Munich, 1/21.

In the last month, the co-creators of Munich have been accused of being apologists for the Palestinians, apologists for Israel, defamers of Palestinians and of Israel, softheaded Hollywood liberals, dupes of the radical left, dupes of the radical right, even of being anti-Semitic or self-loathing, for showing Jews talking about receipts and handling money. We're morally confused, overly complicated, simplistic. We're cowards who refused to take sides. We took a side but, oops! the wrong side.

Updates: 1/28.

And so, he addresses the questions most commonly raised: What about that book the film's based on, why are the Mossad agents troubled and is he out to destroy Israel. His cousin-in-law, "and about 100 other people, suggested that maybe, in the midst of this storm of opinion, I could venture to speak a little for the film." What follows is an absolute must-read. But if you're in a hurry (e.g., racing between screenings in Park City), here's the crux:

In the film, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is presented not as a matter of religion versus religion, or sanity versus insanity, or good versus evil or civilization versus barbarism or Judeo-Christian culture versus Muslim culture, but rather as a struggle over territory, over geography, over home.

[...]

[W]e believe that one aspect of the struggle against terrorism is the struggle to comprehend terrorism. If you think understanding the enemy is unimportant, well, maybe there's a job in Washington for you.

Meantime. Here in Germany, we're still days away from the film's opening but the feuilletons have already been soaking in it for weeks. You can imagine that there's a plethora of complex reasons for all this interest, given the role of the Holocaust in speeding up the foundation of the state of Israel and the tragically botched handling by the German police of the crisis in 1972 that gives the film its name. And that's just for starters.

I know pointing to items in German is only going to be of interest to a few Daily readers, so I'll keep it short. Filmz.de has quite a collection; in today's papers alone, David Denk talks with Hanns Zischler about working with Spielberg while, also in die taz, Jan Feddersen addresses another German component of the story the film does not: Black September demanded not only the release of 232 Palestinian prisoners but also the release of Ulrike Meinhof and Andreas Baader, who were being held in German prison at the time. In the Berliner Zeitung, Jochen Arntz reconstructs events leading up to the early morning of September 5, 1972.

And there's Spielberg on the cover of Der Spiegel. Going by the online TOC, it looks as if 20 or so pages are devoted to the film and related issues. We'll see when it hits newsstands tomorrow. Hopefully, at least a few of those pages will be appearing in English as well.

Update, 1/22: The Observer is claiming that Andrew Anthony's is going to be the only interview Spielberg gives in Britain; we'll see. There aren't a great many revelations here. Reaffirmation, mostly: "I made this movie out of love for both of my countries, USA and Israel.... I tried to avoid making it and yet I feel that my filmography would not have been complete without this story in some fashion being realised on film.... I have to rely on my intuition, and as a filmmaker I had to commit to my feelings that the real Avner was the real deal, and I really in my heart and soul believe he is." And then, this: "I grew up in a world of potential nuclear holocaust. And for some reason I feel that the age of terrorism is more frightening to me than nuclear terror."

More from Edward Copeland.

Updates, 1/25: Spiegel Online is indeed running Christopher Sultan's translation of the cover story; it's not the interview, but it's a solid piece.

A quick run-down of relevant pieces in the German-language papers on the eve of the film's opening here: Adrienne Woltersdorf and Sven von Reden in die taz, Daniel Kothensculte in the Frankfurter Rundschau, Alexandra Stäheli in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Hanns-Georg Rodek and Hanns Zischler in Die Welt. That's just online. The FAZ and Süddeutsche have much more, but only in print.

Updates, 1/26: And now, Spiegel Online is running the interview, too. What's more they've translated an editorial that ran in the weekly's September 11, 1972 issue.

As the film opens in the UK, Ewen MacAskill and Ian Black report in the Guardian on two docs that "undermine some of its central claims. Operation Bayonet, on BBC2 on Tuesday, and Munich: Mossad's Revenge, on Channel 4 tonight, include detailed testimony from retired Mossad agents the broadcasters claim were directly involved in the killings. Their version of events is very different to Spielberg's."

Update, 1/27: Stephen Howe in openDemocracy: "[W]hile Munich may be a soaraway success as a magnet for political controversy, as a film it's as near to total artistic failure as Spielberg has ever come."

Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian: "The movie is all about the homeland of Israel-Palestine, but there's no doubt where its emotional homeland is: and that is the United States."

Posted by dwhudson at January 21, 2006 12:04 PM