MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Munich Displeasure

Shmuel Rosner of Haaretz is not a fan of Munich.
His position is interesting… and even from his POV, not as negative as the expectations of some.
But more compelling are the responses, which quickly make clear just how strong people’s feelings are on these issues and how unwilling most are to accept the point of view of others.

Be Sociable, Share!

32 Responses to “Munich Displeasure”

  1. Haggai says:

    Yeah, from the perspective of an Israeli political correspondent (which he is), and not a movie critic, I guess he was hoping for some probing look at the real-life issue of targeting terrorists for assassination, which is still frequently debated in Israel. But that perspective is not necessarily going to correspond to the needs of a narrative film. The basic question that’s still debated in Israel–basically, does assassinating terrorists reduce terrorism, or does it incite more of it, either directly or indirectly–is almost entirely a political one, and probably not one that would make for compelling drama in a fictionalized setting.
    No surprise about the responses. I read Ha’aretz every day for the latest news from Israel, and those comment threads are always completely dominated by over-the-top ideologues.

  2. Terence D says:

    Question for you, Dave.
    Do you think the political questions and stark opinions will have an effect on the Award chances for this? Seems like everyone is going to have an opinion irregardless of how good the movie is.

  3. Josh says:

    The sides are already split in the Jewish community and I must admit I am one of those early doubters and questioners of it. I figure it to get more pronounced as it hits theatres and reviews come trickling in.
    No matter how good it is it will take a lot of heat in both directions. But DP’s review is encouraging for me.

  4. LesterFreed says:

    The Countdown to the backlash begins in five, four, three…..

  5. jeffmcm says:

    It appears that Mr. Rosner is looking at the film from a very specifically Israeli political perspective, and was disappointed at the much broader movie made from an American perspective. His phrase “Spielberg hasn’t made up his mind” suggests that he wants clear-cut statements from the movie, not ambivalence. More annoying is his statement that Spielberg wasn’t qualified to make this movie and should do ‘his own stories’. Whatever.
    As for the comments…eesh. We get enough of that on this blog, to have actual Israelis and Palestinians going after each other…yikes.

  6. Mark Ziegler says:

    He’s not a movie critic. Pretty much sums it up.

  7. Scooba Steve says:

    Yeah, if someone said, “Don’t see Schindler’s List because European Jews and Nazis didn’t talk that way” I woulda slapped em.
    This certainly IS shaping up to be this year’s The Passion in a few ways.

  8. grandcosmo says:

    >>>>He’s not a movie critic. Pretty much sums it up.
    So only movie critics (with their rigorous qualifications and education – not) are entitled to comment on films?
    Poland is not a movie critic but he sometimes has interesting thoughts on the films he sees.

  9. Richard Nash says:

    If Poland isn’t a movie critic/journalist than I just don’t know who is.
    There is a difference in who comments on films especially with reviews like which are early. Each and every audience member is a critic and I’m sure this writer has seen his fair share of films. he has his likes and dislikes. But he is not a critic of substance. He is reviewing as a fan and not a journalist or critic. Huge difference. Therefore, I don’t put as much stock in his review as I would Dave Polands, Roger Ebert, or Jack Matthews.

  10. grandcosmo says:

    Poland is a film journalist and a pretty good one but he is not a critic – unless your idea of film criticism are what he writes in the Hot Button.

  11. JckNapier2 says:

    The link is being weird for me… with all the text overlapping. Could anyone be so kind as to paste the article in this spot? Thanks.
    Scott Mendelson

  12. joefitz84 says:

    His review of King Kong is pretty much the same as every other critic’s out there right now. So, yea, I consider the Hot Button to be movie reviews from a well read movie critic.

  13. PandaBear says:

    Munich has to be the clear frontrunner now for Oscar glory.

  14. jeffmcm says:

    There are a range of critics. There are high-end critics like Rosenbaum and Armond White, and there are low-end critics like whoever writes for Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers. DP is somewhere in the middle. This Rosner guy is neither a critic nor a movie fan. He’s a political columnist. It’s like if you had Al Franken reviewing movies, or William Safire (now his reviews I’d be interested in).

  15. PandaBear says:

    Jeff with a politcal jab. What do you know???? DO you ever give it a rest?

  16. James Leer says:

    Do you guys ever give HIM a rest? Christ! Let’s see if we can go one thread without things derailing.

  17. jeffmcm says:

    Especially since what I said wasn’t political. I legitimately would like to read a Safire movie review, he’s a smart guy.

  18. bicycle bob says:

    to get reviews of movies by political columnists? they’re all boring enough to read now u wanna be bored by their thoughts on movies? good luck.

  19. Haggai says:

    But Safire is a good example of someone who might do some entertaining movie-related columns, if not as a serious reviewer or anything. The English-language columns that he wrote for many years were a lot of fun, and they had nothing to do with politics at all.

  20. Bruce says:

    DP, what do you consider yourself? Critic? Journalist? Rock star??
    I go with industry maven.

  21. Terence D says:

    I generally don’t like reading reviews until after I have seen films. I don’t want my experience to be ruined or spoiled or clouded in any way. After, I search out some reviews from some well known critics if the movie is challenging and good. I can see that happening for “Munich”.

  22. Haggai says:

    I also avoid reading full reviews beforehand, to avoid spoilers, but DP’s column on Kong and Munich is nicely built around giving his impressions without spoiling anything.

  23. BluStealer says:

    That is why I like Dave’s reviews. Doesn’t spoil anything. Says what he needs to say without ruining anything. Then later on, he’ll go into real discussion about it. But he is detailed and astute. I’m a fan. Hence why I come to the Button.

  24. Cadavra says:

    Safire’s still doing his “On Language” column every Sunday in the NYT Magazine. Hell of a lot more entertaining than his political columns, which he has thankfully retired from.

  25. grandcosmo says:

    I like reading DP’s columns as well but I don’t think it is film criticism.
    He spends a lot of time in his reviews on how he thinks that particular film will do at the box office, whether it will further the career of the director or actors, who should be nominated for awards for the film, how it should be marketed and distributed, etc… Interesting, usually, but not film criticism.

  26. jeffmcm says:

    Precisely. The purest definition of a critic is one who is interested in the art and not the hype and publicity or anything else. Rosenbaum is one of those, and most times his reviews are of really obscure stuff.
    For most people, a critic’s only job is to tell them if they should see it or not, thumbs up or down.

  27. Nicol D says:

    I will always give Spielberg his day in court. He is one of the greats.
    Nevertheless, more and more I think for this film to make a truly valid argument in equivocating the acts of violence…that all violence dehumanizes, it must show the terrorist violence in as graphic a way as it depicts the revenge.
    I suspect strongly that it does not. If the film only shows the tortured Israeli agents hunting down the terrorists without visually showing why, I would have to say that Spielberg is not playing fair pool. If the only way he can make his argument is to omit the acts of one group while dwelling on the other, than he would have not accomplished his goal.
    I will see this film…but more and more I think I know what I will think before I do.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    Is it really necessary for you to actually see both acts of violence? It seems to me that the terrorist evil can be taken for granted. I hate to get into theoretical arguments about unreleased movies, but consider the perspective of Eric Bana’s character. He probably does not witness firsthand the atrocities. Why should the audience be allowed to witness that which he (presumably) does not?
    It reminds me of how lazy filmmakers operate. When you need to show that the bad guy is _really_ bad, show him killing a puppy or a henchman or something. It’s quick, easy, and a cliche. More sophisticated filmmakers work in more sophisticated ways. Try to maintain an open mind.

  29. Bruce says:

    What about DP’s reviews aren’t film criticism?
    I have read him and Ebert and I really don’t see any difference and everyone would call Ebert a critic, right?

  30. Nicol D says:

    Jeffmcm,
    Thanks for the comment. If I didn’t have an ‘open mind’ I wouldn’t be looking forward to seeing it this Christmas. I would have just written it off.
    I do not buy the ‘sophisticated’ argument. Films like this are not just stories…they are arguments that a filmmaker is putting forth. A thesis if you will. The story is merely a vehicle.
    Saying we do not need to see the violence of the ‘bad guys’ because it is cliche I don’t agree with. It is pertinent to Spielberg’s thesis. If it is cliche…then so too surely is the anguished agent confused over his humanity being lost. All of these themes have been played before.
    Again, I am a huge Spielberg fan and will definitely see this film.
    I will just close my eyes when Tony ‘let’s bash the pope’s head in with a baseball bat’ Kushner’s name is on screen.

  31. jeffmcm says:

    You are correct about the film behind a vehicle for a thesis, however when it comes to Spielberg I have a lot of faith that it’ll be more than mere rhetoric. Nothing to do but wait.

  32. Bruce says:

    Spielberg has earned some benefit of the doubt. I expect him to be advancing his views. I just hope the story he tells moves and is engrossing.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon