More Munich

Here is an answer I posted in the comments for the Munich review I did below under the heading "Fleeting Thoughts." I want to be clear that I am endorsing the film Munich for its craft, again, in the way that John Paul II said, 'We owe secular artists appreciation for showing us what the world without God looks like." Here's my answer to Clayton's thoughtful objection...

-------------

Clayton -

I think that art - in the broadest sense - is anything made that has an element of gratuitousness to it. To be art something has to be "decoration" in the sense of not being useful for anything else -- that is, useful in itself.

Then, however, there is good art and bad art. There are two senses of this: good as technical proficiency and good as moral quality proceeding from the totality of the project - matter plus form, if you will.

Beauty is the harmoniuous arrangement of elements.

I would say that Munish is a very good film on a technical level. It uses all of its elements to work together to produce an effect - to drive into the viewer an impression. This is high art.

On the other hand, the heart of the project, as you noted, is nihilistic. Nihilism is a lie. Therefore, the theme of the project disrupts the ultimate harmony of the whole.

Hence, Munich is a well-crafted but not a beautiful film.

Does that help?

--------------------

I was talking to my friend and writing partner, Ben Fitzgerald (co-writer, The Passion of the Christ) about Munich, and he made am insightful comment, "Looking at the current state of the world, if you have Jesus in your heart, you make, The Passion of the Christ. If you do not have Jesus, you make Munich."

I quite agree.