<p>I was talking with a friend about this year’s Best Picture Oscar nominees, and I mentioned that “Munich” was the one that moved me the most. I also commented that some of my Jewish friends didn’t want to see it. One of the reasons is because they felt it treated the lives of the Israeli athletes and the Palestinians terrorists as equal. LOTS of potentially controversial material here, but I just have one question. . . My friend replied that perhaps Jewish people didn’t like the movie because of what happened at the end. After the conversation was over, I realized that while I could remember the ending somewhat, I couldn’t recall anything potentially offensive.</p>
<p>Can anyone refresh my memory about the ending of this movie?! Thanks!</p>
<p>I was privileged to see the four nominees for Documentary Short Feature this afternoon. They were shown just four times in Mpls. this weekend. Has anyone else seen them?</p>
<p>Yes, I was bothered by the words “inspired by true events” that appeared at the beginning of the story. I wondered why “based on” couldn’t have been used. Is it because of the clandestine nature of the entire operation? My husband read the book, Vengeance, a1984 account of the story, and didn’t find many differences between it and the movie. But what is the truth?</p>
<p>I think of it like a WWII movie…how much of that was truth, or the Civil War, Vietnam War movies, I mean how much of John Waynes stuff was exactly like it was? And we will never really know what happened, but there is enough information out there that we can see the results of the actions…how the dots all connects, well, that is the question</p>
<p>What I liked about it was the conflict that the men went through as characters- how much for country would you do? I mean, we have special forces who infiltrate places, there is a new tv show coming up that has similar kinds of characters- men and women undercover with no acknowledgement for what they do</p>
<p>In that sense, I enjoyed the movie…almost every government has people that will do what these men did…sacrafice all in the name of their nation…maybe not the same way, but with the same passion and confusion</p>
<p>I think that was a main point in the movie- what does a country need to do in order to feel safe and what can you ask of your “soldiers” in order to get it done, and how do those people feel</p>
<p>As for the history, well, it was a possiblity of how things could have been</p>
<p>I was in Germany during the Munich Olympics, so for me, it was very real</p>
<p>are according to the publishers’ blurbs, true accounts of what happened after Golda Meir asked 5 men to kill the Black September members Mossad held responsible for the killings.</p>
<p>I remember the TV movie - harrowing. Munich hasn’t made it to our town yet.</p>
<p>One can only pray that our race will mature some day so this madness is never repeated.</p>
<p>I also remember Jim McKay’s ashen face when he announced the failure of the rescue mission. Needless to say, the Germans learned how to do things as per the Mogadishu airliner rescue some years later.</p>
<p>No, the most offensive thing that happened at the end–and one of Speilberg’s main points–was that Geoffery Rush refused to eat a meal at Eric Bana’s house. Bana, despite all he had done for israel, was rejected by Rush as a true Jew because he no longer lived in Israel. </p>
<p>Speilberg’s theme was two fold. One theme, quite personal, was the definition of a Jew, how the definition is made, differences among Jews, the impact of recent history on that definition, the impact of violence on that definition. Hundreds and hundreds of observations were set out in the film, many were fascinating for outsiders.</p>
<p>Speilberg’s second theme delved into the general morality of extreme political violence and I was unsure where he stood on the issue. On the one hand, Bana’s mother ‘blesses’ his bloody deeds. On the other hand, the audience has the perspective of time. Obviously, the retaliations were politically futile.</p>