Irrespective of whatever Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, David Koepp, or even Dakota Fanning said in the media prior to its opening, I thought ‘War of the Worlds’ sucked. It was boring, unoriginal, unimaginative, it didn’t make me care what was going on for vast stretches, and the ending was both confusing and needlessly abrupt. And I say this as someone who loves Spielberg and normally defends him to the death- quite a disappointment.
Coming next from the Greatest Living American Director- a sure-to-be-controversial historical epic about the aftermath of the 1972 massacre of the Israeli Olympic team by Palestinian terrorists.
Now, misinformation about this film is all over the place, so it’s hard to know what to believe. The film may or may not be called ‘Vengeance,’ it may or may not be based on a book of the same name that has supposedly been discredited, and playwright Tony Kushner (he of ‘Tony Kushner’s Law’) may or may not be involved as the primary or secondary screenwriter. All else I’ve heard- including this error-riddled column by bottom-feeding hack Debbie Schlussel- should be construed as speculation, if not outright lies.
Until I know otherwise, I’m going to trust Spielberg here. While he’s certainly always been liberal, I’d never classify Spielberg as considerably left-wing- and in fact, batty critic Rob Nelson’s response to the masterpiece “Saving Private Ryan” and some of his other work has caused him to dub Spielberg “a narrow-minded peddler of conservative mythology.”
I don’t remember ever hearing Spielberg denounce Bush or the Iraq war, and considering all the work he’s done on behalf of Holocaust remembrance and other Jewish-related causes, it’s unthinkable to call him an anti-Semite or anti-Israel. He’s clearly done enough in his life and career to earn the benefit of the doubt- though I do, of course, refuse the right to revise my opinion once we know more about the film.
I share your hope about Spielberg but one thing about his so-called pro-Israelism has troubled me. He hasn't spoke up. It's one thing to pay reverence to the Holocaust - which if he does nothing else in his film career, he has made a great difference, or to D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge, but he has been utterly silent as Jews are blown to bits (even today in Netanya) for the crime of being Jewish.
If in fact he is softpedalling the revenge for Munich - it will be a stain on his otherwise sterling record as a Jew - no it won't negate his great work - but even Europe cries over its dead Jews of yesteryear - its the live ones that need help now, and Steve just has not been there. This film is a chance to show that once upon a time Israel did not let those who rise up to kill Jews get away with it, and that for a long time while Israel still maintained that policy and their deterrent abilities the streets were not running with Jewish blood.
I will wait and see and give him the benefit of the doubt, but if any root casusiness or anti-israel/mossad sentiment comes out in this film it will be a disaster - a propoganda victory for the world's only victims - the Arabs.
Posted by: J. Lichty at July 12, 2005 02:51 PMWhy isn't Scorcese the Greatest Living American Director? Or, for that matter, John Waters?
Posted by: LilB at July 12, 2005 02:54 PMI just read Schlussel's article.
What is inaccurate about it? Not arguing, but you did not support your conclusion.
Posted by: J. Lichty at July 12, 2005 02:57 PM