The man behind "Munich" on Big Wedding II
I caught this over on Covert History:
Among the movie's many terrific performances, the standout is Michael Lonsdale as "Papa," a former French Resistance fighter turned cynical information trader and warm-hearted gourmet cook. If I were hipper, I'd know the real life model for that character. In fact, part of me would like to be that guy.
The "communal dining" motif, which no critic seems to have noticed, is key to the film's meaning. Like Spielberg's War of the Worlds remake, this is a film about family -- and by the story's end, family is defined as those with whom one breaks bread. Ties of race and blood are not necessarily the deciding factors. (None of this should surprise anyone who knows about the makeup of Spielberg's own household.) At the start, Avner regards Ephraim, his Mossad controller, as a pseudo-father. By film's end -- when Ephraim refuses one last request to share a meal -- he has become a stranger; "Papa" is the true substitute parent. Avner also seems alienated from his mother, whose cliche-ridden "Why we must always support Israel" speech doesn't penetrate her son's stone ears. We never see Avner break bread with her, either.
Ephraim, played by Geoffrey Rush, remains something of a mystery. Various sources identify him as the notorious Mossad agent Mike Harari, who was "running" Noriega before his capture. However, the original script identifies Harari by name and makes clear that he is supposed to be someone very different. The writers may have gone down this road for legal reasons. (Early in Citizen Kane, one of the newsmen refers to Hearst, thereby allowing the filmmakers to argue in court, if need be, that they never intended Kane to be seen as Hearst.)
I posit that one spiritual model for Rush's character is Ephraim Halevy, who was the head of Mossad not long ago. In his must-read memoir The Other Side of Deception, Victor Ostrovsky recounts how he was manipulated by Halevy in the days after the former broke with Mossad and before the latter assumed the seat of power. (Ostrovsky never gives Halevy's full name, but he ain't foolin' nobody.) If you read that fascinating book and see Munich in rapid succession, the parallels should be obvious.
Back to Juval Aviv: Many people do not know that he was also the prime mover behind the Interfor report, the key document for those exploring alternatives to the official account of the Lockerbie affair. (See also here.)
For what little it may be worth, I also felt pretty certain that Big Wedding II would occur in that year. Call it a hunch -- really, a daily gut-level sickness -- that did not pan out. Thank god.
The "Wrath of God" remark deserves further explanation. Juval Aviv was the original of "Avner," the character played by Eric Bana in Spielberg's film "Munich." I had planned to write at length about this superb film during its release, but other matters got in the way.Fox News speaks with Counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv:
Do you believe another terrorist attack is likely on American soil?The Independent describes Aviv as one of Mossad's 'Wrath of God' hitmen.
I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.
Update: this story was published in 2005. Guess the 90 days is up!
Among the movie's many terrific performances, the standout is Michael Lonsdale as "Papa," a former French Resistance fighter turned cynical information trader and warm-hearted gourmet cook. If I were hipper, I'd know the real life model for that character. In fact, part of me would like to be that guy.
The "communal dining" motif, which no critic seems to have noticed, is key to the film's meaning. Like Spielberg's War of the Worlds remake, this is a film about family -- and by the story's end, family is defined as those with whom one breaks bread. Ties of race and blood are not necessarily the deciding factors. (None of this should surprise anyone who knows about the makeup of Spielberg's own household.) At the start, Avner regards Ephraim, his Mossad controller, as a pseudo-father. By film's end -- when Ephraim refuses one last request to share a meal -- he has become a stranger; "Papa" is the true substitute parent. Avner also seems alienated from his mother, whose cliche-ridden "Why we must always support Israel" speech doesn't penetrate her son's stone ears. We never see Avner break bread with her, either.
Ephraim, played by Geoffrey Rush, remains something of a mystery. Various sources identify him as the notorious Mossad agent Mike Harari, who was "running" Noriega before his capture. However, the original script identifies Harari by name and makes clear that he is supposed to be someone very different. The writers may have gone down this road for legal reasons. (Early in Citizen Kane, one of the newsmen refers to Hearst, thereby allowing the filmmakers to argue in court, if need be, that they never intended Kane to be seen as Hearst.)
I posit that one spiritual model for Rush's character is Ephraim Halevy, who was the head of Mossad not long ago. In his must-read memoir The Other Side of Deception, Victor Ostrovsky recounts how he was manipulated by Halevy in the days after the former broke with Mossad and before the latter assumed the seat of power. (Ostrovsky never gives Halevy's full name, but he ain't foolin' nobody.) If you read that fascinating book and see Munich in rapid succession, the parallels should be obvious.Back to Juval Aviv: Many people do not know that he was also the prime mover behind the Interfor report, the key document for those exploring alternatives to the official account of the Lockerbie affair. (See also here.)
Aviv insists that from the start he's been willing to listen to proof that his report is all wrong. But Scottish police investigating Lockerbie have never interviewed him or asked him for his sources.I don't think he is a fabricator. Still, he was wrong about Big Wedding II occurring in 2005. Does that fact affect the credibility of his previous work?
"I was never told directly that [my report] was wrong," Aviv says. "I was always attacked as the messenger, as somebody who was a fabricator, a lunatic, whatever."
For what little it may be worth, I also felt pretty certain that Big Wedding II would occur in that year. Call it a hunch -- really, a daily gut-level sickness -- that did not pan out. Thank god.
Publicité