more in tune with our world right now.

 

-Tim Carroll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not watch it and judge it for what it is, a work of drama? When you watch Shakespeare's "Richard III" does the historical inaccuracies really matter? How about "My Darling Clementine"? Either something works as a movie and a work of art, or it doesn't. "Munich" is not a documentary and shouldn't be subject to those sorts of rules. "JFK" could be practically a fantasy for all I care, but it is an involving, entertaining movie.

 

You ask "what's the point?" if it's not completely accurate? The point is to create a drama about moral conflict, that's the point.

 

I mean, how accurate is "Lawrence of Arabia"? Does it matter? If I said that Claude Rains' character was a fictional composite of several historical figures, would you refuse to therefore see the movie? If I told you that Alec Guinness' Prince Faisal should have been played by a much younger actor, would that make a difference?

 

 

ok maybe i expressed myself the wrong way. i generaly dont care too much about historical accuracy.

as david said corretly after all munich is not a documentray, but i think that it is very important when it comes to such a contemporary political issue, where people go into the cinemas and come out with an opinion about that event, the representation of the former is historicaly correct.

 

if spielberg just wanted to create a drama with a moral conflict...why not make up a story that has nothign to do with actual events ? or is this event needed to bring such a message across ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't know if this was touched on, I read about three pages and nothing was very concerned with the technical merits of the film so I just skipped to the end here.

 

It seemed much of the movie was shot in pastels, so much so that some of it seemed almost cartoonish.

Because of its pedigree I assume this was intentional, though I couldn't see a reason why.

 

Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

That said, I loved it, reminded me of Frankenheimer's best.

 

bt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Partly to create a 70's retro feeling, partly just because saturated color would have been too cheerful, and partly to differentiate between some of the settings.

 

But this is the first-time I've heard anyone call a pastel image "cartoonish" -- usually that word is applied to saturated, primary colors. "Painterly" maybe, in the sense that the colors are non-realistic but not in the hyper-bold sense of a comic book, but in the opposite direction like an impressionist painting. Of course, these days we have "graphic novels" done in monochromatic tones... maybe I'm just getting old.

 

I don't think the movie is so inaccurate to be an out-and-out fantasy, by the way, but these assassins are not major historical figures, nor is what they did well-documented, so I think dramatic license is acceptable for the sake of creating drama. I think the real criticism should be in regards to how it works as drama, not as history. Otherwise you get wrapped up in what Herzog refers to as "an accountant's version of the truth."

 

People need to always be skeptical anyway about "facts" presented in fiction, or anything for that matter. Some natural skepticism towards the media should be taught from birth, so I don't really buy the argument "what if someone watches the movie and believes it's all accurate?" Dramatic fiction with a historical setting should inspire you to learn something about the real history, but it should never be used as the source for historical facts, so if someone is mislead by a fictional film, then that's a fault in them, not the filmmaker. Now if the filmmaker makes claims as to the absolute historical accuracy of their work, then they open themselves up to scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People need to always be skeptical anyway about "facts" presented in fiction, or anything for that matter. Some natural skepticism towards the media should be taught from birth, so I don't really buy the argument "what if someone watches the movie and believes it's all accurate?" Dramatic fiction with a historical setting should inspire you to learn something about the real history, but it should never be used as the source for historical facts, so if someone is mislead by a fictional film, then that's a fault in them, not the filmmaker. Now if the filmmaker makes claims as to the absolute historical accuracy of their work, then they open themselves up to scrutiny.

 

i buy that :)

 

here in germany there were quite a few tv dicussions in the last 10 days or so where the movie has been compared to the book and all the differences have ben discussed and compared to "what realy hapened". maybe i go n watch it anyway to have a comparison.

has anyone read the book ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
if someone is mislead by a fictional film, then that's a fault in them, not the filmmaker. Now if the filmmaker makes claims as to the absolute historical accuracy of their work, then they open themselves up to scrutiny.

 

David, I would agree with you up to a point. As far as what Spielberg did in Munich, I definitely agree. Spielberg did not promote the film as "this is what actually happened" and nowhere have I seen anyone associated with the film trying to make that argument.

 

On the other hand, a film like JFK, that I think the fault definitely lies with Oliver Stone. I was in an acting company at the Cleveland Playhouse when JFK came out. And between rehearsals, most of us made it to the local cineplex and caught it. The "kids" in the company, those who were born after 1970, were really misled by what Stone did. I remember talking with a few of them after they had seen it and they really believed that there was this whole conspiracy to kill Kennedy. When I tried to explain that the conspiracy theory was just one theory of what really happened, they brought up the newsreel footage (which Stone faked) and other things in the movie to bolster their view. In that case, I felt JFK was strictly Oliver Stone propaganda.

 

-Tim Carroll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...