“I try not to demonize them”
The last time I had morning sickness, Angelina Jolie announced that she was pregnant with Brad Pitt’s baby. It wasn’t so much of a shocker to me, it’s just that I tend to put myself in someone else’s shoes when I read about their lives. But I had been ok for a while, the baby is doing fine and Angelina, Brad and I are looking forward to a beautiful uber-baby.
Nevertheless, I read an interview with Steven Spielberg and the morning sickness started all over again. His latest film “Munich” is opening in Germany and one of Germany’s most popular news-magazines Der Spiegel is asking the tough questions. You can read the interview in English on their website.
This is the part of the interview that made me sick:
SPIEGEL: Your opponents say that you “humanize” terror.
Spielberg: Do these critics really mean that terrorists are not human beings? I try not to demonize them. Again, this has absolutely nothing to with relativizing their acts or sympathizing with them. But I do believe that it sullies the memory of the victims if we do not ask questions about the reasons, about the roots of terror. My film is not supposed to be a pamphlet, not a caricature, not a one-dimensional view of things. I refuse to give simple answers to complicated questions.
You try not to demonize them, Mr. Spielberg? May I ask why not? Is it really that important to make a movie about the events in Munich and the aftermath without coming to the conclusion that it was an act of pure evil committed by evil human beings? Is that what it takes to get another Oscar? And exactly what question is so complicated that you can’t give a simple answer?
I certainly agree that it is interesting to find out what motivates this kind of scum to kill innocent people, but not trying to demonize them for the sake of presenting an “objective view” comes pretty close to an evil crime itself.
Who knows, maybe I’m just overreacting and I’m taking Spielberg’s words the wrong way. I haven’t even seen the movie and I probably won’t. But for making a movie like this in times like these, he undoubtedly chose his words poorly. That’s my view on an uncomplicated issue.
Gosh, I miss those days when good vs. evil was as clear as black and white, and it was merely a matter of whether you supported God, Motherhood and Apple Pie or whether you were for athiesm, mandatory state child-care and moldy borscht from a soup kitchen.
What is is truly like growing up in a cinder-block concentration camp called a “settlement” while interlopers build houses on land that was taken from your ancestors?
What is it like growing up a Hitler Youth and having your young mind poisoned by indoctrination? What is it like growing up among the rubble of the Soviet empire, watching your hard-working parents struggle to get by while “biznessmeny” in BMW’s make a killing?
I do not know, and I certainly don’t want to have to go through the same things. But I am prepared to consider these aspects before I judge anyone’s actions. And I am prepared to *watch* a film before I review it. Call me old-fashioned, but I’m just funny that way.
Comment by ralphieboy - January 29, 2006 @ 2:47 am
I don’t know what review you are referring to but it certainly can’t be found here.
My post, however, refers to Spielberg’s statements in the interview. If you think I went out on a limb by reacting to his exact words, well, I don’t know what to tell you. I assure you I’ll do it again in the future.
Comment by Michael Meyn - January 29, 2006 @ 2:58 am
Sounded like a review to me. And I would make the effort to see what his films is about before getting too worked up over comments he made in one particular interview.
But hey, it’s your site, you go as far out on a limb as you like.
Comment by ralphieboy - January 29, 2006 @ 3:45 am
Gosh, I miss those days when people could respond to someone else’s point of view just by announcing that they disagree instead of putting different words in the speaker’s mouth. Michael was clearly responding to a comment made by Mr. Spielberg. It was very clear throughout that it was not a movie review, but a disagreement with Mr. Spielberg. Ralphieboy is just trying to set up a strawman argument. He creates it, he responds to it, and thus he tries to dismiss what was actually said.
The man who organized the terrorist attack, Mohammad Oudeh has undermined Mr. Spielberg’s point with his own public statements, anyway. A movie is just a movie, reality is more important.
It’s your site, Michael. Say what you like.
Comment by Dawn - January 29, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
Thanks for your support, Dawn! I couldn’t agree with you more.
Comment by Michael Meyn - January 30, 2006 @ 5:15 am
Our columnist seems to believe that there are simple answers to the question of good vs. evil. I wish it were that simple, and that we could just localize evil, target it with some laser-guided weapons and wipe it off the face of the Earth with a minimum of collateral casualties.
What Mr. Spielberg seemed to be getting at is that we have to look into the nature of evil if we want to combat it successfully. Just dumping bombs on it often has the result of replacing it with another evil.
Comment by ralphieboy - January 30, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Of course there are simple answers regarding good and evil. Here’s one: Good is good and evil is evil! It’s rarely more complicated than that, especially when it come to terrorists.
And it doesn’t really matter what Spielberg “seemed to be getting at” because my comment referred to a clear statement: “I try not to demonize them.”
Hey, if you want to make a movie about terrorists, portray them as human beings and explain what exactly happened in their lives that they suddenly felt compelled to turn into killers (I’m just guessing here), that’s fine and interesting to probably a lot of people, including me. But don’t sit down in an interview and tell the world that it wasn’t your intention to make the evil guys look evil. That’s Hollywood-Appeasement at its best!
Comment by Michael Meyn - January 30, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
So how do we combat evil? I think we need to understand where it comes from.
There was a discussion a while back in Israel that since suicide bombers could not bet deterred by the threat of death, then Israel should start executing the families of suicide bombers.
The next step, of course, would’ve been for entire families to blow themselves up. And the only response left would be for the Israelis to level whole villages…
Anyways, this was a theoretical discussion that did not get too far. But the point is that we cannot stop evil just by blowing up its manifestations, we need to look into the roots of it.
The evil we see in Palestine is related to a pretty nasty evil that took place in Europe in the first half of the XX century and let to the expulsion of the Jews from Europe to Palestine.
Comment by ralphieboy - January 30, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
I am confused. Spielberg likes terrorists. Hamas wins the Palestinian election. Europe decides to fund the new Hamas government. I want to help, but how do I do it? Knowing how much help gets pocketed instead of going to those that really need it, I would like to ask Mr. Misunderestimated if he thinks it would be better if we send bombs directly to the E.U. instead of money? That way, maybe they won’t put it in their pocket, and maybe 100% will go to Hamas.
I will abide with whatever your answer is Mr. Misunderestimated.
Comment by Ray - February 2, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
Just that we don’t get you wrong.
Michael Meyn: “Of course there are simple answers regarding good and evil. Here’s one: Good is good and evil is evil!”
Is that you speaking or did you quote a terrorist?
Comment by captainchaos - February 4, 2006 @ 2:48 am
That’s me speaking, captainchaos. I know evil when I see it and so does everyone else. It’s not difficult. The next step is also simple: evil has to be destroyed!
That’s why I’m glad that Bush is the President of the United States. The only reason he’s trying to get into the heads of terrorists is to find and kill them. No appeasement, no diplomacy and no negotiations. It’s as simple as it is effective.
Comment by Michael Meyn - February 4, 2006 @ 4:58 am
That’s your view on an “uncomplicated issue”.
The problems with the procedure are these:
- Many terrorists think in exactly the same black and white as you stated above, only differing in the names.
- You will _never_ be able to bomb off the surface everyone who might eventually turn out to be a terrorist.
- Provocation of more crime and terror, vicious circle, blah.
- Who defines terrorism?
- Is Washington infallible?
- Where do the British and American undercover agents placing car bombs in Basra and other places fit in?
- Why did Bush’s staff escort evil Bin Laden family out of the country but ignore requests to surrender evil Osama, who has been arrested in various Arabic states after 9/11 and had to be let free again?
I could endlessly continue this list. It is always easy to go with simple answers and not investigate the cause, Mister Underestimatedgerman. We all want to fight crime in the world, but you obviously don’t understand that this our world is not as simple under the surface. people do not kill other people for “uncomplicated issues”, never. Your policy of Good and Evil gives Evil the right to exist.
I agree with Spielberg. He is not the one to fight terrorism or to advertise something or to shut his mouth like a petty bourgeois. It is important to know the motives of terrorists, because if you don’t then you don’t know your own motives.
Have a nice weekend.
Comment by captainchaos - February 4, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
Not that you get me wrong now, Michael Meyn. We _should_ fight terrorism, but doing this blindly is not the way to go, ’cause this is what terrorists do. Mr Spielberg is an artist and artists have to wake people, unbiased and critical of both sides - staying silent is not their job. Whereas _our_ responsibility is more than just kill the ones who kill, we have to be wake citizens. If you still think “evil is evil, good is good and that’s all there is to it” then don’t be surprised upon other people thinking you’re no better than those terrorists.
Comment by captainchaos - February 4, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
I’m not talking about “doing it blindly” and I’m starting to wonder why this is so difficult to understand. Of course I would like to know what motivates people to blow themselves up in a restaurant or on a bus. But it’s secondary and in no way does it determine whether someone is good or evil. You could be the pope for all I care; the minute you strap those explosives around your waist and walk towards innnocent people you turn into something evil and you need to be destroyed.
Now, I do agree that finding evil is not as easy as judging it, so you do need as much background information about terrorists as possible. The more you know about them, the easier it will be in the end to catch them. But you don’t need to know more about them to come to the conclusion that they are evil.
Therefor I do not understand why Spielberg is making it a point not to demonize the terrorists in his movie, as he stated in the interview. He could have said that about his Jaws movie, since sharks certainly aren’t trying to be evil. But intentionally taking evil out of the equation, totally distorts the picture.
Comment by Michael Meyn - February 5, 2006 @ 7:55 am
Michael Meyn,
no, it is not difficult to understand what you mean. However, more important than just demonizing terrorists is to enable everyone to see the evil they _do_, not the evil they _are_. And therein, Spieberg does a good job.
See, not only terrorists as defined by Brainwashington do evil things, Bush is more than capable of doing evil as well. Look out the window and you’ll see our world is not black and white.
Comment by captainchaos - February 7, 2006 @ 2:06 am