"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Thread for Comments on Munich Review

I haven't been able to post a comment to S.T. Karnick's Munich review below, so I figure others might be having the same problem. Consider this a thread for posting comments on the film and/or Karnick's review.

For my part, I find myself encouraged by the review. I have been avoiding the film because of exactly the conservative critiques Karnick mentions. I'm glad to hear there is no such obvious agenda at work. When I queried my parents about the film, they likewise disavowed the presence of any moral equivocating between the Israelis and the terrorists in the story.

As usual, the quality of the review is excellent. They don't call him the world's greatest living . . . or perhaps I should say, I don't call him the world's greatest living film critic in the English language™ for nothing.

1 comment:

Tom Van Dyke said...

I did want to add my support to Mr. Karnick's esthetic objection: If Mr. Spielberg wanted vengence, he should have made Death Wish. If he wanted the futility of vengence, he should have made Moby Dick. If he wanted to show what happens in the face of ambivalence about vengence, he should have made Hamlet.

But he wanted a tale about moral confusion, so he made Munich. But confusion is not passion, and it is not drama. It is confusion.

(No, I didn't see it, nor do I intend to until it pops up on cable. I have had no use for Mr. Spielberg since he refused to let the Islamic nation of Malaysia experience the horror of the Holocaust through Schindler's List, because they wanted to censor the nudity [some of which, in Ray Fiennes' bedroom, was gratuitous].

You abrogated your duty as social prophet, Mr. Spielberg, for the cause of your so-called artistry. May you rise or fall with it, and according to Mr. Karnick, it shall surely be the latter. You are, were and remain useless. Enjoy your money. It rains on both the just and the unjust.)