Is movie "Munich" propoganda?

[UATrewqaz]

Liberals in Hollywood? The HELL you say....

[chessforlife]

[ QUOTE ]

My question to Spileberg is why alter the story from the truth? If you want to make a fictional movie then make a fictional movie. To take a true story and alter some key facts to tell a different story is dishonest. In fact to tell a good lie you need to include a good dose of facts so that the lie can be more easily swallowed. Many ignorant people will see this movie and believe that the story is 100% facts when it is not. Spielberg, you are a liar. The story was good enough to make a movie without you taking liberties with the truth....


[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

[andyfox]

Any time I see, at the beginning of the film, "Based on True Events," I beware. Isn't everything based on true events? Every filmmaker alters the facts to fit his story. I believe Ron Howard, for example, had to apologize to Max Bear for the portrayal of his father in Cinderella Man. I'm sure there were artistic conceits in The New World.

Spielberg doesn't claim to be an historian. I haven't read the book on which he supposedly based his story. His portrayal of the murder of the Israeli Olympic athletes was shown in all its brutality. I don't find his comment that he hoped his film would bring peace to the Middle East to be one of an out-of-control ego. He has been very philanthropic towards Israeli and Jewish causes. I believe he does indeed hope that his film contributes to dialogue. His point of view, from what I saw in the movie, was that violence is an endless cycle and will only end up with ever greater violence. (At least that's the way I saw the significance of the final shot.)

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
an historian

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[twowords]

One poster: [ QUOTE ]
...one side simply wants to live in peace and solidarity from the world for once, while the other side (and allies) simply wants the outright elimination of said first side.


[/ QUOTE ]
Another:[ QUOTE ]
Most jews don't want to be in Palestine. It is an unfortunate that repeated invasion attempts and terrorist aggression have forced them to remain there. If the Palestinians would stop bombing people and Isreals arab nieghbors would publicily give up thier grievences they would have thier own country in a decade.

If I had to place blame it would be 95% arab, 5% isreal. If people had just left isreal alone to begin with instead of trying to kill every man, women, and child living there just because they aren't Arab then Isreal would never have expanded, Palestine would be its own country with much larger borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my. Could you guys wikipedia some history maybe? This thread might help.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]


But I do think he has a certain point that such movies act against what I believe is an important war effort.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right the movie does make you question the War on Terror, so that means the movie is somewhat dishonest or the War on Terror is somewhat questionable. How do you think the movie is dishonest?

The movie was very well done I thought as was its illustration of the inability of violence to solve problems in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Similarly, the most important part of wining the war against Al-Queda and its affiliates does not involve military action. The crucial battle will be the one for hearts and minds of moderate muslims. Of course, OBL and the leaders should be brought to justice, but undermining their recruitment would be far more detrimantal to their cause then merely killing their recruits, their replacements, and their replacements. The Israelis in the movie eventually wondered where it would end, as when they kill one prominient Palestinian, another would replace him and Israelis back home would be subject to reprisal.

No amount of force will convince Al-Queda the US is too powerful to be messed with, more force typically leads to more death and better recruitment. The real battle is for hearts and minds and we are losing that one badly at this time. It will take years to unravel the mess in Iraq and turn the tide of the real battle; I hope the next administration is up for it.

[andyfox]

I was British in my last life. My favorite is when they say, "an hotel." [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I was British in my last life. My favorite is when they say, "an hotel." [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember once having a discussion with a linguist about whether or not the use of the article "an" before the consonant h caused the cockney habit of dropping the h altogether. Unfortunatley that was 15 years ago and I can't recall exactly what he said. It makes sense, though.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'll start by defining terrorism as "a group that hijacks passenger airplanes and crashes them into buildings?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think we'll ever completely wipe them out? Also, we're at war with numerous abstract sructures and ideas, can we curtail freedoms for the sake of the war on drugs?

[/ QUOTE ]

We already have.

[CORed]

I find it truly frightening how many people are buying into the notion that because a few nuts hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings a few years ago, that any dissent or criticism is now somehow treasonous.

Point number one: We are not legally at war. The United states has not declared war since 1941. That war ended in 1945. We have been involved in several military operations since then, some authorized by Congress (Vietnam (sort of), Gulf war, the current Iran fiasco), some not (Korea, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo to name some). The authorization to use military force in Iraq was not a formal declaration of war. The "war on terror" is not legally a war. Also, the notion that a state of war suspends constitutional liberties is IMO, an erroneous and dangerous one. Yes, I know there is precedent. Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt all took actins that were, IMO clearly uncontitutional in wartime. This doesn't make it right, and it's doubtful that those actions were necessary to win the wars or that they substantially contributed to our eventual victory.

There will always be people with a grievance against the U.S. (reasonable or otherwise) who think that their grievance entiltes them to set off bombs, fly planes into buildings, release poisons or pathogens, or otherwise atack our civillian popultation. Some of them will almost certaionly succeed again some day. Should we make every reasonable effort to identify and arrest or kill such people? Absolutely. Should we take military action against countries that harbor or aid terrorists who attack us, or plan on doing so? Again, absolutely. Should we invade countries that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on us (Iraq), while ignoring countries that aided the terrorists (Saudi Arabia) and try to force "freedom" on those countries while doing everything possible to eliminate it in our country? Hell no. Somewhere between the head-in-the-sand pre-9/11 state of oblivious denial, and the current state of rampant paranoia and creeping Fascism, there is a rational policy toward terrorists. I sincerely hope the next President, whoever he may be, can find it. This of course assumes that Bush does not establish himself as dictator for life and cancel the next presidential election.

The current administrations over-reaction to 9/11 is now a much more serious threat to the survival of America as we used to know it than anytihing Al Queda is capable of doing.