Ann Coulter, that funniest-and-most-wonderful-of-women-since-Lyndy-England-dined-alone, has an Oscar Column (also here and many other mirrors). She gives the following descriptions of the Oscar nominees, the bolding being mine:
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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.
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.