People don't often get a lesson in abject philosophy from a movie. However, that seems because, usually, filmakers -- whatever their own beliefs -- usually shy away from abject philosophy.
That's where the new movie "Munich" fails.
Steven Spielberg, unlike George Lucas of Star Wars, is incapable of seeing good and evil. So when he deals with a subject or story that entails a basic, simple, plain old good or evil conflict, we get treated to a lesson in moral equivolency.
When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Block an "Evil Empire", he was banking in part on the "Star Wars" imagery that the film series had created in the public's mind -- especially the youthful public, for they were too young to recall the other very real evil empire that kept the world in war until 1945. This was possible because the Star Wars film treats its story as having definite good and evil characters. You see Darth Vader kill a subordinate for failing in a mission. You see him order invasions and attacks. There is no time to say, let's stop the action and "humanize" poor Vader by showing him eating a sandwich and reading a letter from his sick mum. Ain't gonna happen. Vader was the bad guy. I am speaking of course about the early films. The new ones are a different story.
The danger with moral equivolency is that we lose sight of our goals in the mishmash of an emotional tug of war. We have to destroy the Deathstar -- but how can we with all those innocent people on board? Well, are they really innocent? Noncombatants, maybe... technitions, lasergun repair people, radar operators... In the meantime the story drifts, Luke Skywalker fails, and the universe plunges into eternal darkness, all because of moral equivolency.
As anti-reason as some of the "Jedi" dialogue from the Star Wars films is (most of it is mystic in nature), the line about trusting your instincts is true. Trust your instincts as a person. Evil -- evil towards human life and freedom -- is reprehensible.
When outside forces, propaganda, media bums and film makers make you wonder if you should feel bad for for terrorists who find themselves tracked down -- trust your instincts. Would you really feel bad for a terrorist? You wouldn't feel bad for Darth Vadar.
Ah, but -- say the "realists" -- meaning, at most times, the cynics -- terrorists are real and real life is more complicated than "Star Wars". Of course it is. But not much.
Most of the "complication" in real life comes from muddfy thinking. Sure, the terrorists have their motives -- even if these are often Islamofascism and made-up grievences created to justify bloody murder and acts of war. And sure, it's always sad in a way when a person gets killed. But if they are evil is it wrong? And sadness if simply that they made their own death necessary by their actions, not the other way around. Will it "take a toll" on the killer, then, to put them out of this world? Hardly. James Bond doesn't feel bad when he kills a terrorist. The "Munich" story may be about real life, but it is film, not documentary. And film, like all art, is about idealizing reality. Not "naturalist" realism, setting up a camera and simply viewing events, without taking a side.
Moviemakers producing entertainment -- even if it is based on real events -- offer the audience a simpler world. To go into the entire history of the mid-east "conflict" would take a year's worth of lectures; and most of the lectures would probably be devoted to the terrorists' alleged motives and not their terrorism.
For the story all that's important is that the terrorists did a massacre and the Israelis hunt them down. Agonizing over if this is right or not and trying to make it more complicated than that ignores to reason people go to the movies in the first place: To see life as it could or should be. There is nothing wrong with making the Israeli agents heroes and the terrorist villains in the film -- because that is what they are, and even if in real life the agents weren't 100% perfect examples of heroism, the fact remains that as a film maker Spielberg's obligation is the the essence of the story -- and this is it. Good vs. Evil. And you don't get a better illustration of evil than terrorists killing unarmed athletes who came to the Olympics only to do their country proud.
Instead of simplifying reality and showing people the essence of the story, the movie gets lost in perihperals, arguing over this or that morality.
And that's what Spielberg, is trying to make people do. Some have said the film is an allagory about U.S. policy since Sept. 11. I would argue that if what we've heard about the film is true it is a direct slap int he face of the victims of that and every terrorist attack since Munich.
Except they doesn't call it moral equivolency: "Munich recounts the dramatic story of the secret Israeli squad assigned to track down and assassinate 11 Palestinians believed to have planned the 1972 Munich massacre -- and the personal toll this mission of revenge takes on the team and the man who led it," (according to comcast.net's movie page).
Or as Spielberg himself said, the real problem with the terrorist war in the mid-east (meaning the constant Palestinian attacks) is "intransigence on both sides". Both sides.
Meaning the Israeli defense is as bad as the terrorist attacks. To Spielberg.
Thus according to Spielberg, the real problem isn't that the Palestinian terrorists attack, it's that the Israelis -- or Americans after Sept. 11? -- fight back.
Sometimes, intransigence is a good thing. When everyone else gives up and accepts compromises with evil, the courage to make no compromises is a good thing.
Like the courage to hunt down and kill the terrorists. So that there may actually be first justice, and then finally peace. It isn't possible in any other order.
One finds it hard to understand sympathy for terrorists. Perhaps moral equivolency has it's hand in that. If you aren't any better for fighting back, then the terrorists aren't any worse for attacking you...
In the meantime, we'll have to see how the film comes out. But everything I've heard says probably not good. But in the interim, though, I have certainly learned a great deal about Spielberg. Though possibly more than he ever intended.
- Elvis
Back...
...to main page
...to ranting and raving