Saw the film this evening. I have to start off by saying I think it is a very well crafted bit of storytelling. Probably the best piece Spielberg has ever done.
Now, having said that, I have to say I had huge thematic issues with the movie. Despite his protestations otherwise, Spielberg has sent out a message that says violence will only beget violence, leading us down an endless path of retribution. I don't have a problem with this idea, in fact I believe it with all my heart. What bothers me is that in the end, the mouthpiece for this notion is a man who murdered eight people, and is seemingly only concerned with their actual guilt after he feels his family is threatened. And lest we forget, his family is in danger because of his actions. He made a concious choice to murder (whether you call them assassinations or murder, the people in question are still dead) these people, yet Spielberg expects us to have some level of sympathy for him. Sorry, Steven, the character is a scumbag, plain and simple. Murdering for the state is no different than murdering for the mob, or for the guy's rolex, the end result is still the death of another human being. Having a moral issue with it after you have committed the deed is not evidence of a strong character.
If we are trying to make some statement about trying to stop an endless stream of violence, then please have it come from someone not steeped in the blood of others.
2 comments:
Wait a second. Did you miss the part where nine Israeli athletes were killed simply for being Israeli? This is scary, LD, because if you walked away from this movie so unequivocally siding with the terrorist operatives (which, ummm, they were- in this story at least, whether the story is completely fictional or at all based on fact - despite the fact that they translated children's books and played with their cute daughters) then the problems that many have had with this movie prove true.
That is, that it is overly sympathetic to the terrorists. I saw it and disagreed - come on, every one can still see that they are terrorists, THEY BLOW UP BUSSES WITH THE INTENT OF KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS; they will see that there is humanity indeed there, even in a terrorist (and I do believe that) but they won't be overly sympathetic to them...
But it appears that this is what you walked away with. It makes me very nervous.
SAS- Wow. Having just re-read my post, I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that I am sympathetic to the terrorists.
I am not saying the terrorists are justified. What i am saying is that Spielberg's lesson of violence begetting violence is diluted because the character he uses to tell us this message is so morally questionable. The character in the movie is given a choice at the outset, to accept a mission to hunt down and kill a group of people. He does so, and only after murdering eight people does he ask for evidence of their guilt. It is the equivalent of executing someone and then holding a trial. The question isn't whether the terrorists are sympathetic or not. The question is whether it is right to respond to their actions in the same manner. I would submit to you that the answer to that is no.
As another thought, there is a huge difference between "unequivocally siding with the terrorist operatives" and believing that a state is bound to operate under the rule of law, no matter what circumstance. Do you honestly believe that the US has a right to torture people in it's quest to stop terrorism? Morally it is treading the same ground. When states make the decision to ignore the law, the law loses it's effectiveness, and we are all less safe because of it.
Post a Comment