Comments on: OPERATION THUNDERBOLT – Klaus Kinski http://www.altfg.com/blog/film-reviews/operation-thunderbolt-menahem-golam/ thinking film Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:27:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Andre Soares http://www.altfg.com/blog/film-reviews/operation-thunderbolt-menahem-golam/#comment-486382 Andre Soares Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:52:21 +0000 http://www.altfg.com/blog/film-reviews/operation-thunderbolt-menahem-golam/#comment-486382 Thanks for writing. Just clarifying one thing: This line “Thus, Jews are either poor victims or brave warriors, while terrorists are mean, grenade-carrying people with neither raison d’être nor taste in clothes or sunglasses." only says that characters in OPERATION THUNDERBOLT are one-dimensional. That can work well in simple thrillers, but in my view it works against political films. So, no, I was definitely not trying in any way whatsoever to justify, even a wee bit, hijackings, murders, mass murders (or the threat of mass murders). *No cause* -- god(s), country, flag, freedom, family, etc etc -- justifies that. Thanks for writing.
Just clarifying one thing:
This line
“Thus, Jews are either poor victims or brave warriors, while terrorists are mean, grenade-carrying people with neither raison d’être nor taste in clothes or sunglasses.”
only says that characters in OPERATION THUNDERBOLT are one-dimensional. That can work well in simple thrillers, but in my view it works against political films.
So, no, I was definitely not trying in any way whatsoever to justify, even a wee bit, hijackings, murders, mass murders (or the threat of mass murders).
*No cause* — god(s), country, flag, freedom, family, etc etc — justifies that.

]]> By: tash http://www.altfg.com/blog/film-reviews/operation-thunderbolt-menahem-golam/#comment-486381 tash Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:31:46 +0000 http://www.altfg.com/blog/film-reviews/operation-thunderbolt-menahem-golam/#comment-486381 Andreas makes criticises the cinematic craftsmanship of the movie, however, I differ entirely on the point, it was enjoyable and all the more so because in its essential elements the movie is factually accurate. A group of idealistic militants took a vessel by force, and threatened the lives of over one hundred randomly selected passengers, except for one common thread: all the passengers they earmarked for execution unless certain demands were met were of Jewish heritage. Andreas intimates that there is some factual context missing from the movie. He implies that the threat by these hijackers to murder these people of Jewish ancestry could somehow be justified (just a little, just a little bit, with these words: "Thus, Jews are either poor victims or brave warriors, while terrorists are mean, grenade-carrying people with neither raison d'être nor taste in clothes or sunglasses". Therefore, if we knew a little about the "raison d'être" we could sympathise more with the threat to murder these Jews? The movie is deficient in this respect? I wonder, at what point can we not just draw a line and say, group punishment of innocent civilians is just wrong, treating the matter on a case by case basis. Andreas, if you have a moral story to tell and think you can do better, let us know when the film is finished. In the meantime, this was an excellent relaying of the essential events of a horrifying criminal act where astonishingly the victims were spared from harm by an decisive and bold government instructing an amazingly well-trained and organised military unit. True that not everything Israel does is beyond condemnation, but this is a nation of people who since World War II and prior have struggled to survive against some incredibly hostile actions. There are others who in turn have suffered at the hands of Israelis in their struggle to survive. Andreas, go and tell that story. But this one is a complete and neatly wrapped package, not too ambitious for the time and attention span of a mainstream cinema going audience. Andreas makes criticises the cinematic craftsmanship of the movie, however, I differ entirely on the point, it was enjoyable and all the more so because in its essential elements the movie is factually accurate.

A group of idealistic militants took a vessel by force, and threatened the lives of over one hundred randomly selected passengers, except for one common thread: all the passengers they earmarked for execution unless certain demands were met were of Jewish heritage.

Andreas intimates that there is some factual context missing from the movie. He implies that the threat by these hijackers to murder these people of Jewish ancestry could somehow be justified (just a little, just a little bit, with these words:

“Thus, Jews are either poor victims or brave warriors, while terrorists are mean, grenade-carrying people with neither raison d’être nor taste in clothes or sunglasses”.

Therefore, if we knew a little about the “raison d’être” we could sympathise more with the threat to murder these Jews? The movie is deficient in this respect?

I wonder, at what point can we not just draw a line and say, group punishment of innocent civilians is just wrong, treating the matter on a case by case basis.

Andreas, if you have a moral story to tell and think you can do better, let us know when the film is finished.

In the meantime, this was an excellent relaying of the essential events of a horrifying criminal act where astonishingly the victims were spared from harm by an decisive and bold government instructing an amazingly well-trained and organised military unit.

True that not everything Israel does is beyond condemnation, but this is a nation of people who since World War II and prior have struggled to survive against some incredibly hostile actions. There are others who in turn have suffered at the hands of Israelis in their struggle to survive. Andreas, go and tell that story. But this one is a complete and neatly wrapped package, not too ambitious for the time and attention span of a mainstream cinema going audience.

]]>