The story unfolds in atypical revenge-plot fashion. Typically, we are shown the atrocity in its bloody, brutal entirety, and thus the retribution that follows is deemed righteous. Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson films are good examples of this. But Spielberg isn't interested in righteous retribution -- he's interested in moral ambiguity, though I cannot see how punishing murderers can be morally ambiguous. Using cinematic sleight of hand, to prevent us from "taking sides," we are not shown the totality of the Munich massacre until near the end of the film, by which time the violence of the avengers is made to seem comparable.
Any child in elementary school knows that if you punch a bully in the nose, he will likely stop tormenting you. But our enlightened artists live lives of arrested adolescence where these simple, time-honored rules of civilization somehow do not apply.
The leader of the Israeli team, Avner (Eric Bana), is tortured by their actions. His reticence to carry out their mission forms the backbone of the film (or lack thereof) and turns what should have been a "bad guys get their just desserts" story into another pathetic exercise in moral equivalence, which is what people lacking morals use to equivocate truth. There is a famous quote: "If the Arabs were to quit fighting tomorrow, there would be no war; if Israel were to stop fighting tomorrow, there would be no Israel." This is undeniably true.
After the end of the Six Day War in 1976, Israel told the conquered Arabs that they had the option of renouncing terrorism and accepting Israeli citizenship. The vast majority of the Arabs rejected this generous offer. I was once told by a Jerusalem city councilman that if the Arabs had accepted the offer and had become citizens, their higher birthrate would have eventually made them the majority -- the effective masters of the country.
Spielberg tries (quite ineffectively, I think) to create moral equivalence between people who murder and those who punish murder. It's a contortionist's stretch. But Spielberg makes it because he is a self-hating Jew. Self-hating Jews are generally found outside Israel, living in the lap of luxury in the U.S., doing little to aid their brothers and sisters in Israel, and who secretly loathe themselves for their inaction. Thus, they must find something fatally flawed about Israel, or else their own consciences would demand that they do something -- perhaps moving to Israel -- to help their own flesh and blood.
Finally, though others would eschew revenge as a reason for retaliation for murder, I will not. Revenge is a good enough reason, I believe, if it achieves at least one of two purposes: it prevents the murderers from murdering again, and stands as an object lesson for others considering following in their bloody footsteps. The facile argument that "violence begets violence" has so many exceptions that I need not respond to it here.
And, as any ten year old boy will tell you, if you pop the bully in the nose, he'll think twice about hitting you again. Like Spielberg, I wish the world were different, but unlike Spielberg, I do not believe in fairy tales. There is evil in the world that must be dealt with. Failure to do so not only dishonors the victim, it invites violence against new victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment