Skip to comments.Munich
Posted on 12/10/2005 9:16:22 AM PST by Dan Evans
As Steven Spielberg ponders the pointlessness of tit-for-tat retaliation between Israelis and Palestinians, audiences will weigh "Munich" and find it wanting -- wanting involving characters and economical storytelling, for starters. The director's long-gestating meditative thriller on the aftermath of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games takes its own sweet time making obvious points about the Jewish nation compromising its own values, and in the process forgets to be a pulse-quickening suspenser. Beautifully made pic will spur newsy media coverage and possible consternation on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide, but members of the general public will be glancing at their watches rather than having epiphanies about world peace. Younger audiences will be difficult to attract, and long-term commercial forecast looks iffy, unless heavy awards-season attention provides a boost.
It's rare for such a popular entertainer as Spielberg to fail to provide a rooting interest or, in its absence, a point of entry to one of his films. But the very premise of the film, that violence simply spawns more violence, runs contrary to viewer involvement, especially when the central character, the only one about whom any personal details are provided, is simply not very compelling.
From a filmmaking point of view, Spielberg is working in the political thriller vein epitomized by Costa-Gavras' "Z," and close to the domestic suspenser-with-substance mode of "The French Connection." Director's fleet visual style creates some potent, visceral set pieces and wonderfully evokes the early '70s Mediterranean and Euro settings. But the laborious, "Ten Little Indians"-style plotting overwhelms the technique, so what could have been a heart-pounding two-hour drama with serious overtones instead emerges as a lumpy and overlong morality play on a failed thriller template.
George Jonas' controversial tome "Vengeance" was adapted once before, in 1986, for the well-received HBO telefilm "Sword of Gideon," directed by Michael Anderson and written by Chris Bryant about a five-man commando unit unofficially sent out by the Israeli government to assassinate the 11 Palestinian terrorists identified as ringleaders in the murders of 11 Israeli Olympic team members.
For Americans of a certain age, the 1972 Olympics will always be remembered through the reporting of ABC anchor Jim McKay, with the assists from Peter Jennings and Howard Cosell, and it is with their able efforts that Spielberg begins this "inspired by real events" account of the Black September gunmen's break-in to the Israeli dormitories, where they killed some men and took others hostage. Snippets of how the final tragedy came to pass at an airport are dispersed throughout the remainder of the picture, most grotesquely when its explosive climax is intercut with a sexual act.
Saying "Forget peace for now, we have to show them we're strong," Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) approves a secret plan to track down the perpetrators. Heading the team of assassins is Avner (Eric Bana), a former Massad agent and bodyguard to Meir, who's briefed on his assignment by an intimidating case officer (a forceful Geoffrey Rush); he'll have four colleagues, plenty of money and will operate entirely off the books.
Leaving behind his pregnant wife, Avner heads for Europe, where he convenes with fearless Steve (Daniel Craig), buttoned-down Carl (Ciaran Hinds), alleged bomb expert Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz) and document forger Hans (Hanns Zischler). They plot their first hit, against a seemingly affable middle-aged literary translator in Rome.
Working in a nimble, visually warm vein with regular lenser Janusz Kaminski, Spielberg brings a fresh, almost New Wave feel to his many street and cafe scenes in such diverse cities as Geneva, Paris, Beirut, Tel Aviv, Athens and London, all summoned up with rich efficiency on locations in Malta, Hungary and France. Spielberg even employs the zoom lens in a recognizably '70s manner, and the vaguely funky feel of standard-issue Euro hotel rooms is palpable.
The second hit, against a comfortably ensconced Parisian Palestinian, does not go so smoothly, and gives the director a chance to create a queasy Hitchcockian sequence involving an innocent little girl answering a bomb-implanted phone.
Even by this relatively early stage, deeply ambivalent feelings are generated about the unfolding drama, feelings that soon come to be shared by Avner. Oddly, however, Avner is not an especially empathy-inducing character. This is partly due to the script, and partly because Bana doesn't suggest much about Avner's inner life. To really succeed, "Munich" would need to have gotten in deep with Avner so that the viewer would be implicated in his growing conflict. The film provides a resolutely exterior experience.
Unintentionally illuminating the general deficiencies are superb scenes involving Avner's shadowy French contacts. Initially, Avner deals with the edgy Louis (Mathieu Amalric). Later, he meets Louis father (Michael Lonsdale), a shaggy old St. Bernard of a man who dispenses enigmatic aphorisms while preparing elaborate meals at his exquisite country estate.
Not as on-the-nose as most of the rest of the flabby script by playwright Tony Kushner and Eric Roth, these scenes are conspicuously well written and acted by Amalric and Lonsdale and exist on a level only approached again by a scene involving an exceedingly fetching girl (Marie-Josee Croze) in a hotel bar.
Interludes echo the theme of French duplicity in such matters that were central to Hitchcock's "Topaz," and also remind that very little goes down in the Middle East without the French being involved behind the scenes, a point "Syriana" is remiss to ignore.
Hanging over "Munich" is the enervating feeling that we're going to have to wait through 11 assassinations for things to wrap up. As it happens, it never gets to that point, as missions are botched, the most important Palestinian targets remain elusive, the wrong people get killed, and Avner's conscience gets the better of him. The wrestling match between the impulse for moral justice and the rational desire to break the cycle of violence is the crux of the film, but the issue is explored in a far too explicit and obvious manner. Pic simply does not sustain intellectual interest on a meaningful level.
Spielberg, Kushner and Roth go out of their way to try not to demonize Palestinians or anyone else, but the story is indisputably told with Jewish and Israeli concerns at heart. Filmmakers' fair-minded, liberal instincts have moved them to create a work that espouses rejecting an-eye-for-an-eye in order to give peace a chance. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, the olive branch has so frequently been met with guns that it's hard to feel that there's anything provocative or new or promising in the film's message. All the same, the range of Jewish and Arab opinion on the film should be interesting. Script provides none of the characters but Avner with any personal information, so the men played by Craig, Hinds, Kassovitz and Zischler are no more known by the end than they are at the beginning.
Technically, the picture is superb, with all hands delivering no-nonsense work at a high level. John Williams' subdued, flavorful score is perhaps as atypical as is his concurrent one for "Memoirs of a Geisha," the film Spielberg once intended to make himself.
After all those murderers had families too.
Spielberg hired Mike McCurry, and assorted other clintonoids as his advisors for this film.
Spielberg had no problem showing the Nazis as what they were, so why is he so soft on the Palestinians? Answer: The Nazis are history, the Palestinians terrorists are here and now.
Spielberg is a coward.
I planned on seeing this on Christmas (I'm Jewish)...I guess not. :-/
Palestinians kill innocents, while Israel does everything it can to kill the killers.
Israel has Arab Islamists in it's kinnesset, while Palistinians are still virtually a dictatorship, although with some "elections" recently.
Israelis contribute to modern society with technological innovations, while Palestinians only seek new ways to kill women and children, and live off the money sent by the US and EU countries. Even the working businesses left behind in the Gaza strip were destroyed, because Palestinians would rather take retribution on Israeli property than make money from their booty.
Finally, there is religious freedom in Israel, but not in Palestinian areas. Israelis are tolerant, while Arab Palestinians are not.
That hollywood tries to portray a "balanced" view of these two situations demonstrates their moral bankruptcy.
Dittos to that. Look at this line from the article: "Filmmakers' fair-minded, liberal instincts have moved them to create a work that espouses rejecting an-eye-for-an-eye in order to give peace a chance." Thank God "filmmakers" are only playing make-believe, which the real adults (Pres. Bush and our military) are protecting us.
"Spielberg is a coward."
Or he's a self-hating Jew.
Any motion picture that can take an episode such as the Munich massacre and cause "consternation on both sides" deserves to be thrown directly into the trash.
A few years back a stalker threatened Steven Spielberg and his family. Spielberg asked for and got a long sentence for the guy.
Using Spielberg's own logic, why didn't he try to understand his stalker, instead of wanting him put in jail? Why was he so darn judgmental?
I have no problem with Spielberg exploring the moral dillema of Israel's decision to assassinate the planners of the Munich massacre. I will watch the movie before passing judgement on it.
He won't get a dime from me. I've no interest in seeing him make a moral equivalence argument, which is what he's admitted he's doing, between the Palestinian terrorists and the Israelis.
It's funny for some reason I was thinking about Eric Clapton today and then I read this article.
99% of my fellow human beings find both artists, Clapton and Spielberg, to be transcendent masters who are the yardsticks against which all of their peers must be measured. (I might be exaggerating here but I don't think much). You say "Clapton" or "Spielberg" and just reciting the name is close to making a definitive statement.
I find myself left cold by both of these artists. I don't doubt for a second their technical proficiency or one might even say virtuosity.
But I find their stuff mostly unmoving, uninspired and in the end tedious.
I'll make a careful exception to say the Private Ryan was a good film and that Clapton's work with Cream and Blind Faith was truly inspired.
But when you consider the body of the their work as a whole? Something about them both leaves me cold.
Per the UPI:
"Spielberg spent four days in Cuba, launching a showcase of eight of his movies, meeting with Cuban filmmakers and paying visits to Havana's largest synagogue and a memorial to Holocaust victims at the city's Jewish cemetery. The Oscar-winning director of "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List" also dined with Fidel Castro, spending about eight hours with the Cuban leader discussing art, politics and history. During his trip, Spielberg made headlines by calling for an end to the 40-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, saying it was time to bury old grudges from the Cold War and expand interactions between Americans and Cubans." Here's a supporting picture:
Comparing this with Schindler's List, it's proof that only Nazis are legitimate subjects for demonization in movies. Heck they even made them the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears when Clancy had the BGs as Arab terrorists in the novel.
How there can be any question of justification for a bunch of murderers penetrating the Olympic Village and murdering, kidnapping and then more murdering? How can there be any equivocation about meting out justice to such people? Especially when one considers that not taking action would have invited more such attacks.
My god, what is wrong with this man?
Maybe Stevie is as big and egotistical a megalomaniac as Fidel? Birds of a feather in some sense?
Anyone who alters historical events and the actual portrayal of past human beings is a coward.
Anyone who offers a "peace prayer" to Palestinians is an idiot if that person TRULY thinks that Palis will honor peace with Israelis.
Spielberg is apparently both a coward and an idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.