[Originally posted at Grok Your World by David Caploe on July 1, 2005.]
NY Times: “Next: Spielberg’s Biggest Gamble,” by David Halbfinger, July 1, 2005.
It was just like the moment I saw the story about the evangelical rock concert in Morocco: sometimes you simply cannot believe the things you’re reading.
And so it was when I saw that Steven Spielberg – the master of sentimental schmaltz and phony feeling, so successful in Hollywood he long ago lost touch with any authentic emotion (other than ambition) – started principal photography this week on a film about the murder of Israeli athletes by Black September militants at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
What is it about the Middle East that makes Americans think they can blunder into it – with no knowledge about either the past, or the mess they’re likely to create – and think they’re somehow going to be able to escape without hurting themselves and those who love them – not to mention the people in that self-tortured part of the world.
George W. Bush – seemingly not someone whose policies Spielberg would like very much – made the same mistake with Iraq, and every day we can see the disturbing results … what incredible hubris makes Spielberg think he’s going to get away unscathed and unscathing from HIS ignorant and ill-conceived Middle East adventure ???
Let me avow upfront that Spielberg is just about my least favorite Hollywood filmmaker – which is saying something.
With the possible exception of “Jaws” and “The Color Purple” (which I have never seen all the way through), I cannot think of a single film of his that does not make me puke … although the initial reviews of “War of the Worlds” indicate it might not be so bad, although I doubt it’ll be as good as “Batman Begins” …
Even his alleged masterpiece, “Schindler’s List,” was, in my view, completely bogus, its basic message being “Nazis get all the hot chicks.” If you want to see a film about the Holocaust, “Life Is Beautiful” is much more powerful, as is Alain Resnais’ 30-minute “Night and Fog” …
Although, frankly, the most powerful footage was shot by the Nazis themselves at the camps, as well as that by British filmmakers liberating Bergen-Belsen and other places in the immediate aftermath of the war, done in rough cut as “Memory of the Camps,” seen in early May as a “Frontline” piece.
This is not to deny the definitely valuable work Spielberg HAS done with the Shoah Foundation, whose basic task is to record the first-hand testimonials of Holocaust survivors. But, while financed by his film profits, this work has little to do with Spielberg’s own almost totally counterfeit sensibility.
Which is why the prospect of a Spielberg film about Israel / Palestine fills me with as much nausea as did the BushCo run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
This is a situation that requires BOTH a great deal of specific and concrete historical knowledge – which, as could be seen by his frightening comments on what he was planning, Spielberg clearly and utterly lacks –
AND a profound commitment to a full acceptance of the existential legitimacy of BOTH sides, as annoying as they both are, in this ridiculous tragedy – which, again, as his initial comments indicate, Spielberg ALSO lacks.
To take only one example of the egregious lack of knowledge here, the article notes:
In the statement, Mr. Spielberg called the Munich attack – which was carried out by Black September, an arm of the P.L.O.’s Fatah organization – and the Israeli response “a defining moment in the modern history of the Middle East.”
Gee, dude, sorry, but that’s just not true … it was a moment, but under NO circumstances a “defining” moment … except, perhaps, in the way Jerry Bremer’s handing over “sovereignty” in Iraq to Ayad Allawi – which was, of course, not very “defining” at all …
It’s SOP in Hollywood, of course, to make up whatever ridiculous statements seem to sound good as part of the marketing to justify whatever you want to do.
But in this situation, the marketing better have some relationship to reality – or the results will be even more explosive than they’re likely to be anyway.
And Spielberg isn’t the only Hollywood type that has had a problem making sense of the Middle East: check out the mess of Oliver Stone’s “Persona Non Grata,” HIS pathetically failed attempt to do a film about Israel / Palestine – and Stone, at least, has a lot of experience dealing with political themes, which Spielberg egregiously lacks …
Unless something completely unexpected happens, which seems most unlikely, given both the general conception AND its supposed December 23 release date –
which means it’s going to be shot AND put together in a sprint of less than 6 months … which seems hardly likely to add subtlety to a project already deficient in that essential quality –
this film seems like it’s going to be about as successful as Bush’s similarly ignorant and ill-conceived invasion of Iraq …
If Spielberg really wants to do something on Israel / Palestine that has a chance to improve the situation, he should do something called “Ha-atzmaut / an-Nakbah” : Independence / Disaster … set in 1948, but with flashbacks to both the Holocaust AND the colonization of Palestine, which could give a fully rounded statement of the historical context for BOTH Israelis and Palestinians … copyright 2005 by David Caploe, Ph.D. :-)
Unless he somehow grows a new set of sensitivity antenna – which the inclusion of Tony Kushner (Angels in America) as screenwriter is an obvious, if doomed, attempt to create – it’s hard to see how this film is going to be – or be seen as – anything other than pro-Israeli propaganda of the most pathetic sort …
despite the fact that Israelis are already complaining about the notion of “agonizing Mossad agents” … which already gives you an idea of how insane any project like this is going to be … as well as the powerful emotions on all sides that are going to greet it …
You just can’t pick an event in the middle of a long and deeply twisted – on all sides – narrative sequence, and expect anyone who doesn't share your SPECIFIC assumptions to think you’re offering anything other than an intentionally distorted picture of both the actors and the situation …
Think about how Israelis would react to a film that focuses on Israeli massacres of Palestinians – yes, dudes, there WERE such events – like Deir Yassin in 1948, or Kafr el Kassem in 1956, or Sabra and Shattila in 1982 – Israelis and their supporters would go insane …
Well, this idea is no different … and seems about as likely to succeed as Bush’s equally ill-conceived invasion of Iraq is going …
As we point out in the Weber/objectivity lectures Theory 13 and 14 – as well as Lecture 2 in the Millennium Crisis series – the key characteristic of the way Israelis and Palestinians tell their stories is that they are ALWAYS and in EVERY WAY the victims of the other side’s perfidy …
And, connected to that, each side ALSO leaves out ANY notion of their own responsibility for the enraging situation in which they find themselves …
which is why, from a theoretical point of view, Weber is followed by Freud, in Lectures 15 and 16, whose very first criteria for dream interpretation is “comprehensiveness” – that is, the ability to include in one’s explanation (of dreams, as well as anything else) as many of the clearly relevant basic facts (elements of the manifest dream content) as possible …
Something you can bet is NOT going to be any sort of structural characteristic of the narrative Spielberg is going to come up with … even with the participation of Tony Kushner, whose “Angels in America” (haven’t seen “Homebody/Kabul”), while powerful, was not especially subtle.
While one would like to imagine Spielberg’s motives are positive – unlike Bush’s, which were clearly to distract Americans from his BLATANT failure to do ANYTHING meaningful in response to 9/11, whose victims stand to this day in mute reproach to the absolute inability / unwillingness of BushCo to confront political Islam –
this whole thing is just such a predictably bad idea it’s hard to imagine why Sir Stevie didn’t heed the undoubtedly large number of people who certainly told him this was a project that can only end in failure and heartbreak …
Or has the sycophantic ass-sucking that characterizes LA filmmaking – both Hollywood and, sadly, relatively “low-budget” indies as well – gone so far that NO ONE will speak truth to power when it comes to someone like Spielberg …
If he really wants to deal with “the question of a civilized nation’s proper response to terrorism,” as the Times piece says, then he should just bite the bullet and do something about 9/11 …
It would probably be terrible, but at least it would have a chance of moving THAT discourse in a positive direction, which is in bad need of SOME new dynamics, as the ridiculous speech last week in New York by closeted gay/homophobe Karl Rove indicates.
Because when it comes to the Israel / Palestine situation, a project by someone as heavily identified with “one side” as Spielberg has NO chance of making ANY positive impact … and, in fact, is more likely simply to make an already fucked up situation that much worse …