Recomment 1: The vacillating "Munich" Fire Sparrow (Shenzhen) Published: 2006-6-10 23:36:39
Steven Spielberg wants to illustrate a problem in this movie? In other words, what theme does he want to express in the surroundings of the "Munich Massacre" incident? Condemn the terrorist act of turning violence into violence? Or reveal to the world the invincible methods of their Jews? Or is it the way the terrorist organization operates? It all seems to be, and it doesn't seem to be. Steven Spielberg's own attitude in this movie is very ambiguous, whether it is characterization or the nature of terrorism, it stops before it has a point. "Munich" can't see the compassionate people in "Singler's List". This vacillating stance, superficially portrayed film, the theme of which is never clarified between Israel and Palestine, Arabs and Jews.
When the final scene of the movie was fixed on the World Trade Center in New York, I sighed. Director Steven Spielberg's stance that has been swayed for more than an hour in the movie is finally firm. He also used this picture to express his thoughts: The Jews also have a share in the collapse of the WTO. In other words, the Jews are also terrorists. With this idea in mind, Steven Spielberg's low-key handling of this film is suddenly understandable. But if he didn't want to express the idea of'Jews are also terrorists', then he really doesn't know what he did for this movie. The individual's powerlessness before national hatred? Terrorists were also born to mother? The prosaic story and ambiguous stand makes it difficult to understand the director's motivation for making this film.
Steven Spielberg is indeed very careful when dealing with such highly sensitive movies. But he was a Jew, and Steven Spielberg could not avoid the fact that generational hatred between nations turned into personal generational responsibility. Therefore, when dealing with such sensitive topics that are directly related to one's own national sentiments, it is impossible to be as calm and objective as an outsider. Therefore, it is inevitable that it is biased in "Munich". It’s just that this bias is obviously biased towards the terrorists related to the'Munich' tragedy. In other words, Steven Spielberg is reversing the case for these terrorists in this movie and putting the'terrorists' 'This hat was worn on the heads of his fellow villagers, the Jews. But who can tell who is the terrorist on both sides in the grievance? And what is the definition of a terrorist? Killing innocent people indiscriminately is a terrorist? Does not killing women, Confucianism and children represent justice? Since he has been stained with blood, why bother to justify his actions! Steven Spielberg has been wobbly in the movie. There seems to be a lot of things he wants to say, and there seems to be none. This attitude makes the movie a mediocre work.
If the film has always followed the documentary attitude at the beginning of the story, instead of substituting the ambiguity between the individual and the nation. From a macro perspective on both sides, it may make the movie a classic. But Steven Spielberg is a Jew, and this identity now seems to have become the psychological shackles of his directing this movie.
The French family intelligence agency that appeared in the movie has the feeling of a gangster family in Coppola's "The Godfather". The tone of the father's speech to his son and the manner of picking fruits in the orchard are all reminiscent of Marlon Brando's godfather. It was just the words the father taught his son that caused the most wonderful conflict in the movie. The son was so angry that the Israeli Jew killer who arranged to meet his father this time lived in the same room with the Palestinian bodyguard who protected the assassin. This episode of the assassination in London, the coexistence of Israel and Palestine in one room, is the climax of the movie. Although the characters on both sides did not reveal their identities, the cultural conflict was already visible in the fight to broadcast the songs of their respective nations on the radio. It was just that when they finally chose American pop music, the two sides stopped and sat down to listen to the songs. In showing that no matter whether it is in the country, ethnicity, culture or art, both sides have recognized the US intervention. When these two ethnic groups were in the shabby room, the director just gently led it. Give up this wonderful conflict.
During the continuous replay of the Munich tragedy, the film became a process of finding reasons for the kidnappers to kill. It seems that the kidnappers are innocent and passive. Also in this continuous playback, comparing the Jews who are avenging the assassination of people related to the Munich tragedy, the behavior of the kidnappers who killed the athletes in the Munich tragedy is no different. The director's approach to taking care of both sides has caused a psychological contrast between the audience: the passive kidnappers seem innocent; and the Jewish assassination group, which is focused on portraying, has become a veritable terrorist under the director's excessive force.
The film arranges the psychological changes of the characters in a specific situation very reasonably. Steven Spielberg, who just needs to take care of many aspects, is a bit powerless.
Response: The
controversial film is the classic. The poster thinks that Munich should be objective. No matter how objective it is, I don’t think it can be objective. The Palestinian-Israeli problem can be solved with real objectiveness. The struggle between nations cannot be based on the facts. objective! The classic feature of this film is the use of scrutinizing character psychological concepts to allow the audience to leave more room for thinking. The psychological description of the characters is objective and objective enough to make the audience immersive. Several assassination scenes are too shocking. In this sense, I think it is very objective, the film has achieved its effect. Is it objective to make a documentary? Not necessarily, not to mention that such a hidden fact is difficult to make a documentary.
PS highlights: telephone bomb assassination of Mahmoud Hamshari (little girl), bed bomb assassination of Hussein Abad Al-Chir (Israeli couple), counterfeit PLO and counterfeit ETA.
Background information:
(In the 1972 Munich Olympics, 11 Israeli athletes were taken hostage by the Palestinian terrorist organization "Black September". The German police failed to rescue. All terrorists and athletes were killed. This incident shocked the world and was called the "Munich Massacre" ".)
(In the latter half of the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was based in Jordan, acted excessively, causing King Hussein of Jordan to order the PLO to be expelled by force in September 1970. This triggered the Jordanian Civil War. It was called the Black Nine. During the civil war of the month incident, most of the PLO members were killed, and the remaining members were forced to relocate to Beirut, Lebanon. The civil war caused a major blow to PLO, and King Hussein was regarded as a traitor to resist it. Since then, activities have begun in Lebanon. Fataha, the largest faction in the PLO, formed a secret terrorist organization, Black September due to the defeat in the struggle against Israel. The tragedy in Munich shocked the world, and the tragic result of the killing of 11 Israeli delegations dealt a major blow to Israel. The Israeli intelligence organization Mossad retaliated for this, and a large number of related personnel were assassinated in September.)
Transfer 2:
The distance from Munich to Dongmo village,
see "Munich" directed by Stephen Spielberg Half of the time, I began to wonder what a terrible tragedy the movie's ending would be like: Awayne, the leader of the assassination team, was blindfolded and taken to a secret and beautiful garden-later I learned that it was the whole movie. One of the most peaceful places in the movie is to meet the old French man who is very much like Marlon Brando in "The Godfather". He leads an underground organization that does not cooperate with the government. It lives on selling intelligence and killing people and setting fire everywhere. Wayne is already his regular customer. He was cooking in the kitchen at the time, calling Awayne—he used to be a cook—to help. While washing the vegetables, he stared at the customer’s hand and sighed: It’s too big for a good cook. If it weren’t for my butcher-like hands like you, I could have become a master cook. We are really tragic characters: butcher's hands, kind heart...
Butcher's hands, kind heart, this irreconcilable contradiction constituted the tragedy of Awayne and his four companions. These are five ordinary people with human feelings, not cruel murderers. It is conceivable how difficult it is to let them perform a bloody revenge mission. Killing is no longer violence, no more elegant performance art, but fighting against the devil that occupies them. Their previous rather awkward assassinations remind people of Kurosawa's movie: It takes so much setbacks and so much pain to kill a person. For example, the first guy they assassinated was a writer who translated "One Thousand and One Nights" from Arabic to Italian. When this gentleman walked from the noisy square back to his dark apartment, he was more panicked by the two. Surrounded by the bewildered killer, he heard such hesitant questions one after another: Are you Willy? Do you know why we are here? ...After confirming for a long time, Awayne and his partner made up their minds to shoot. Their next assassination was even more thrilling, because they were afraid of accidentally injuring the politician’s young daughter in red. The assassination plan was delayed at the last minute and almost scrapped. They didn’t press until the girl stepped out of the bomb’s detonation range. The remote control disappeared in a flash, and the politician ascended to heaven.
In my opinion, although the themes that "Munich" tries to present are extremely grand: the Munich tragedy in 1972, the black September, the national hatred between Palestine and Israel, terrorism, etc.; but the final point is very common, that is, a few Ordinary people’s love, hatred, and enmity, how do they face the conflict between family and country, how to overcome the fear of the soul, how to move toward the emptiness of life, until they are dead with you. It can be said that Spielberg does not care whether he can restore the image of history, but does his utmost to care for the daily lives of small people in the great history-these small people participate in history and at the same time deconstruct history. When the blood-stained hands of Awayne and his companion no longer tremble, their hearts begin to waver: Does this kind of revenge conform to the usual concept of justice? Can the result of the assassination get rid of the backlog of hatred? When they found the endless ethnic conflicts helplessly, they killed each other, someone immediately filled the vacancy, and launched more fanatical revenge; when their team became thinner, their comrades fell to the ground and sacrificed, leaving Awayne alone. In the figure, the legitimacy of the whole action has been dispelled, and the history in capitals has been emptied. The only thing that touches people is Awayne's specific love: love for his wife, love for his daughter, and love for his companions.
Ordinary people can't control the rudder of history, but they are even more reluctant to follow history at the same time. Between the dilemmas, they are free to be confused. This has led to the ambiguity of the theme of "Munich", which has become the most criticized point of the film. And I think that this is Spielberg's brilliance. For the filming of "Schindler's List", he prepared for eight years, mainly because he has been unable to solve the fatal problem that entangled him: why Schindler, a profiteer and playboy, can resolutely abandon his hard-earned Wanguan family wealth, to save the Jews in trouble? Until the filming was over, he said that he still hadn't found the answer. Perhaps there is no answer at all. This is a mystery of human nature, and the human beings in it will never be able to detect it clearly. "Munich" is the same. Spielberg tried to trace the origin of terrorism and the weapon against it. But what did he find? Nothing at all. At the end of the movie, Awayne, who was almost mentally collapsed, asked his boss to withdraw from the assassination team. The boss did not agree, but persuaded him to go home and return to the home of the motherland, the home of the nation. His fathers used endless blood and life to build Of this home. But for Awayne, this "home" is too big, he just wants to invite his boss to his little home for dinner to see his daughter who was born not long ago. As a result, no one can persuade anyone, and they will inevitably part ways. This is tantamount to saying that Spielberg allowed national justice and individual freedom to go their own way, rather than dissolving the other: neither national interests prevailed, nor was it the horror of "capital history" being covered by civil warmth. Evenly wave and write Yuanfu! Gambling, gambling, gambling, gambling, forgiveness, satin love, Lu Zhanna, return to harmony? br> I wonder if this is a tragedy in the usual sense? After all, it did not deceive us of cheap tears, our tired vibrations in the fastest time. But Awayne’s life cannot be static at the end of the movie. He is bound to make a choice, either to obey the order of his boss or to refuse-and refusal means confrontation and means accepting the ruling from the motherland. And he still has so many foreign enemies. Although he was disarmed and returned to the field, national hatred certainly cannot condone the crimes he committed in the past. How will he go on? Perhaps he can only follow the call of the old French man on the phone, go to a distant garden, be his son, and live a pastoral life. And we must believe, and even deceive ourselves: yes, that is the direction of "Munich".
But the garden in "Munich" is not the only one. Let history go back 20 years, let our eyes shift from Europe to the Korean peninsula in Asia, let our minds put aside the terrorism that kills one person in ten steps, and face a civil war that is filled with gunpowder. Then, we may encounter A place that is more peaceful and peaceful than a small garden in France, its name is "Dongmo Village", a real paradise. The continual wars cannot break the wonderful dreams of the villagers of Dongmo Village. On the contrary, the soldiers who accidentally broke into the village were influenced by their simple people's sentiments, gave up the hatred that was once incompatible, and eventually became the loyal defenders of this peach blossom field without hesitation. Sacrifice your life.
"Welcome to Dongmocun" is a masterpiece by South Korean director Park Kwang-hyun. It is said to be the most popular movie in South Korea in 2005. If it can arouse such a spectacular market, there are bound to be exciting highlights that will impress the general public. But after reading it, I was a little disappointed. As a friend said, this is a top-notch topic, second-rate shooting technology, but the audience is a little bit influential. To be eager for such a simple narrative film, I am afraid that my heart is thirsty to the extreme. Perhaps we can also glimpse the national psychology of South Koreans praying for the reunification of the North and the South. At the time of the plot of the movie, complaints such as "Why Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou couldn't shoot this theme" appeared in my heart. Of course, we are masturbating that we already have Jiang Wen's "The Devil Is Coming", which is just a radio and television broadcast by Gou Day. The bureau issued a banning order.
Continue to say "Dongmo Village". I have to declare that the above judgment of it as "simplistic narrative" is not a derogatory statement. Or it can be expressed in another way: the film was made honestly and cleanly, without any procrastination in the plot, except for the torturous look in some slow motions. And these characteristics, I think they are all determined by the theme of the movie: it was originally a conflict between the enemy and ourselves, what can be used to eliminate their hostility and resentment, without having to pay the price of life and death? As for "Munich", this kind of struggle can never be eliminated, so the final situation is a cold stalemate. Spielberg prefers to focus the extravagant lens on Awayne's personal tragedy. This is a deep, but pessimistic one that penetrates human nature. And Park Guangxuan would rather have a beautiful almost innocent idea. He made up an imaginary city of Dongmo Village, a peach blossom field that has nothing to do with war. The warmth that emerges from here melts the hardship that separates the south from the north. ice. Moreover, we might as well imagine Park Gwang-hyun’s ultimate appeal with the help of "Dongmok Village": not only to dispel hatred, but also to call for unity: In the second half of the movie, South Korean Lieutenant Pyo Hyun-cheol and North Korean Commander Lee Soo Hwa share the same enemy. The muzzle was aimed at an American aircraft representing foreign forces.
In this sense, it is estimated that a "Peach Blossom Spring" that escapes the world can no longer accommodate the metaphorical power of Dongmo Village. This small village with less than a hundred people no longer possesses the flat geographical nature, but is sublimated into a collection of human nature and beauty. We don’t know if the villagers have been isolated from the world to "no matter whether there is Han, no matter what the Wei or Jin" situation, but their unfamiliarity with rifles, grenades and other weapons is not a natural aversion to violence? They were not cold about the North-South dispute, and watched with a grinning the embarrassment that Piao Hyun-cheol and Lee Soo-hwa would rather get drenched in the heavy rain and be resolutely opposed. Isn't it a mockery of dual politics? In order to protect the safety of Dongmo Village, the five soldiers who had been full of enmity, sacrificed their lives to become benevolence and engaged in a desperate battle with American aircraft. That night, there were endless artillery fires and numerous casualties, but the villagers were still smiling, as if watching the Lantern Festival. Bright fireworks-don't blame them for their indifference, their cognition has not yet evolved to that point-isn't it the kindest testimony of human nature? When they first entered Dongmo Village, Biao Hyunzhe and Li Xiuhua were still angry at King Kong. When they came out, the Bodhisattva lowered their eyebrows. Does this village have the miraculous effect of purifying the soul? ——Unless it is heaven.
Ang Li once interpreted Broken Arm Mountain in this way: "Everyone has a Broken Arm Mountain in their heart." I like this sentence very much. Everyone has a Broken Arm Mountain in his heart, just as everyone has pain, deficiencies, and expectations for the future. I would like to extend it infinitely: Every country has a Dongmo Village, which is a beautiful side; and every country has a Munich, which is a tragic side. These two aspects are indispensable, and their cohesion constitutes a country full of vitality. ——At this point, I found that this review can justify itself, Dongmo Village (the French Garden is an image of it) is indeed the direction of Munich. The distance from Munich to Dongmo Village is the distance from nightmares to dreams, from despair to hope, from darkness to light, from hell to heaven-I hope it’s not from one side of the coin to the other. Distance, that would never be possible to arrive. Respond
in Ningbo on February 26, 2006
: Like one, insightful analysis!
View more about Munich reviews
