![]() |
|
![]()
July 25, 2005
Apologies and more apologies . . .
According to Variety, Steven Spielberg's upcoming film -- now to be (re)named Munich -- is generating controversy over whether it is based on a book many consider inaccurate (if not apologetic to terrorism): The Tony Kushner script is under such a lockdown that a Mossad agent would be hard-pressed to infiltrate its cover page. People only think this was based on Vengeance? Where on earth might they have gotten such an idea? The film's name, perhaps? Why would an otherwise ho-hum web site devoted to tracking films have spent nearly a year calling the film Vengeance? Wednesday 15th February 2005: VengeanceAny idea how such an idea would plop into their heads? Might there be some kind of backtracking going on? Here's Captain Ed: It appears that Spielberg has decided to simply work from rumor and innuendo -- much more in the Oliver Stone mode than in the cinema verité of Schindler's List.Considering the involvement of Tony Kushner (whose beatification of Ethel Rosenberg was unforgettable), terrorist apologetics would be the least we could expect. Here's IsraPundit: Earlier I had expressed some reservations (and linked to others) about Steven Spielberg's planned movie of the Black September atrocity committed against Israel's Olympic team in Munich, 1972. As Backspin had noted the source for the movie is a discredited book. (More on this from Yossi Melman in Ha'aretz.) While it might not look promising, it's only fair too point out that the apologizers have a ferocious defender in James Wolcott, who (after pausing to share inside knowledge of Tennessee faculty lounges) comes out swinging: The right blogosphere is a-throb over disturbing rumors concocted from the far reaches of thin air regarding Spielberg's upcoming movie about the trackdown and elimination of the terrorists who committed the massacre of Jewish athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. What has the hotheads cross-eyed with preemptive indignation?Predictably, Wolcott concludes by attributing a censorship motive to criticism of the film: Yes, it's awfully arrogant of movie studios not to grant script approval to Mickey Kaus, Captain Courageous, and Little Green Footstool before they begin casting and location scouting--their creative input could be just what Hollywood needs to be saved from itself and restored to the towering glory of the Blacklist era.Restore the Blacklist? Yes, that's the ultimate goal of bloggers who criticize films. How did Wolcott know? (Well, now that the cat's out of the bag, if others can apologize for the terrorists, maybe I should consider putting in an apology for the Blacklist Era....) MORE: Rosemary Esmay has some thoughts about the accuracy of James Wolcott's caricature, and offers him some advice I doubt he'd take to heart. posted by Eric on 07.25.05 at 11:02 AM
Comments
You must have a much stronger stomach than I do to keep reading and linking to the likes of James Wolcott and James Howard Kunstler. But, then, somebody has to fisk them, and you do it with style. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · July 26, 2005 12:17 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I'm extremely disappointed in Spielberg. After Schindler's list and Saving Private Ryan, I would expect him to stand 100% behind our War against the modern-day Hitlers. Is he now on the side of the enemy?
As to the "Blacklist", I submit that it's far worse to allow Communists and other such subversives to infiltrate the movie industry and sneak propaganda over on a mass audience. In the late 1940s, Ayn Rand wrote her excellent Screen Guide for Americans, put out by the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, showing how Communists sneak "messages" into movies attacking the individual and extolling collectivism.
The "Hollywood Ten" were not martyrs to free speech, they were willing servants of Stalin whose idea of freedom was the gulag. Senator William Jenner put it very well: "This is not a 'witch hunt'. Communists are rats, not witches." I support the HUAC, Martin Dies, Whittaker Chambers, J. Edgar Hoover, and Senator "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy. And Roy Cohn, a Jew who never sided with the enemies of Israel.