Spielberg Attacks America
Dec 4th, 2005 by Mark
Living in L.A. does funny things to people, especially if you have some success in the movie industry. A place where people pretend to do great things, be great people, solve problems with ease, and the repercussions are easily solved. Then you get to hear day after day, how great you are, how people love you, plus people who are “important” take your call, and everyone wants you around.
You see yourself in the trades and the LA Times hailed as great. Some even reach a vaunted position of getting a Time cover. Yet, through all of this; these celebrities never figure out that they are only being courted so people can make money.
The only people who really care what these deluded souls say, are the people buying ‘fan mags’. Hardly the people who change the world. Oh every now and then a politico brings a celeb along, but they don’t do it for policy. They do it for attention. It helps when the celeb says what the politico says, but it’s not necessary.
Sometimes, even the media — lefties mostly who are just as impressed with themselves — actually buy into the myth created by their own. Such is the case with Time magazine’s cover featuring Steven Spielberg.
Spielberg is being featured on the cover of Time, to promote his new movie “Munich”. He is not doing any promotion other than this interview with Time. Can you imagine what Bush would be called if he tried this? Spielberg and his looney lefty friends would be screaming. Yes I know he is different, but Hollywood and the left believe themselves to be on the same level.
Spielberg says he wants the movie to speak for it’s self. I predict that this will be a huge mistake. I also predict lots of sound and fury in Hollywood, and only moderate success at the box office. Spielberg like many in Hollywood is too impressed with himself. The critics, who are also full of themselves are selling this as an “Oscar Contender”. Time for a reality check. If is is loses money, it won’t matter how many Oscars it wins. Oscars don’t pay bills. Box Office Receipts however do.
“I don’t think any movie or any book or any work of art can solve the stalemate in the Middle East today,” director Steven Spielberg tells TIME in an exclusive cover-story interview. “But it’s certainly worth a try,” Spielberg says.
Ever heard of the Bible?
How is a movie about an event in 1972 where Arabs taking Jews hostage, murdering them, and the resulting response; going to help the conflict? I seem to remember the looney left — of which Spielberg is a member — saying that showing the WTC would only bring out hate for Arabs. See what I mean? They live in this fantasy world.
Since filming began in June, the movie (reported to cost around $70 million) “has been surrounded by rumors, criticism, and suggestions that Spielberg was too pro-Israel to make a fair movie,” according to TIME.
A Jew, is too pro-Israel? This is what passes for reasoned analysis in Hollywood, and the media. I also find it funny that Hollywood is concerned with making a ‘fair movie’.
They don’t seem to care when it’s not about terrorists. That is the problem with Hollywood. If you are not a terrorist, murderer, rapist, or child molester; they just don’t care to be fair. If you are any of those they will do everything they can to help you.
Spokesman Marvin Levy said, “He (Spielberg) said, ‘Let me make the movie, and then we’ll show the movie, and everyone can make up their own minds.”
Another associate added: “We know there’s going to be controversy. We just want to make sure it’s informed.”
That is just too funny. How can it be informed when it’s not even being explained, viewed, or talked about by those who made it? Sounds like they just don’t want to deal with the criticism they are sure to get, so they duck it.
“I’m always in favor of Israel responding strongly when it’s threatened. At the same time, a response to a response doesn’t really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual-motion machine,” Spielberg says. “There’s been a quagmire of blood for blood for many decades in that region. Where does it end? How can it end?”
Thanks for clarifying that you are an idiot. It’s o.k. to respond, but only once? Is twice o.k.? Isn’t it o.k. for the terrorists to respond to a response? Why don’t you criticize the murderers, a.k.a. terrorists? So desperate to appear even-handed and fair that you sound like an idiot.
Oh but this is not the worst of it. Reuters won’t even call them terrorists.
LOS ANGELES, Dec 4 (Reuters) - Director Steven Spielberg said his new film “Munich,” the story of Israel’s revenge for the killing of its athletes by Palestinian guerrillas at the 1972 Olympics, is “a prayer for peace,” Time magazine reported on Sunday.
“[G]uerrillas”, “revenge”! WTF? Wouldn’t they at least be kidnapers? How about terrorists? Oh we can’t say that anymore. Not P.C. enough.
If they are guerrillas, then it’s a war. That means it is self defense. Dim-wits.
Spielberg has hinted that his portrayal of Israel’s revenge tactics would not be entirely flattering and would raise questions about the US ‘war on terrorism’ since September 11.
“By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic stand-off we find ourselves in today,” Spielberg said in July.
Well, well, well; what have we here? Sounds like old Stevey is finally being honest. So it’s o.k. for Israel to defend itself against terrorists, but not America. Or is it really a story of weak-kneed lefties who don’t want to win? Maybe it’s about being nice to terrorists, so they will leave you alone?
Spielberg’s film is based in part on the 1984 book Vengeance, an account drawn from the purported confessions of a former Mossad assassin. Mossad veterans and Palestinian Munich mastermind Mohammad Daoud are those who have questioned Spielberg and grumbled they were not consulted.
Why didn’t he consult the terrorists, err guerrillas? Did he not want to be fair?
Also why are Mossad agents “assassins”, while Palestinians are “guerrillas”? Yea, no bias there!
IT WAS certainly surprising that in preparing for the film you chose not to personally speak with any of the surviving participants, both Israeli and Palestinian, of the events your film describes. This is even more disturbing in light of reports that one of your source materials is the George Jonas book Vengeance, whose account of the Munich massacre aftermath has been largely discredited since it was first published. No wonder that former Mossad chief Zvi Zamir, who oversaw the operation, has publicly taken your research methods to task. says the Jewish Post
Well that’s not good.
Also disturbing was your choice of American-Jewish playwright Tony Kushner, an outspoken left-wing critic of Israel, to co-write the screenplay of Munich. Kushner has gone on record in declaring that “Zionism is an unappealing and problematic heritage” and “Zionism aimed at the establishment of a national identity is predicated on a reading of Jewish history and an interpretation of the meaning of Jewish history that I don’t share.”
I am confused. Spielberg said this movie is through the eyes of the Mossad agents. Yet none were consulted, the source material is suspect, and you won’t even talk about it. Sounds like propaganda to me.
So do the facts matter in a fact-based movie? Clearly not, he wasn’t concerned with the Truth either. Surely he must have found some people with insight? Let’s check.
Advisors on the film included former US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross and former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, who worked for President Bill Clinton. Elan Steinberg, executive director emeritus of the World Jewish Congress, says he does not think Spielberg will encounter any difficulty for the film from Jewish leaders.
None of these people have any clue about what happened. They are all opposed to the ‘war on terror’. In other words defending America. Clearly Spielberg is letting his self-loathing hatred for America go to his head. Pathetic.
So what is the deal with this movie?
What I really suspect, Steven, is that you are using Munich as a means of commenting, in your own way, on the situation of the United States in a post-9/11 reality. But by setting those concerns against the backdrop of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will cleverly sidestep having to contend with the kind of overwhelming backlash you would face if your movie made any direct politically charged controversial statements about America’s own current war on terror.
Yep, that’s it. Spielberg has hired Allan Mayer. He is a crisis PR guy. You only hire them when you expect to get lambasted, or your product is being attacked and you could be put out of business. Hmmm.
Hand-wringing liberals make me want to puke. It’s always about “feeling good”. Guess what, sometimes protecting your country means doing things that repulse ‘good’ people. Terrorists don’t care, that is why they are terrorists. Idiot.
Hey Steve, why don’t you go make movies in Israel. Better yet, how about Iran? Oh yeah, can’t get rich there. Oh, and you can’t be a Jew in Iran.
Leave a Reply
Comment failing to appear is due to: shortness (one line), dot INFO URLs, 2 or more URLs, banned words, or the cache has turned on due to high traffic. If your comment fails to appear within an hour, contact me here: about me page.