Jew Athletes at Munich Had it Coming: the latest Ann Coulter WTF?!

[Sampiro]

Ann Coulter, that funniest-and-most-wonderful-of-women-since-Lyndy-England-dined-alone, has an Oscar Column (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi) (also here (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp) and many other mirrors). She gives the following descriptions of the Oscar nominees, the bolding being mine:

I shall summarize the plots of the five movies nominated for best picture below:

* "Brokeback Mountain" (gay)

* "Capote" (death penalty with bonus gay lead)

* "Crash" (racism)

* "Good Night, and Good Luck" (McCarthyism)

* "Munich" (Jew athletes at Munich had it coming)

The fuck? What the fuck what the fuck? The fuck what?

I hate to pit Ann Coulter- it's up there with marrying Judy/Liza/Liz or calling a male friend "girlfriend" on the list of "things gay guys have done to death and then dug up for purposes of necrophilia" roster. But this one...

Even for Ann that's a new sick one.

And before any of her defenders start, YES, I KNOW SHE MEANT IT uh...HUMOROUSLY. But I think it's something of a misfire.

Yes, it's a movie about the moral ambiguity of revenge, but it's also a TRUE STORY about a team of young men in the prime or their lives, the cream of their country, who were savagely m-u-r-d-e-r-e-d. These were real people, dumplin', they have wives and children and even parents who are still alive, and I really don't think Spielberg himself is that ambiguous in his views of the murders or the right of Israel to exist.

Christ.

The rest of the thread is just run of the mill fagbashing erroneously predicting a Brokeback victory, but this is just the "hmmmm?" line of the day for me.

Since I can't improve upon her description of MUNICH I'll just have to settle for combining points from the other four nominated movies by saying in my best Truman Capote impersonation ("and between you and me, that's saying something") while standing in a racially mixed intersection, "Ann I swear... have you at last no decency?"

[Sampiro]

PS- Could one of the mods whose children I've fathered or whose lives I've saved please fix the typo ("hat it coming" rather than "had it coming") in the thread title please? Tanx.

[Silentgoldfish]

Ann Coulter says something inflammatory, pope shits in woods, news at 11.

Honestly, does feeding the trolls this much get you off or something?

[askeptic]

PS- Could one of the mods whose children I've fathered or whose lives I've saved please fix the typo ("hat it coming" rather than "had it coming") in the thread title please? Tanx.

You might want them to add a "t" to "lates" in the thread title as well.

[edwino]

I think she's just glibly mirroring what a lot of Jewish groups said (or had preconceived notions about) with Munich -- namely, that the terrorists were portrayed as humans, with families, legitimate issues, and lives. Ergo, since the terrorists are human, Spielberg is sympathisizing with the terrorists, therefore Speilberg is a self-hating Jew who thinks that the attacks in Munich were appropriate reprisals to the crime-against-humanity that is the modern state of Israel.

I'm not saying it is logical, I'm saying that I can kind of squint and see her particular brand of Right-Wing-Kook Da-Vinci-Code-Logic in the last few remnants of her neurosyphilitic addled cerebrum.

[kambuckta]

You might want them to add a "t" to "lates" in the thread title as well.

Lattes?

I would have thought she was a flat white girl me'self.

:D

[Larry Borgia]

I think she meant that the message of the movie was that the athletes "had it coming." Not that she actually thinks they had it coming.

Even without seeing the movie, I know that's BS, but it's slightly less offensive than what you thought she meant.

Don't ever, ever, EVER, make me get Ann Coulter's back again. I think I'm going to be sick.

[Czarcasm]

Fixed title.

[kambuckta]

Fixed title.


Can you delete my now-redundant post while you're at it please? :D

[Sampiro]

I know what she was going for, but even so I thought it was just horrendously tasteless. I'm surprised there's not more outrage in the "Jew media", but then she feeds on it (her nose literally converts into a snout and sucks up a substance created by uproar- she's not only been filmed doing so but there are paintings of her doing so on cave walls- there are rain forests where she is known as "Coulter Mongahanaka", a she demon whose name must be spoken for her to live, and these legends existed long before the tribespeople ever saw the first white anorexic cokehound mediawhore).

But please all to remember "Jew athletes at Munich had it coming" as a wonderful line she said in print the next time she takes a quote out of context. It may have potential use.

[magellan01]

But please all to remember "Jew athletes at Munich had it coming" as a wonderful line she said in print the next time she takes a quote out of context. It may have potential use.

Huh? You do realize that the quote is a sentiment she finds offensive? As do you, I gather. So what's the problem? Freaked out that you agree with her? :D

[Hamlet]

Fixed title.Sampiro fathered your children and saved your life?

:scribbling furiously for the latest issue of the Moderational Enquirer

[OtakuLoki]

But please all to remember "Jew athletes at Munich had it coming" as a wonderful line she said in print the next time she takes a quote out of context. It may have potential use.


I think you're onto something there.

Alas, the description of the plot of Munich is one I'd seen at least implied in at least one OpEd piece in the local (Gannett, natch (dammit, where's that Pukey smiley when we need it?)) newspaper. It may not have been quite so blunt, but it doesn't leave me thinking that Coulter thought up this interpretation of the movie all on her own. I think it's an overreaction on their parts, and agree that it's not pleasant for Coulter to have said. It's just not quite as unique, nor as outre, an interpretation as you seem to believe.

OTOH, Coulter is being a troll again. Whee. :dubious:

[divemaster]

I'm not sure I understand the rant. Are you saying you think that Ann Coulter believes the "Jew athletes at Munich had it coming"? I'm willing to bet she believes just the opposite.

I think she is making a sarcastic comment reflecting her opinion that Spielberg was more sympathetic to the side of the Palestinian terrorists, or at best, assigning moral equivalence to the two sides. (Or, what edwino and Larry Borgia said).

This is not a novel interpretation. I read a column last month in the Washington Post (Krauthammer) reaming Spielberg a new one. For example:

"The Palestinians who plan the massacre and are hunted down by Israel are given -- with the concision of the gifted cinematic craftsman -- texture, humanity, depth, history. The first Palestinian we meet is the erudite translator of poetry giving a public reading, then acting kindly toward an Italian shopkeeper -- before he is shot in cold blood by Jews." and

"Even more egregious than the manipulation by character is the propaganda by dialogue. The Palestinian case is made forthrightly: The Jews stole our land and we're going to kill any Israeli we can to get it back. Those who are supposedly making the Israeli case say . . . the same thing. The hero's mother, the pitiless committed Zionist, says: We needed the refuge. We seized it. Whatever it takes to secure it."

What Coulter (flippantly) and Krauthammer are saying is that Spielberg's presentation can lead one to think that those nasty Zionists Jews had it coming, what with them stealing the poor innocent Palestinians' land and all that.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say whether it would strike me this way or not.

[Paul in Qatar]

Somehow the term 'jump the shark' comes to mind when I turn toward Ann C. She has begun playing a parody of herself.

Her fifteen minutes are up. Next!

[Bricker]

Sorry. I've Pitted Ms. Coulter in the past. Here I believe you completely misapprehend what she's saying. She's summarizing the plots of each movie, in a very dismissive and superficial way. The plot of Brokeback Mountain, then, is "gay." In the same vein, the plot of Munich is "Jew athletes had it coming." This is a commentary on the movie's arguable effort to humanize the terrorists and introduce a sense of moral ambiguity to the revenge efforts. She does not contend that Jew athletes had it coming. She says the movie says that Jew athletes had it coming. And the movie does not universally and unequivocally condemn the murderous terrorists; it tries to show that they had reasons for what they did, based on Israel's aggression in 1967 and beyond. "They had it coming" is an arguable message of the movie.

[Beware of Doug]

Ann. Ann Ann Ann. Oh dear Og, Ann.

What a hilariously rank shit-eating popcult sex vampire diva you've become.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't fuck this woman with Dr. Laura's dick.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

"They had it coming" is an arguable message of the movie.
Bullshit.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

She's wrong about Capote too. The movie had fuck all to do with either the death penalty or homosexuality.

[matt_mcl]

Sorry. I've Pitted Ms. Coulter in the past. Here I believe you completely misapprehend what she's saying. She's summarizing the plots of each movie, in a very dismissive and superficial way. The plot of Brokeback Mountain, then, is "gay." In the same vein, the plot of Munich is "Jew athletes had it coming."

Um, Sampiro knows this and has said so twice in as many posts. What he's arguing is that it's a ludicrous and offensive way to characterize the movie.

[Gorsnak]

"They had it coming" is an arguable message of the movie.
Only if you're a complete moron. "The terrorists were human and had reasons for their actions" does not entail "The terrorists' actions were justified" and only a complete and utter idiot (like the lovely Ms. Coulter) would ever suggest that it did. Where the fuck does this "If you view the bad guys as anything other then cartoon charicatures of evil then you must be on their side" attitude that so many people seem to have come from, anyways? How can a former public defender of all people be even so remotely sympathetic to such a viewpoint that he'd suggest Coulter doesn't deserve a pitting for it?

[Bricker]

Only if you're a complete moron. "The terrorists were human and had reasons for their actions" does not entail "The terrorists' actions were justified" and only a complete and utter idiot (like the lovely Ms. Coulter) would ever suggest that it did. Where the fuck does this "If you view the bad guys as anything other then cartoon charicatures of evil then you must be on their side" attitude that so many people seem to have come from, anyways? How can a former public defender of all people be even so remotely sympathetic to such a viewpoint that he'd suggest Coulter doesn't deserve a pitting for it?

I respectfully disagree. The movie clearly suggested that the murderers had good reasons for what they did. A viewer could certainly leave feeling sympathetic to the murderers; feeling that the Israelis had acted aggressively and murderously themselves, and thus brought on their own heads this sort of response.

[George Kaplin]

I respectfully disagree. The movie clearly suggested that the murderers had good reasons for what they did. A viewer could certainly leave feeling sympathetic to the murderers; feeling that the Israelis had acted aggressively and murderously themselves, and thus brought on their own heads this sort of response.


Possibly. To do so, however, our hypothetical viewer would have to ignore vast swathes of the movie. I'm thinking particularly of Golda Meir's speeches near the beginning, the final scenes at the German airport, and pretty miuch everything Daniel Craig's character says throughout.

[John Mace]

I usually am disgusted by AC, but when I saw this particular little screed, I actually thought it was pretty funny-- especially the Munich part. She just said bluntly what many others said in a long, more tactful way when complaining about that movie.

The problem, though, is that AC isn't on Comedy Central doing stand-up. She's flitting around on the political talk shows. She wants to have her cake and eat it, too. Oh, I was just trying to be funny, I didn't reallly mean it, but I'm on the serious TV circuit so I can slip these little messages in on the sly.

[Bricker]

Possibly. To do so, however, our hypothetical viewer would have to ignore vast swathes of the movie. I'm thinking particularly of Golda Meir's speeches near the beginning, the final scenes at the German airport, and pretty miuch everything Daniel Craig's character says throughout.

Our hypothetical viewer could reach my conclusion by not ignoring Meir's speeches or Craig's character, but hearing them as self-serving polemic rather than genuine expression.

[Bricker]

And if "only a moron" could reach such a conclusion about the movie, why was the director strongly criticized by several reviewers for precisely this reason? Were the reviwers in question all morons as well?

[Gadarene]

And if "only a moron" could reach such a conclusion about the movie, why was the director strongly criticized by several reviewers for precisely this reason? Were the reviwers in question all morons as well?

Probably, yes.

[saoirse]

I think he was just using sound character development. No one believes themselves to be evil. Everyone has a reason for what they do. There are people who believe that any attempt to humanize a historical villain is the same as generating sympathy for their cause. The same thing happened over the movie about young Hitler in Vienna (which may have been accurate in that case; I haven't seen it). It does suggest a somewhat limited capacity to understand the purpose of a movie.

...the first white anorexic cokehound mediawhore

I'd alwys thought of her as a mediahound cokewhore. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Sampiro]

Does anybody anywhere truly believe in their heart of hearts that Stephen Spielberg believes the murder of the Olympic team was justified or that the retribution (Operation Wrath of God) was completely immoral and that the two together were the purpose of his movie?

It was a character study about a man who has to commit "unrighteous" acts to protect and further a "righteous" cause. It was meant to show that there are two sides to issues and that a lot of people have been thoroughly screwed in the formation of Israel.

In Schindler's List the title character is a member of the Nazi party who gets rich through a combination of Nazi corruption and money extorted from rich old Jewish prisoners at ridiculous returns (they give him a fortune in cash and he gives them pots and pans and jobs making pots and pans). Some of the Jews in the ghetto are less than heroic, tossing out people from their hiding places and even assisting in the liquidation of the ghetto, while Schindler is ultimately a truly wonderful person. However, I don't think that anybody could reasonably have said, even in jest, that the plot/message of the movie was "Some Nazis were more noble than the Jews", which is actually a lot less offensive than AC's little quip (the "Jew athletes", not "Jew-ISH" or Israeli, but just "Jew" as in "an old nigger and an old Jew woman taking off down the road together", a word not prima facie offensive but implicitly used offensively in many cases).

In any case, it will be interesting to see what the Crack Whore for Christ does when what looks some people seem to think she has fade even more and she loses more of a spotlight and people come up through the ranks willing to bite the heads off live rabbits rather than just the field mice and bats she's willing to orally decapitate. She'll either become an official Aryan Nations spokesmodel or she'll pull the "I was deceived and now I've seen the light" thing to get her back into the tent with the higher paid freaks. In either case, I like fried chicken.

[Sampiro]

(the "Jew athletes", not "Jew-ISH" or Israeli, but just "Jew" as in "an old nigger and an old Jew woman taking off down the road together", a word not prima facie offensive but implicitly used offensively in many cases).



Just in case anybody's not familiar, the "line" above was from Driving Miss Daisy (http://www.flickfilosopher.com/oscars/bestpix/drivingmissdaisy.shtml) where the word "Jew" is used as an insult.

[Greenback]

PS- Could one of the mods whose children I've fathered or whose lives I've saved please fix the typo ("hat it coming" rather than "had it coming") in the thread title please? Tanx.
Is that what it takes to get service around here?

I'm not much for saving lives but


"hey mods. How you doin'?"

[George Kaplin]

Our hypothetical viewer could reach my conclusion by not ignoring Meir's speeches or Craig's character, but hearing them as self-serving polemic rather than genuine expression.


I'd have to see the film again to really comment on that. For the time being I'll just say that, from what I remember, nearly every character in the film is presented as being true to one particular cause or another, and Meir & Steve (Craig's character) are no exception. The impression I got was that they genuinely believed what they were saying vis a vis Palestinian terrorists.

I think the scenes at the German airport, however, are very unequivocal. The terror and hopelessness on the faces of the Israeli athletes can only be interpreted one way, a way which completely undermines Coulter's slanted summary of the film.

[HPL]

The same thing happened over the movie about young Hitler in Vienna (which may have been accurate in that case; I haven't seen it). It does suggest a somewhat limited capacity to understand the purpose of a movie.


Max? I think "Downfall" also got similar criticisms at first, even though both make Hitler look human, they don't nessicarly make him look sympathic.

Except maybe in the "It's sad that he didn't become an artist instead of a genocidal dictator. It would have turned out better for everyone, and at least when Hitler started going nuts later in his life, maybe he might have created a new art trend instead of bringing Germany down with him".

[Gorsnak]

And if "only a moron" could reach such a conclusion about the movie, why was the director strongly criticized by several reviewers for precisely this reason? Were the reviwers in question all morons as well?
In a word, yes.

Imagine a different movie, set in another time and place. Imagine a movie telling the story of a prosecutor attempting to bring to justice the leader of a lynch mob that had hung a black man for allegedly raping a white woman. Imagine that the leader of the lynch mob is portrayed in a somewhat sympathetic light - as human, as having complex and human desires and motivations, as caring for family, etc. As someone who believes in justice, and moreover believed that his actions during the lynching were in pursuit of justice. In spite of this, the prosecutor succeeds in convicting the lynch mob leader, but only by suborning perjury, and the lynch mob leader is sent off to rot in prison.

And then some wag comes along and says that the message of the movie is "nigger had it coming."

That's pretty much how I feel about Coulter's little quip.

Note: attempts to nitpick disanalogies between my hypothetical movie and Spielberg's actual movie will be ignored.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And if "only a moron" could reach such a conclusion about the movie, why was the director strongly criticized by several reviewers for precisely this reason? Were the reviwers in question all morons as well?
Either that or they were demagogues.

Do you personally believe that Steven Spielberg (who is Jewish himself) sincerely believes that the Jewish athletes at Munich deserved to be murdered?

Do you think that any intelligent person could honestly believe that Spielberg intended to convey that message in his movie?

[Bricker]

When Coulter said, "Raghead talks tough? Raghead faces consequences," I was quick to criticize her, because no reasonable person should believe that this was appropriate language to use.

This view Coulter offers now, however, is one that has also been offered by others - and not fringe nut others, but other people who are paid to review movies and offer their interpretations.

You may argue that the interpretation is flawed or outright wrong. But you cannot argue that no reasonable person would feel this way, when reasonable people obviously do.

[Bricker]

Either that or they were demagogues.

Do you personally believe that Steven Spielberg (who is Jewish himself) sincerely believes that the Jewish athletes at Munich deserved to be murdered?

Do you think that any intelligent person could honestly believe that Spielberg intended to convey that message in his movie?

No, I don't think that Spielberg intended to convey this message. But I do believe that a reasonable viewer could reach the conclusion that this was, in fact, the movie's message. And several reasonable reviwers did.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

When Coulter said, "Raghead talks tough? Raghead faces consequences," I was quick to criticize her, because no reasonable person should believe that this was appropriate language to use.

This view Coulter offers now, however, is one that has also been offered by others - and not fringe nut others, but other people who are paid to review movies and offer their interpretations.

You may argue that the interpretation is flawed or outright wrong. But you cannot argue that no reasonable person would feel this way, when reasonable people obviously do.
Show me a review where any critic said that Spielberg conveyed a message that the victims in Munich deserved to die.

I've sen complaints that Spielberg humanizes the terrorists (and what's wrong with that, by the way? Are they NOT human beings? Should they only be portayed as one-dimensional cartoon villains with no humanity?), but that's not the same as saying the Munich athletes deserved it.

[Gadarene]

But you cannot argue that no reasonable person would feel this way, when reasonable people obviously do.

Man, does that ever beg the question.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, I don't think that Spielberg intended to convey this message. But I do believe that a reasonable viewer could reach the conclusion that this was, in fact, the movie's message. And several reasonable reviwers did.
Name one.

[Gorsnak]

Come on, Bricker. You're completely and utterly begging the question here.

And so, since turnabout is fair play, I'll assert categorically that any reviewer (or just plain viewer) who presented a viewpoint similar to Coulter's "synopsis" is ipso facto irrational. Hence, no rational people agree with Coulter. Prove me wrong, I dare ya!

[Shodan]

Come on, Bricker. You're completely and utterly begging the question here.

And so, since turnabout is fair play, I'll assert categorically that any reviewer (or just plain viewer) who presented a viewpoint similar to Coulter's "synopsis" is ipso facto irrational. Hence, no rational people agree with Coulter. Prove me wrong, I dare ya!
And the Award for "Most Proactive Attempt at the No True Scotsman Argument" goes to Gorsnak.

:golf clap:

Regards,
Shodan

[Gorsnak]

And the Award for "Most Proactive Attempt at the No True Scotsman Argument" goes to Gorsnak.

:golf clap:

Regards,
Shodan
Gosh, I don't know what to say. I never expected to win. I'd like to thank the SDMB for making these posts possible. I'd like to thank Sampiro for starting this thread. Without him I never could have done it. And most of all I'd like to thank Bricker for providing such brilliant material to play off of. I love you guys. Thank you! Thank you so much!

You know, Shodan, you really are fucking brainless. My utterly contentless and invalid "argument" was intended to highlight the similar lack of content in Bricker's "argument" in this thread, and not to convince anyone of anything in its own right. But you managed to completely miss the point. That really is a rare talent you have.

[Bricker]

Name one.

Jonah Goldberg.

Ben Shapiro.

Emmett Tyrrell.

Stewart Ain.

Leon Wieseltier.

[Bricker]

Gosh, I don't know what to say. I never expected to win. I'd like to thank the SDMB for making these posts possible. I'd like to thank Sampiro for starting this thread. Without him I never could have done it. And most of all I'd like to thank Bricker for providing such brilliant material to play off of. I love you guys. Thank you! Thank you so much!

You know, Shodan, you really are fucking brainless. My utterly contentless and invalid "argument" was intended to highlight the similar lack of content in Bricker's "argument" in this thread, and not to convince anyone of anything in its own right. But you managed to completely miss the point. That really is a rare talent you have.

Except that the two are not similar. If I list only one movie reviewer, I concede you may argue he's not reasonable. If I list two unrelated reviewers, it becomes less likely that both are unreasonable. With each unrelated reviewer I can add to the list, the burden shifts more strongly to you to prove their unjoint lack of reason.

[John Mace]

No, I don't think that Spielberg intended to convey this message. But I do believe that a reasonable viewer could reach the conclusion that this was, in fact, the movie's message. And several reasonable reviwers did.
Come on. We're not going to take your word for it. You know you have to devlop a three part test to determine what a "reasonable viewer" would conclude. :D

[Gadarene]

Those 'reasonable' reviewers you name specifically interpret Munich to be saying that the fallen athletes "had it coming," Bricker?

[Gorsnak]

Except that the two are not similar. If I list only one movie reviewer, I concede you may argue he's not reasonable. If I list two unrelated reviewers, it becomes less likely that both are unreasonable. With each unrelated reviewer I can add to the list, the burden shifts more strongly to you to prove their unjoint lack of reason.
First of all, you list didn't exist when I made my post. Please don't pretend that it did.

Second, you've got a completely explicit argumentum ad populum going here. I realize that you want to run it as a "as sample of population grows in size, the probability of all members of that sample being irrational rapidly diminishes", but that's sadly not going to cut it. The problem here is that given a certain social situation, it's entirely probable that vast swathes of society can make the same irrational mistake. That's why argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Consider my hypothetical lynching movie. If it were made, I think you'll agree that it's extremely likely that large numbers of (mostly liberal) individuals and groups would revile it for its sympathetic portrayal of the lyncher. That wouldn't make it an unreasonable or inaccurate portrayal.

As a general rule, people don't like to face up to the fact that underneath it all, most people are not all that different, and under certain circumstances most of us are reasonably likely to commit some fairly heinous actions. (see for example the Milgram experiments, or the Stanford prison experiment) So when a movie portrays a bad person as someone not all that different from you or me, we tend to get upset. Okay, that's an understandable reaction. That's largely what's going on in this particular case. I think by and large it's unhealthy, because it prevents a proper understanding of things. It leads to knee-jerk us vs. them responses. And it's a simple denial of reality. But I do think it's an understandable reaction, and it's what I expect to see when I google up the links for the reviews of these people you've so kindly listed without any links. And which list didn't exist when I said you'd provided no argument, mind.

However, this unhappiness with humanizing villains IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING THAT THE VICTIMS OF THESE VILLAINS HAD IT COMING. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Is it really so hard to see why it's offensive to conflate the two statements?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Jonah Goldberg.

Ben Shapiro.

Emmett Tyrrell.

Stewart Ain.

Leon Wieseltier.
Are you aware that not one of these names belongs to a movie critic? This is a list of right-wing columnists and bloggers. Like I said above- demagogues.

Even so, can you actually produce a quotation from these "reasonable movie critics" (who are neither reasonable nor movie critics) who specifically made a claim that the movie pusjes a message that the Munich athletes deserved to get murdered.

(A suggestion of moral ambiguity about the Israeli response is not the same as saying the athletes deserved to be murdered)

[George Kaplin]

Jonah Goldberg.

Ben Shapiro.

Emmett Tyrrell.

Stewart Ain.

Leon Wieseltier.


Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the reasonableness of those listed, but I should note that none of them are film critics. I have no reason to believe they are familiar with the language of cinematography. They are, as has been observed, noted demagogues who have a vested financial interest in castigating 'Liberal' Hollywood.

[Gorsnak]

Oddly enough, after googling these names along with 'review' and 'munich' I get a bunch of articles (none of which are reviews) furious with Spielberg for portraying the counterterrorists as "morally equivalent" with the terrorists. They've all very fond of the phrase (well, except for Tyrrell's, whose "review" I was unable to find and hence cannot comment on). Not a single one of them mentioned anything about the Israeli athletes "having it coming," nor did I even get the impression that the authors were very likely to make that particular leap.

What did jump out at me is that none of them seemed to be all that unhappy with the terrorists not being portrayed as bad guys. They all seemed much more unhappy with the counterterrorists not being portrayed as good guys. That general trend makes me think that "Jew athletes had it coming" isn't being seen as the message of the movie even by right-wing pundits who are very unhappy with what they do see as the message of the movie.

[ElvisL1ves]

Do you personally believe that Steven Spielberg (who is Jewish himself) sincerely believes that the Jewish athletes at Munich deserved to be murdered?Do you personally believe that Steven Spielberg (who is Jewish himself) sincerely believes that the Jewish athletes at Munich deserved to be murdered?Since this appears, on the surface, to be more of the usual bullshit from someone who nevertheless maintains a touching Bushlike belief in his own righteousness, let's take a look, shall we?

Jonah Goldberg.Here (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200601040824.asp)The tone of moral equivalence begins, grotesquely, when Spielberg interposes the photos of the murdered Israeli athletes with the photos of the men responsible for the Munich attack. See, they're just soldiers of their respective causes. Never mind that the "Olympic ideal" is supposed to be about putting aside political grievances. Oh, and don't give another thought to the fact that the murdered Israelis were unarmed civilians, most of whom were shot with their arms tied behind their backs. In this allegorical film, facts are irrelevant abstractions while abstractions masquerade as facts.Harsh, but calling someone a soldier hardly equates to saying he deserves to die, as you would have us believe, not thinking anyone would actually call you on a lie. One might think you'd know better, hmm?

But let us proceed, on the off chance that you might actually have a valid, fact-based point:

Ben Shapiro.I can't criticize the movie itself until I've seen it (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2005/12/07/178048.html)

But that's what he goes on to do, unfortunately NOT mentioning the athletes. Sorry, Bricker. Here in Laymanland, that's called "you're making shit up again".

Emmett Tyrrell.Here (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/emmetttyrrell/2005/12/22/180066.html)In "Munich" he portrays a hit team of Israeli agents ordered to kill the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the deaths of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics as morally equivalent to the terrorists. That, of course, is untrue. The act of the Israeli agents is morally justified as an attempt not only to eliminate murderers but also to demonstrate to the terrorists' leaders that kidnapping private citizens will not further their political goals.That's as close as he gets to even mentioning the athletes. Looks like another Bricker lie.

Stewart Ain.Not even a mention of the athletes, only a rejection of what he sees as Spielberg's portrayal of moral equivalency. (http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11809)
Why the hell do you even bother? Do you really have such a low opinion of your fellow Dopers as to think this shit works?

Leon Wieseltier.There are two kinds of Israelis in Munich : cruel Israelis with remorse and cruel Israelis without remorse (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1205/munich.php3)
That's as close as he comes to mentioning the athletes, either. Which kind of Jew were they, again?

There's plenty of stuff making Ain's complaint about Spielberg, but not a fucking thing about saying 'the athletes deserved to die'.

Do you ever try such silly lies in your profession? :rolleyes:

[Bricker]

What did jump out at me is that none of them seemed to be all that unhappy with the terrorists not being portrayed as bad guys. They all seemed much more unhappy with the counterterrorists not being portrayed as good guys. That general trend makes me think that "Jew athletes had it coming" isn't being seen as the message of the movie even by right-wing pundits who are very unhappy with what they do see as the message of the movie.

Wait just a second.

Nowhere do I say that any reviewers wrote, "The Jews had it coming." What I said was that many reviewers said the message of the film was that the terrorists were not bad guys, and that THAT message is what Coulter distilled as "The Jews had it coming."

I respectfully disagree. The movie clearly suggested that the murderers had good reasons for what they did. A viewer could certainly leave feeling sympathetic to the murderers; feeling that the Israelis had acted aggressively and murderously themselves, and thus brought on their own heads this sort of response.

[Gadarene]

What I said was that many reviewers said the message of the film was that the terrorists were not bad guys, and that THAT message is what Coulter distilled as "The Jews had it coming."

Ah, see, here's the disconnect. "The terrorists are not bad guys" is in no way equivalent to "the Jews had it coming." And you should know better than to think it is.

[ElvisL1ves]

Yet another lie.

"They had it coming" is an arguable message of the movie.

[Gorsnak]

Wait just a second.

Nowhere do I say that any reviewers wrote, "The Jews had it coming." What I said was that many reviewers said the message of the film was that the terrorists were not bad guys, and that THAT message is what Coulter distilled as "The Jews had it coming."
Then you're the idiot, and not them. Sorry to have to break the news to you. The two statements are in no way equivalent. And to be honest, I don't know where you're getting "the terrorists were not bad guys" from in those articles. They're not bitching about that. They're bitching about the counterterrorists not being unambiguous good guys. Did you even read them?

[Gorsnak]

Wait just a second.

Nowhere do I say that any reviewers wrote, "The Jews had it coming." What I said was that many reviewers said the message of the film was that the terrorists were not bad guys, and that THAT message is what Coulter distilled as "The Jews had it coming."
I should also point out that "The Jews had it coming" is a very friendly rephrasing of Coulter's "Jew athletes had it coming", as the former (1) recasts 'Jew' in a less offensive usage, and (2) suggests that a meaning closer to "Israel should have expected some sort of attack" (arguable for certain characterizations of 'expect' and 'some sort of attack') and further from "the Israeli athletes in Munich deserved to be murdered" (ludicrous and offensive).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wait just a second.

Nowhere do I say that any reviewers wrote, "The Jews had it coming." What I said was that many reviewers said the message of the film was that the terrorists were not bad guys, and that THAT message is what Coulter distilled as "The Jews had it coming."
Let's review:
Do you personally believe that Steven Spielberg (who is Jewish himself) sincerely believes that the Jewish athletes at Munich deserved to be murdered?

Do you think that any intelligent person could honestly believe that Spielberg intended to convey that message in his movie?
No, I don't think that Spielberg intended to convey this message. But I do believe that a reasonable viewer could reach the conclusion that this was, in fact, the movie's message. And several reasonable reviwers did.
I don't see how this could be interpreted as anything but an assertion on your part that a.) a reasonable conclusion could be drawn from the film that Spielberg intended to convey a message that the victims at Munich deserved to be murdered and b.) that "several reasonable reviewers" had reached that conclusion.

You seem to be backing off the first assertion (in which case you'd also have to be admitting that Coulter was wrong in her characterization of the film). As to the second assertion, you have not produced a single movie reviewer who has drawn this conclusion. Just so there's no ambiguity about what you meant by "reviewer," you also said this:
This view Coulter offers now, however, is one that has also been offered by others - and not fringe nut others, but other people who are paid to review movies and offer their interpretations.
You have not cited a single person "who is paid to review movies" who has drawn the same conclusion as Coulter. You have offered a list of political demagogues but not even any of them has drawn the same conclusion as Coulter.

[Gadarene]

You really haven't been in top form lately, Bricker. Your sophistry used to be much harder to spot.

[John Mace]

Ah, see, here's the disconnect. "The terrorists are not bad guys" is in no way equivalent to "the Jews had it coming." And you should know better than to think it is.
It's not quite that black and white, and I tend to agree more with Bricker that Coulter's one-liner is not signficantly different than what Michael Medved (who is a film critic, although admitedly a conservative one) said:

'Munich' distorts history (http://www.michaelmedved.com/site/product;jsessionid=EF57F774C46CD14BC395D4B6F3B9ED6F?pid=20775)

In fictionalizing the Israeli response to the murder of 11 members of its Olympic team in 1972, Munich deliberately blurs distinctions between those who commit terrorism and those who combat it.

<snip>

The filmmakers remain so focused on their violence-begets-violence formula, they suggest that Israeli killing of Black September leaders produced even more brutal reactions; "I think they're trying to talk to us," says a member of the Israeli hit team, scanning headlines of some new Palestinian outrage.

IOW, the focus is on the cycle of violence, rather than on who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. In that sense, Coulter's summary of the "Jew athletes" having it coming to them is another way of saying that violence begets violence.

Having said that, I don't see what's so "wrong" about Pitting Coulter over this. After all, her article is essentially a Pitting of Hollywood, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And frankly I agree with Sampiro that AC should expect others to take her quote out of context and fling it back at her, since she is the Diva of the Out-of-Context quote. (Not saying this thread is doing that, but that future editorial writers probably will.)

[Equipoise]

If I might interject an off-topic question, have there been any objections from anyone, left or right, about how Paul Haggis humanizes the racist cop in Crash?

[ElvisL1ves]

IOW, the focus is on the cycle of violence, rather than on who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. In that sense, Coulter's summary of the "Jew athletes" having it coming to them is another way of saying that violence begets violence.Bullshit. Only if you're also accusing the athletes themselves of being violent toward the Palestinians. That only makes sense if you're a believer in collective guilt based on ethnicity and/or citizenship, and I really don't think you are.

You're really not helping your own rep by looking for ways to bail Bricker out every time he says something illogical and/or hateful here, ya know. But lately you've been doing just that. Think before you hit that Enter key, pal.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Michael Medved is a fucking moron.

[John Mace]

Bullshit. Only if you're also accusing the athletes themselves of being violent toward the Palestinians. That only makes sense if you're a believer in collective guilt based on ethnicity and/or citizenship, and I really don't think you are.
I'm not, but I'm sure that Coulter thinks that is a comon belief of "the left".

You're really not helping your own rep by looking for ways to bail Bricker out every time he says something illogical and/or hateful here, ya know. But lately you've been doing just that. Think before you hit that Enter key, pal.
I'll give that advice all the consideration it merits.

[John Mace]

If I might interject an off-topic question, have there been any objections from anyone, left or right, about how Paul Haggis humanizes the racist cop in Crash?
Crash (Racist cop deserves to have his father die)

Now, why didn't AC think of that? :)

[Bricker]

I should also point out that "The Jews had it coming" is a very friendly rephrasing of Coulter's "Jew athletes had it coming", as the former (1) recasts 'Jew' in a less offensive usage, and (2) suggests that a meaning closer to "Israel should have expected some sort of attack" (arguable for certain characterizations of 'expect' and 'some sort of attack') and further from "the Israeli athletes in Munich deserved to be murdered" (ludicrous and offensive).

That's a pretty good point.

[divemaster]

If I might interject an off-topic question, have there been any objections from anyone, left or right, about how Paul Haggis humanizes the racist cop in Crash?
To some extent, yes. Ebert's website follows some discussions/opinions of other critics who hated the film and even thought its message was dangerous. The following deals with Sandra Bullock's character rather than the racist cop, but the issue of sympathetic portrayal rears its head.

Ebert writes: Having selected Crash as the best film of 2005, I was startled to learn from Scott Foundas, a critic for LA Weekly, that it is the worst film of the year....[Foundas] wrote:

"Not since 'Spanglish' --which, alas, wasn't that long ago -- has a movie been so chock-a-block with risible minority caricatures or done such a handy job of sanctioning the very stereotypes it ostensibly debunks. Welcome to the best movie of the year for people who like to say, 'A lot of my best friends are black.'"

Ebert again: Foundas is too cool for the room. He is so wise, knowing and cynical that he can see through Crash and indulge in self-congratulatory superiority because he didn't fall for it. Referring to the wife who distrusts the locksmith, he writes: "when Sandra Bullock's pampered Brentwood housewife accuses a Mexican-American locksmith of copying her keys for illicit purposes, Haggis doesn't condemn her reprehensible behavior so much as he sympathizes with it."

So, here is a film critic who faults a film because it doesn't condem the "bad person" enough and indeed presents her in a sympathetic light. He's not the only one who felt that way. I'm not sure how this pertains to the subject of the Palestinians in Munich and AC's glib comment, but there ya' go.

For what it's worth, I thought Crash was an excellent movie and that Foundas is all wet in his disparagement.

[Linty Fresh]

I see pretty much what a lot of people here did: Munich in no way stated or implied that the athletes had it coming. Spielberg's portrayal of their kidnapping and murder was brutal, and there was nothing to suggest any feelings on his part other than total sympathy. Ann Coulter spit out a strawman. First time for everything, I suppose. :rolleyes:

That said, I sympathize a bit for the people who got confused over the message. As far as morals and messages go, this movie was all over the place. We go from the terrorist infiltration to news reports of the massacre and grieving widows to impassioned speeches by Golda Meir to impassioned speeches by PLO agents to gunning down Palestinians in the street to gunning down counter-terrorism agents in hotel rooms to cross and double cross and self-righteous second-guessing of moral superiority to the end credits superimposed on the twin towers superimposed on the modern NYC skyline. All of this accompanied by ham-handed acting, confusing photography, an over-melodramatic soundtrack, along with every cliche in the book.

All this, plus the movie was based on a work of fiction, which many--including, perhaps, Spielberg--took to be fact. All in all, I'd say Munich is Spielberg's biggest screwup since 1941. He totally hosed the message. Whatever lessons there are to be found from the Munich massacre, this movie is the wrong place to look for them.