Steven Spielberg's MUNICH

[Chris Knipp]

Spielberg's MUNICH

The artistically dubious and the morally dubious: is Spielberg's MUNICH a "discussion" of anything?

Some questions from Chris Knipp

Critics discuss how Spielberg's Munich has "the weight of a moral argument" (Dargis). This view is that the main counterterrorist Avner's growing self-doubts confer upon him humanity that will assuage the general (non-Jewish, non-Zionist, non-Israeli?) audience's doubts about the violent Israeli mission to avenge the Black September Munich killings that the film describes.

How does this ever add up to more than just saying that revenge murders are okay as long as you feel compunctions beforehand about doing them?

In a violent world and under severe moral pressure that may indeed be a necessary position. There are circumstances in which violent action must be taken, even by the most moral persons.

But was this one of them? Has Israel's subsequent policy leading up to the partitioning and occupation of most of Palestinian land, leaving those territories that remain to the Palestinians the status of nothing but Bantustans, now surrounded by a billion-dollar high wall that cuts off the best resources and makes the Palestinians the inhabitants of a large open-air concentration camp -- shown moral wisdom? Has Palestinian violence been lessened by any of Israeli's actions against the Palestinians?

Is Munich any way of presenting a debate about all that? For that matter, does a violent, vivid action movie, even one that has quiet moments of self-doubt, give us the best opportunity for moral discussion? Does it raise the issues? Does it present alternatives? Does it present the larger picture? Though Palestinians don't get a story; the Jews do. Spielberg is a Jew. His two writers are Jews. And his main characters are Jews. As Dargis says, there was "an obvious effort made to ensure that the Palestinian terrorists are more than faceless thugs (they are thugs with faces and speeches)." Is that good enough?

Anthony Lane asserts in his review of Munich that Spielberg has shown in the past that he isn't a political filmmaker. So perhaps his possibility of conducting a "discussion" of moral issues is limited not only by his predilection for what Dargis called "emotional bullying and pop thrills" but by his very choice of material for this movie: the Black September massacre at the Munich Olympics and the Israeli campaign to gradually wipe out the perpetrators. There is the pull of making a thriller. There is the pull of making a film based on real events that feels accurate and seems like real events as well as closely referring to them. Does Spielberg manage to juggle these confliction functions?

Due to the secretive nature of the operation and the fact that due to the Israeli government's refusal to reveal any involvement in it, not everything is known; hence, to cope with the story's uncertainties the best method of presentation would perhaps be not a fiction movie at all but a documentary done by investigative journalists. Is this not so? Is the dramatic form misleading?

The moral issues involved would seem likely to come in as a weak third or fourth element after all this, and would be quite overwhelmed by the thriller, the recreation of real events, and the concern with unknown elements, were it not for the quiet moments of self-doubt the main character, Avner, exists as a character primarily to interject. These doubts, Dargis and other viewers feel, (as she wrote) "give Munch the weight of a moral argument. It's an argument, though, that has little to do with whether Israel has a right to exist or whether the Palestinians have the right of return. Only this matters: blood has its costs, even blood shed in righteous defense."

What's the discussion Dargis talks about, then? And finally, what is the purpose of this movie? Is a counterterrorist better than a terrorist? The word "counterterrorist" sounds nicer but masks that he too is carrying out acts of terror. This issue, though a relatively shadowy one, can be related to the issue of capital punishment. A majority of the world's nations have doubts about capital punishment (122 have abolished it, 72 still retain it, according to Amnesty International). But capital punishment, anyway, is formal governmental killing. Whether or not it is morally defensible or practically effective as a deterrent, it is an act of law, not of violent assassination. "Counterterrorism" is different in that it perpetuates not only killing ("an eye for an eye") but also acts of terror.

Perhaps Spielberg has not abandoned the "emotional bullying and pop thrills" Dargis refers to, in making Munich; it could be that he has simply added a sympathetic central character, a state assassin who has doubts.

This is not to say that Munich proves to lack complexity in detail and contains no technically effective action sequences. Spielberg is a filmmaker of such skill that everyone who loves cinema has to see what he does. And I would much rather watch this than War of the Worlds. But it means that the film may lack the moral value or the political sophistication its advocates lay claim to for it.

Note: these are simply polemical questions for other viewers to consider and answer for themselves. I have not yet seen the movie and have not decided what the answers are myself.

[arsaib4]

While Schindler's List (1993) may remain the most important film to director Steven Spielberg, and understandably so, his latest effort Munich might just end up being the film he’s most proud of. Intense and riveting, serious and thoughtful, Munich is arguably the toughest film so far from Spielberg. For once, he has tried to engage his audience, instead of simply providing them with they have come to expect from him. Yet, at the same time, the filmmaker has laid out his case with conviction, both politically and artistically, while realizing that he’ll most likely be criticized by the same people who have praised him in the past. But instead of hiding in the corner, Spielberg has responded to the criticism. He recently stated that, "The people who attack the movie based on 'moral equivalence' are some of the same people who say diplomacy itself is an exercise in moral equivalence, and that war is the only answer. That the only way to fight terrorism is to dehumanize the terrorists by asking no questions about who they are and where they come from. What I believe is, every act of terrorism requires a strong response, but we must also pay attention to the causes. That's why we have brains and the power to think passionately. Understanding does not require approval. Understanding is not the same as inaction. Understanding is a very muscular act. If I'm endorsing understanding and being attacked for that, then I am almost flattered." Bravo!

Munich depicts the somewhat secretive response by the Israeli government after 11 of their athletes were killed by the Palestinian gunmen (known as "Black September") at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany. The title card, "Inspired by true events," allows Spielberg some artistic freedom, and he needs it since he’s based the film on a controversial 1984 book "Vengeance" by Canadian journalist George Jonas. For his work, Jonas employed the person who actually led one of the Mossad hit squads to track down the killers. In the film that man, Avner, played by Eric Bana, is a secret agent who’s inexperienced enough to be under the radar of most other agencies, and so he's brought in. The dilemmas and the compromises are palpable early on as we watch the Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen), no doubt under intense pressure, sharing a few words with Avner that more or less sum up what has to be done (a similar sequence from Apocalypse Now [1979] comes to mind). He’s then taken under command by an official named Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), and assigned his duties which need to be performed with four other agents under his leadership.

As the team starts to carry out its targets in Europe with the help of an unscrupulous Frenchman (a brilliant Mathieu Amalric), Munich develops a rigorously grinding, thrusting motion found in early John Frankenheimer and William Friedkin films. (Thankfully, however, the film doesn’t feature any sexy car chases, nor are there ubiquitous overhead shots of cities with their names at the bottom.) And that grittiness is partly due to Spielberg’s remarkable mise-en-scène and the work of his longtime DP Janusz Kaminski, but the credit truly goes to the screenplay by Tony Kushner who worked on an earlier draft by Eric Roth. The violence, from the initial sequence depicting the siege of the Israeli dormitory to the avenge killing of a Dutch assassin, is convincingly brutal, thus accentuating the air of graveness that persists throughout. (The notion that the film is somehow "entertaining" is beyond me; I was emotionally and intellectually exhausted while discerning Spielberg’s every step [yes, I’ve learned not to trust him], but needless to say, he stayed on course, and by the end I knew that something extraordinary had taken place.)

But Munich wouldn’t be what it is without Eric Bana. His character, one of Spielberg’s greatest, is initially forced to transform from a principled, morally honest soldier to a ruthless mercenary (though while continuing to believe in the cause), and then ultimately to a physically and emotionally drained out nobody. And it is due to Bana’s performance -- his eyes always speaking louder than his words -- that the moral complexities are consistently palpable, and Spielberg takes full advantage by posing his questions that deal with the responsibly of a state through him. Bana’s Avner is burdened by his past, and his present doesn’t offer much relief. He’s fully aware of his responsibilities, yet he can’t ignore the deep internal suffering that has been the result of his actions. As soon as he begins to question his task, while realizing that the hunters might become the hunted, he withers away in mind and body (Bana frantically searching for a device that they once installed to eliminate someone is one of the film’s greatest moments). Spielberg, much like what David Cronenberg did in this year’s A History of Violence, contrasts the two sex scenes in the film: one before Avner leaves for duty and the one late in the film once he's returned. And as the final sequence unfolds in a Brooklyn garden with the Twin Towers in the background, the filmmaker harks back to an issue dealt by his protagonist's family and foe, and what was the central theme of Violence (albeit in a smaller context): "The importance of a Home and the price one is willing to pay to protect it."

At the end, I would like to thank and congratulate Mr. Spielberg for Munich, the best and most important American film of 2005.


Grade: A
_________________________

*MUNICH is currently playing in theaters nationwide.

[bix171]

Perhaps it's Steven Spielberg's collaboration with Tony Kushner that allows "Munich" to effortlessly evolve from the historical to the personal. Kushner's plays involve the individual's response to history (the father and daughter caught in an uncomprehending Afghanistan in "Homebody/Kabul", for example; Prior or Joe in "Angels In America") and here Eric Bana's Avram ultimately finds himself as homeless and adrift as the Palestinians who have turned to violence as a result.

Kushner's a man of words but Spielberg's the visual artist and he deftly illustrates the deterioration of Avram's compass by moving gradually towards a bleached-out tone; by the time Avram is brought back to Israel for debriefing, the sun-dappled harshness of Israeli daylight that Spielberg has used for much of the film has faded to a glaring flourescence that renders Bana almost completly colorless--a man who has lost his faith in the fight because the fight has turned inward on itself. Not only does Avram not know what the fight has evolved into, it becomes distressingly apparent that the Israelis don't anymore either--it has become merely a matter of obtaining intelligence, of gathering names, of finding out who knows what.

It takes a sexual act, interspersed with the catastrophic climax of the Munich masscre itself, for Avram to reconnect with his sense of purpose. Indeed, the film throughout merges sexuality with violence, from an initial act with Avram's pregnant wife which at first seems as if she's in labor to a hired assassin who meets her end as she bares herself to her attackers to the final act which ends with his wife professing her love even as her husband suffers. (It would've been a nice touch if, in the concluding moments, his wife announced a second preganacy; it would have validated the act of procreation as a response to murder, something Jews take very seriously.)

There's a lot to be said about this challenging, highly intelligent film (it's certainly wonderful to see a director so clearly in love with the right filmmakers, notably Hitchcock but with plenty of Hawks, Ford and Frankenheimer to boot) but I'm still reeling after the experience.

[arsaib4]

That's a wonderful review, bix171.

I haven't yet seen Angels in America, but have heard a lot about it.

[tabuno]

I can't even come close to earlier posts regarding this movie, but I do want to add my opinion that Munich is one of the best movies of the year for its intelligent, immensely personal way that Speilberg has presented a dramatic thriller. The psychological and personal tension that exists throughout this movie and the intimate family touches of many of the characters makes this a compelling, human movie even though it deals with so much violence. With only three very minor complaints consisting of the inconsistent lack of subtitles in the beginning portion of the movie, the difficult, disjointed connection to the flashback sequence on the plane, and the somewhat difficult to believe firefight that occurs midway throught movie, this movie was a spectacular, brilliant production.

[Chris Knipp]

arsaib4 has correctly called me on naming my starter to this thread "a review," and I have changed that to "some questions," because it was meant only as a thread-starter, while I have to wait to watch the movie with somebody under 18 I"ve promised to take to it next week.

I hope my mis-labeling did no damage and I hope that both I and other viewers will be able to answer the questions I posed above.

I have actually not read reviews of Munich either, except to skim through those by Manohla Dargis, which is polite, but highly critical; and Armond White's, which is totally and exaggeratedly adulatory. White can be stimulating because he never follows the crowd, but he also is often over the top, and his calling Munich a masterpiece in such exaggerated terms may do its reputation little good, if anyone is listening to him, because he does that at the expense of every other politics-related movie of recent issue.

You will see what I mean about White's position in his comments on Caché, which he has just reviewed in the Dec. 28-Jan. 3 issue of The New York Press, in which he lumps together excellent films with mediocre ones, all as dwarfed by the masterpiece, Munich. He writes the following:


Cache, [sic] by Austrian misanthrope Michael Haneke, joins The Interpreter, Lord of War, Good NIght and Good Luck [sic], Syriana and A History of Vioilence as one of this year's many specious political dramas made laughable by the complexity and brilliance of Spielberg's Munich. There's no use pretending that the conventional ways filmmakers pander to the public guilt and fears are acceptable any longer now that we have the example of a movie that persistently scrutinizes its characters' ethics and that does not sacrifice enlightenment for mere excitation.....Besides, Cache isn't exciting anyway...."

Any comments on this?

[tabuno]

In reading your commentary it became obvious that you were not providing a review of the movie as much as a commentary about the movie that didn't have much to do with the actual experience of the movie itself and I took it as much. But it's nice to have an actual follow-up clarification.

[Chris Knipp]

SPIELBERG'S MUNICH

Violence and muddle

Review by Chris Knipp

Spielberg is a popular artist of high stature but problematic output. He's all over the map, he proved early his ability to make blockbusters, he tries and fails, he can charm and annoy and bore and move and edify you, and more often than not he tries to do several of these things at once (though of course he doesn't try to bore you but when he fails in other aims, he does). What Spielberg tries to do in Munich is to make you think about the futility of violence while thrilling you with an action movie focused on a string of international revenge assassinations. No doubts about whether this is a feasible plan are going to keep people from flocking to the movie, but it's still fundamentally contradictory.

Munich is, one may say, about the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's about Palestinian rage, and Israeli revenge. But the director is an American Jew, and the movie is primarily about the latter theme -- Israeli revenge -- and about some of the consequences of a dedication to vengeance. Spielberg treats this violence-revenge-violence-revenge cycle as if it began in the early 1970's when the radical Black September PLO splinter group held hostage a large part of the Israeli Olympic team, leading to their deaths.

This is where the movie begins, with a montage of vivid "recreations" of the Olympic village break-in; the violence; the stunned international, and above all American, media response. That this is highly fictionalized is masked by showing actual TV footage. It's a massacre. Or is it? Actually, most of the captured Israelis died in a melee with German sharpshooters at an airport; but "massacre" is used several times in one scene. In the movie, the "counter-terrorist" (oxymoron? imploding concept?) team kills nine of the eleven they're assigned to eliminate.

After the "massacre" we get the Israeli government meetings, with PM Golda Meir the primary figure. She is the prime mover -- setting up the revenge team, headed by Avner (Eric Bana). Bana is the hero. He's a big tall hunk, in fact, previously The Hulk. With a hero father, a dignified mother, and a pregnant wife -- and, in time, a troubled moral consciousness. But that comes later, much later, after a lot of killing. Most of the movie, and most of its interest, is in the killing, the hits, the moves from country to country -- focusing on Europe, avoiding the Middle East (except for Beirut, where Israel has done damage before and since).

Munich is demonstrably a portrait of moral self-questioning, since it culminates in Avner's anguish, sleeplessness, troubled sex, and haggard look. But the movie doesn't provide a history of wrongs done to Palestinians, or any detailed history of events before 1972. The Palestinians have some voice in the movie. A group of the most radical ones -- by a strange, staged irony -- even spend a night in the same "safe house" with the Israeli assassin team and a debate happens between Avner and an angry, but vividly human Arab. When terrorists die in Munich, their families are seen weeping. One target has a little girl. But as one viewer remarked to me, the Palestinians get about five minutes to express their point of view. The movie is two hours and forty-four minutes long. The rest of the doubts about the justice of the Israelis' actions are left to be expressed exclusively by the Israelis.

One of the greatest artistic faults is that the dialogue is so often ploddingly expository, the doubts so repetitiously enunciated. Aren't these Israeli covert hit men professionals? Why do they question each other so much?

At the end, the disillusioned Avner learns that the Palestinians on his hit list are Palestinians active against Israel, but not necessarily connected to Munich; and that his team of hit men was only one of several. He was only a pawn in a game. But this is after the fact. The game Munich's audience watches is an assassination story, with character conflicts and opposed viewpoints on the team, successes and failures, and a sometimes clumsy struggle to find out where the men on the list are and get to them.

Because this is primarily from the Jewish, not the Arab, point of view, there is much attention to the fact that the Israelis try to avoid collateral damage, even as in many instances they obviously shoot down innocent victims. Things get very muddled. One can't fault Spielberg for choosing the fascinating French actor Matthieu Amalric and the historic Michel Lonsdale (who is practically a national treasure) to represent the French whom Avner deals with. Another interesting Frenchman, actor/director Matthieu Kassovitz, does good work as the toy maker, Robert, who messes up and has doubts and may be a suicide when he blows himself up. Why Avner relies so heavily on one French family for both material and information isn't made clear in the movie. Louis (Amlaric) says they do not deal with governments; but when Avner pays so much money, he must surely have guessed a government was involved. Why pay $200,000 a head for locations of target Palestinians, always to Louis and "Papa" (Lonsdale)? Aren't there any other sources, perhaps even cheaper ones?

The director may deserve respect for annoying advocates of both the Jewish and the Arab-Palestinian camps. But is that proof of an authentically honest, intelligent, or even intelligible position -- or more just the fate of the liberal stance of a muddled seeker who begins with a bias he can't possibly shake off? Spielberg has every reason and every right to question Israeli policy, but he is in no position to question the existence of Israel, or to see the Palestinian dilemma from the inside.

Mohammad Daoud, the leader of Black September who plotted the Munich kidnappings, is still alive and was not consulted by the team that made this movie. The final shot shows the Twin Towers, as if to imply that their destruction resulted from Palestinian rage. But no Palestinians were involved in 9/11, any more than Saddam Hussein was.

[tabuno]

In reading Chris Knipp's Review, it is somewhat difficult to separate out political commentary from a review of the movie or perhaps it's deliberate that we get some of a mix of both. Is the movie flawed because it wasn't balanced and focused too much on the Israeli's? There is too much talking by professionals who in some cases really aren't (considering who the main character and the bomb making are)? It would be helpful for the discussion to revolve around both cinematographic merits as well as the more nebulous fact and fiction issues. In some ways, this review is as Speilberg-like in its approach to the topic of the Middle East controversy.

[Chris Knipp]

There are those who believe the movie is beautifully made. I differ. The action seems too muddled, perhaps because of the attempt, however loose, to follow the actual history of the team of hit men, who had many mishaps and in this version, probably too many jolly meals and personal squabbles and certainly too many tedious philosophical discussions at every odd moment. That's not how a good actioner unfolds. Imagine Jason Bourne sitting down to a big Jewish meal. He's not got time for it. That's why The Bourne Identity is breathlessly exciting and runs 113 minutes and Munich meanders endlessly and goes on for a whopping 164.

It's ironic that my review turned out as it did, because as a review (http://www.showbizdata.com/website.cfm?jump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewyorker%2Eco m%2Fcritics%2Fcinema%2Farticles%2F051226crci%5Fcin ema&mid=240657c) in a well-known weekly said, Spielberg really isn't "a political artist" and the movie's "earnestness" is "its least appealing aspect"; but when I watched Munich politics, earnestness and all, is what I felt splattering onto my face from frame one, and only allowing myself a thousand words, I had time for little else. Read that other review; he's a deft writer and he covers more bases. But I would not have written that review; perhaps I'm earnest too. I wish I could take Spielberg's moral and intellectual confusion as lightly as that reviewer does.

[overmind]

Knipp you seem to have it in for Israel. This forum is certainly about movies, not politics (even though they sometimes coincide). Nevertheless your comments are out of line:

"Has Israel's subsequent policy leading up to the partitioning and occupation of most of Palestinian land, leaving those territories that remain to the Palestinians the status of nothing but Bantustans, now surrounded by a billion-dollar high wall that cuts off the best resources and makes the Palestinians the inhabitants of a large open-air concentration camp -- shown moral wisdom? Has Palestinian violence been lessened by any of Israeli's actions against the Palestinians? "

I would gladly start a discussion with you to straiten out your obvious misconceptions, for instance facts about the barrier, "occupation" of "palestinian land" etc.

Briefly I can just state that there is no "palestinian" people at all. They are arabs and nothing else. In fact, it was first in the 60-ties that the arabs started calling themselves "palestinian" and befor that it was the jews that were synonym with palestinian. Palestine Post (now called Jerusalem Post), Palestine Militia and Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra where all jewish insitutions, not arab. The arabs started calling themselves palestinian to try to justify their aggression against Israel and against the jews.

One more thing: In PLO's charter they call for an armed struggle to liberate the occupied territories. They said that as early as 1964, BEFORE Israel in a defensive war took Judea/Samaria and the West Bank. What does that tell you?

There is alot more I can say to Israels defence and for those that really are interested in the history of Israel, will also see who bears responsibility for the current situation, and who keeps it alive as well. Hint; it aint Israel...

But...that's not why this forum exists, right Chris?

[Chris Knipp]

Perhaps you should take all this up with Mr. Spielberg. Have you seen the film, by the way?

[arsaib4]

So, I guess you finally watched it. Can't say that I'm surprised by your reaction since your earlier post pretty much detailed your mindset. You also see it as an "actioneer" and just tried to lump it with fluff like The Bourne Identity which I can't relate to so I won't comment on that.

The final shot shows the Twin Towers, as if to imply that their destruction resulted from Palestinian rage. But no Palestinians were involved in 9/11, any more than Saddam Hussein was.

The final shot could be interpreted in more ways than one but the Middle Eastern conflict has a lot to do with just about every recent act of violence that has taken place against the U.S. and its allies. The act itself might not have been a result of a collaborative effort between the radical Islamic factions but there's no arguing that the hatred that exists against the U.S. primarily stems from our support of Israel.

[Chris Knipp]

arsaib, I didn't simply "lump it" with The Bourne Identity; I used The Bourne Identity as an example of a pure, and effective actioner -- and not considering that "fluff" but good entertainment, I don't consider it such a put-down to relate it to Munich -- but my point is that Munich mixes genres. It's certainly not purely an actioner. It tries to be both a political and philosophical meditation -- Spielberg himself calls it a "prayer for peace" and I don't discount, in fact I applaud, that -- and an action movie. It is an action movie in a sense that say Caché and Syriana are not; it relentlessly pursues a hit-list mission; action-wise, it is confusing but singleminded. But where it gets into the philosophy and the gemütlich noshes it slows down and muddles the action; the two aims are incompatible and ultimatlely drag things down. Nonetheless I consider this one of the best, if not one of the top, American movies of the year. Wait till you see my Best Lists. Why would I have written about it twice if I didn't consider it important? It's as important in its way as a mainstream movie that brings up issues as Brokeback Mountain.

You are right about the Twin Towers; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself or as you call it "the Middle Eastern conflict" (but what is that?) is indirectly a main cause of every al-Qaeda attack. But in this film's context the tie-in with 70's Palestinian terror is questionable, as are a lot of the movie's slips and slides in dealing with modern political history.

[oscar jubis]

As an action film (and it is that, to me), Munich is technically good and it captured my attention quite easily. But I eventually tired of the And Then There Were None plot no matter how varied the settings and the assassination targets. Moreover, some scenes were quite unconvincing. One would have us believe that the Mossad men and a group of PLO operatives shared a safe house in Athens and had a conflict over the music being played, before Al Green's "Let's Stay Together" saves the day. Then, towards the end, Spielberg intercuts the protagonist having sex with his wife in Brooklyn with images of the bungled rescue operation in Munich, not images of "the commando horrors he has experienced", as written by wishful-viewer Peter Rainer in his Christian Science Monitor review. That would at least follow a certain logic. The actual scene moved J. Hoberman to state (better than I ever could): "Is this the filmmaker's Big Bang theory? His tantrum? In a textbook case of abuse, Spielberg surrenders to his own despair and lashes out...at the audience".

As a political film (it is also that, so politics have to enter into a thorough discussion of the film), there's no doubt in my mind that Munich was made from an Israeli perspective and that we're supposed to root for the Massad guys_at one point, while they eat and fraternize, their chatter quiets and a sublime passage from the music score sweels warmly. It's not the sole such moment. Spielberg might give Palestinians a couple of dialogue lines regarding their wish for a homeland and a brief scene in which they appear as regular family men. Big deal! Spielberg may say the wants to "understand" the causes but I'm suspicious about his sincerity given the absence of the word OCCUPATION from the script. Moreover, it's rather odd that the one assassination from Jonas' "Vengeance" not included in Munich is the one that resulted in the death of an innocent waiter in Lillehammer. Another glaring omission involves the fact that when this revenge plot was hatched, Israel had already retaliated officially by bombing Palestinian targets within Syria and Lebanon. I propose that the rationale behind these omissions is Spielberg's desire not to compromise the audience sympathy for the "counter-terrorists".

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
arsaib, I didn't simply "lump it" with The Bourne Identity; I used The Bourne Identity as an example of a pure, and effective actioner -- and not considering that "fluff" but good entertainment, I don't consider it such a put-down to relate it to Munich -- but my point is that Munich mixes genres. It's certainly not purely an actioner. It tries to be both a political and philosophical meditation -- Spielberg himself calls it a "prayer for peace" and I don't discount, in fact I applaud, that -- and an action movie. It is an action movie in a sense that say Caché and Syriana are not; it relentlessly pursues a hit-list mission; action-wise, it is confusing but singleminded. But where it gets into the philosophy and the gemütlich noshes it slows down and muddles the action; the two aims are incompatible and ultimatlely drag things down. Nonetheless I consider this one of the best, if not one of the top, American movies of the year. Wait till you see my Best Lists. Why would I have written about it twice if I didn't consider it important? It's as important in its way as a mainstream movie that brings up issues as Brokeback Mountain.

Thanks for your clarification.

[Chris Knipp]

As an action film (and it is that, to me), Munich is technically good and it captured my attention quite easily. But I eventually tired of the And Then There Were None plot no matter how varied the settings and the assassination targets.
I think you grew tired also because of the tedious efforts at presenting self doubt and What a Good Boy Am I dialogues.

Indeed the false flashbacks are one of the crudest, most jarring elements in the film, surely a sign of confused thinking. That final sex scene is an embarrassment. Indeed the "safe house" meeting is preposterous and so is the adolescent squabbling there over music. Compare Munich to something like The Battle of Algiers and you see how inept it is as a recreation of paramilitary terrorist/counter-terrorist activity. Compare it to something like Rififi and you see how clumsy it is as narrative about an illicit team project with conflicting diverse members. It rings a bit false from the start, but being Spielberg, it is also poweful and attention-getting from the start.

Indeed the film is weighted toward Israel from the start, from the choice of subject and calling Munich a "massacre." (Most of the kidnapped athletes died not at the hands of the Palestinians but in the melee with Israeli snipers at the airport.) As the hunt precedes we are periodically given lists of new Arab attacks but none of other Israeli ones on Arabs, as if it was one sided. Israel is seen as the only wronged party.

NOnetheless as I've said to arsaib, I do respect this film and consider it one of the great failures of the year, along with Syriana -- which is more sophisticated and many-faceted but even more confused, or confusing anyway.

Nonetheless I think in some sense Spielberg sincerely wanted to produce a "prayer for peace" and be balanced and express sympathy to the Palestinians, but in his political naivety he thought a few crumbs tossed to them would be enough and didn't see that every scene was pro-Israeli propaganda.

I'll grant you that the action element works well at times. And there is much good stuff, if a bit wasted in the overall context. I particularly liked the French interludes, especially the one where Louis brings Avner to meet "Papa" at their big country house. It's rather overblown, but still quite wonderful, and Michel/AKA/Michael Lonsdale is a marvellous actor who adds tone to the proceedings, as does the always interesting (but here somewhat simplified, with his neutral English and ever-present trademark dog) Amalric. Those interludes were a relief from the tendentiousness and the tension and earnestness which I welcomed and very much enjoyed, but there were not enough of them.

[tabuno]

Chris Knipp appears to describe Munich as a muddled action and political movie because the two genres don't go together well.

When I saw the movie I really avoided putting this movie into such categories and instead went with the experience of a historically based film that provided a reasonably credible slice of a real event then went into a fictional, but entertainingly compelling psychological drama with action elements. In the same vein as classics such as The Ipcress File (1965) and The Spy Who Came In From The Cold (1965) and very unlike the more action-involved The Three Days of Condor (1975) but more like All The President's Men (1976), Munich isn't so much about explosions and actions themselves but the psychological and dramatic thrills of tension and waiting, maneuvers, and about the humanity and conflict between these men. From this perspective, I found this movie one of the best of the year (particularly since I'm stuck with mostly American films to review).

If one for some reason thought of this movie as an action movie and rated it as such as well as a political commentary, it's not hard to see how someone like Chris Knipp might be confused about this movie and its muddling through the action.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't think I'm confused about this movie. The movie is confused though. I think you are too. You can't just pass it off as "a historically based film that provided a reasonably credible slice of a real event." The material is entirely too political and controversial for that kind of light dismissal, tabuno. "Reasonably credible slice" won't do.

[wpqx]

Classic Spielberg

Admit it Spielberg is an entertainer first and foremost. Surely one of the most technically impressive filmmakers (perhaps only behind Scorsese), he specializes in entertainment. Films were the good guys win, bad guys lose, and all throughout it's done with a certain level of style. Spielberg's greatest fault has always been to play to the common denominator. He doesn't seem to have much if any respect for the average filmgoers intelligence, and has never made films for anything but the masses. His films are consistently full of really hokey touches (the War of the Worlds reunion, the "Give us our free" speech in Amistad, Elliot getting sick with ET) but we come to expect them, and although I for one certainly cringe you have to realize who you're dealing with.

Munich is entertainment. Due to it's release date it is going to be associated with the art house market, just as Amistad another history lesson for people who never read a history book was. American history might be a particular strong point of mine, but the events of the Munich games aren't. I chose not to refer to it as a massacre, because well the whole mess is a little too muddled.

Eric Bana, who's been kicking around Hollywood's B-list for a few years now is perfect for Spielberg. A face that is familiar but not a huge movie star. After Cruise in War of the Worlds, I suppose Spielberg was a little tired of the big A list movie stars. He wants his assassin to be just that, and Bana is like his character, just enough under the radar to pull off this role. Nothing in any of Bana's previous efforts though hints at his ability as an actor, and for this reason I may have to credit Spielberg the director. Bana gives a fantastic performance here, arguably the best male performance of the year, although I did find the year a little weak for actors. He changes throughout, from self confident to self doubting, from patriotic to exiled, Bana makes his work masterful.

Is the film perfect? Of course not, few if any films are (Well maybe Kane). It is slightly flawed but not to any extreme extent. I'll admit I found the second sex scene to be very poorly done, and as someone here has pointed out, embarassing. I chose not to view the film as anything close to a political picture, because Spielberg never has been a political filmmaker and this film's politics are too simple to make it intriguing. This is a man whose previous political statements were nothing more than caricatures of nazis with pitchforks and horns. The enemy here is a little less drastically evil, and Spielberg makes at least a few attempts to show their side of it. I can applaud him for his first touch of humanism.

The film is great however, much like I found Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can great. It is good filmmaking. It could be better no doubt, and the 164 minute run time pushes it, but I found the film to be quite capitivating. There is a command of suspense, and a general interest in the characters. I also compared this film to Syriana, and I find this infinitely better. Syriana tries to let the audience figure it out, when really it's an overambitious director saying he doesn't know what the hell he's doing maybe you can tell him. Spielberg knows what he's doing and is very calculating, therefore I not only knew all the characters in the film, but what they were doing, and a lot about them. Syriana perhaps could have benefited from Munich's longer running time, perhaps that film wouldn't have been so uncaptivating and pointless.

Like Syriana though Munich is a film that is going to have Hollywood patting itself on the back for "daring" to make. It is really pointless for this self congratulatory nonsense, because let's face it the US hates Arabs, and these films are little more than officially sanctioned racist pictures. Look at history and check some of the WWII films and how they show the Japanese. It was socially acceptable then to hate them, and it's socially acceptable here to hate Arabs, even though they'll never admit it. Perhaps that final shot of the Twin Towers is the filmmakers way of saying "Fuck you camel jockies". In the process saying that it's not the Jews fault. I'd rather not read too much into it, but let me know if I'm completely high and insane for thinking the way I do about this countries attitude towards Arabs.

Grade A

[Chris Knipp]

Interesting comments up to a point, good to remind us Spielberg is primarily a popular entertainier. I think his public remarks clearly indicate his intentions go beyond that here, as does the use of Tony Kushner, who is certainly not just an entertainer, to do the writing, as well as the inclusion of subtle actors like Matthieu Amalric and Michael Lonsdale. Good point about Bana and his choice, but that this is the best performance of the year is a stretch, but then I could not possibly give an unqualified "A." I wish you had responded to more of my comments than just the fact that the second sex scene is embarrassing.

You're right about Syriana though you're harder on it than I would be, and the comparison makes some sense, I've said before why I don't think Munich is very suspensevul, and Oscar I think concurred on that.

[wpqx]

I'll admit there was more potential for suspense here, but it didn't bother me. My basic assumption with my rather flattering rating is that the good outweighs the bad with this film. As far as the mixed genre, I kind of avoided the political aspects of it, and that might be somewhat important to my liking it.

[Chris Knipp]

I kind of avoided the political aspects of it, and that might be somewhat important to my liking it.Indeed it would be and I appreciate your candor. But that I found quite impossible to do.

[mouton]

MUNICH
Written by Tony Kushner & Eric Roth
Directed by Steven Spielberg


It is a gray day. Avner (Eric Bana) meets with his former employer from the Israeli government in a park in Brooklyn, New York. He has nearly lost his mind to paranoia, always wondering when someone will end the hunt and finally find him. During his unofficial employment with the Mossad, Avner headed a team of five men whose mission was to track down the members of Palestinian terrorist group, Black September. This group was behind the tragedy at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, Germany, where 11 Israeli athletes were murdered after being held hostage. It has become abundantly clear that he can and likely will suffer the same fate as the men on his hit list and he needs reassurance that he can at the very least trust the people of his homeland, the people that trusted this mission to him in the first place. His former liaison, Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), dismisses his concerns, allowing Avner a moment to breathe. Ephraim then declines Avner’s invitation to break bread and two large buildings in the background of the frame catch your eye while Avner stands still and puzzled. These two buildings are the twin towers destroyed on September 11, 2001 in what has been described as one of the most devastating terrorist attacks ever to take place on American soil. This moment, I apologize, comes at the very end of the film and stretches the issue of justification past the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, finding Spielberg asking his audience if there is ever any true resolution to any ongoing violent conflict between nations or between peoples.

Spielberg’s film interpretation is not specifically about the Munich killings but more so about what came afterwards, while always paying mind to what came before and led up to the event. In telling this story, he is walking a fine line trying not to offend while remaining authentic. I don’t doubt Spielberg’s genuine interest in remaining objective here. In fact, it was imperative he do so to successfully force his audience to question the usage of violence as a means to resolve conflict. Had he shown the Jewish retaliators as nothing more than a beaten people unquestionably right in their quest for revenge, than he would have created nothing more than a sympathy inducing manipulation. Of course there is something of a sympathetic element for these assassins who see themselves as soldiers but that’s inevitable as their people were undeniably wronged in Munich at the hands of murderers. Only these five men are not your typical soldiers. They’re toy-makers, antiques dealers, expecting fathers. They are regular men with one common dedication among them, Israel. Their convictions can only take them so far as when it comes time to actually pull the trigger or detonate the bomb, the awareness that they are about to take someone’s life becomes a painful curse they hadn’t realized their beliefs might not be able to carry them through. The lack of experience as well as the naïve approach become visible as Avner corners the first name on the list. He fumbles as he pulls his gun from his pants and almost lowers it while the condemned begs for his life. Is this really going to help change the future for the better? No. However, the alternative is to take the Munich injustice sitting down.

MUNICH is not just a moral conflict story about the nature of right and wrong despite watching heroes become detached from the brutality of their lives. It is also an energetic thriller. Spielberg has delivered so many solid, enjoyable popcorn movies in the past and here he brings his knowledge and applies it to the tragic underbelly of humanity. The unofficial Mossad kill team are natural underdogs because of their small, humble lives and not because they’re Jewish. They travel from one European city to the next, gathering information on the locations of the names on their list and carrying out their duty to kill these men. Spielberg brings so much humanity to these hunts. Innocent bystanders’ lives are often threatened or ended and even the men they are meant to kill have families and fragility. The heroes also make small, potentially disastrous errors on their missions. This all leads to the paranoia and confusion over whether they’re making these mistakes or are outsiders setting them up to make them. In some, the paranoia leads to guilt while in others, the guilt leads to insanity. And as if the viewer weren’t in enough despair already, Spielberg doesn’t show the Munich massacre at the beginning of the film to charge the audience behind the Israelis. Instead he reveals the developing details at different intervals throughout the film to remind the viewer how this particular mission began. And as we are wrapped up in the intrigue and morality of this mission, these violent flashbacks serve also as reminders to the team of a reality they had long left behind out of necessity.

Of course the Israel/Palestine conflict did not begin with the Munich Olympics killings. And Spielberg does not tell the story of the mindset behind the men who carried out that mission. If he did though, I would imagine there would be just as much torment in the minds of those killers as the killers who are this film’s heroes. MUNICH does not pass judgment on nations but on mankind, asking us to find the better way. As the Israel/Palestine conflict is not over, nor the numerous other needlessly violent world conflicts, and though MUNICH takes a rather violent approach to advocate peace, MUNICH still makes a powerful and intelligent argument for immediate change.

[Chris Knipp]

That looks like a pretty balanced view. I'm glad so many people are contributing reviews on the site now.

[mouton]

I'm glad you didn't rip me apart ... you always seem to be getting into heated discussions with people. All good considering it simply means you have a well formed aopinion. I read your review and your thoughts. I could see your perspective about bias on Spielberg's part and your general incapability to seperate politcs from filmmaking. The only part of your review that caught me entirely off guard was your suggestion that the inclusion of the twin towers insinuated a continued Arab blame for most world atrocities. As you can tell from my opening paragraph I have a different perspective and I felt that this was the only part where your bias may have influenced you to expect conspiracy.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't generally find it impossible to separate film from politics, but I do in the case of Munich. And I didn't say that the Twin Towers synmbolized continued Arab involvment, because Arabs clearly were involved, al qa'ida was responsible for 9/11. I said that shot in the movie implied Palestinians were involved but they were not; Saudis and Egyptians were. Spielbertg, the master popular filmmaker, is out of his depth with politics.

[mouton]

Perhaps I mispoke about the Arab involvement. I meant to say I did not think Spielberg was condemning or suggesting there was Palestinian involvement it 9/11. I believe he was suggesting that there are similarities between the American/Arab conflict and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict ... in the sense that they are both stuck in a neverending cycle of violence. I think he was suggesting there are many world conflicts that need to reevaluate their methods to solving their conflicts. I need another word for conflict!

[Chris Knipp]

This is part of Rosenbaum's runners-up list and comments, his slight disappointments still worth mentioning toward the end of his Best-of-2005 list:
Steven Spielberg may have learned to think beyond Zionist reflexes, but Munich, like Raiders of the Lost Ark, is still supposed to make us feel good about the slaughter of Arabs, though we're now also supposed to feel bad about feeling good.
That's as neatly as I've seen it summed it up anywhere.

[arsaib4]

LA Times (http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-op-kushner22jan22,0,7266356.story)

[Chris Knipp]

Thank you.


Janice asked a third question: Why do I, her cousin-in-law, apparently have a secret plan to destroy Israel? Since this is who Kushner is mainly talking to, his article doesn't have much relevance to the larger public.


Munich" dramatizes the toll violence takes. That is what Rosenbaum is saying: Munich is still supposed to make us feel good about the slaughter of Arabs, though we're now also supposed to feel bad about feeling good. Violence....kills. It takes its toll....on the killers, too. Etc. Only a completely pro-Israeli bias (which is easy for most Americans to assume) can allow one to find this line of thinking necessary or useful in this context. Killing a bunch of Arabs messes up Avner's sex life. But it had to be done.

[Chris Knipp]

P.s.
We've followed the lead of many Israeli historians, novelists, filmmakers, poets and politicians who have recognized and described the Israeli-Palestinian struggle this way — as something tragic and human, recognizable. Again, this is the bias: I don't find this message necessary, but of course if your sources are mainly Israeli, you probably may. More importantly, we need to note that American Jews and many American non-Jews on the issues are well to the right of the average Israeli. Hence Kushner is pointing out, his 'cousin-in-law' is shocked, but he's only following a body of sophisticated Israeli opinion. But that's the bias. It's all about American Jews and Israelis.

[arsaib4]

It's great to see that Kuchner, Spielberg, and others have responded to any criticism the film has received. In Mr. Kuchner's highly relevant article, he's employed a family member, perhaps one that doesn't exist, to avoid preaching to the public unlike what the film's detractors have done. Munich had to be made from a certain point-of-view and I'm glad that it was (instead of focusing on what the film tries to say, that's what bothers a few). Rosenbaum's comments posted earlier are laughable to say the least.

[Chris Knipp]

I find no fault with Kushner's willingness to reply to detractors, but why wouldn't he do that? As for your calling Rosenbaum's summary of what's new about Munich "laughable," that is hardly a refutation.

[arsaib4]

It wasn't meant to be a refutation; there isn't much there to "refute."

Spielberg has been more ardently criticized for being pro-Arab. I guess that must be because he "enjoys killing them."

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, it may look that way. But there is something very much to refute. You completely misstate the idea. It's not about "enjoying killing Arabs," but approving the slaughter of Palestinians -- while now feeling bad about feeling good about(approving) it. It is only about being an observer, not about being a participant, that Spielberg takes this stand. For the participants, I take it his point is clearly made that killing fucks you up pretty bad. If you misstate the idea, you will not grasp its point. I can assure you there is one. I know Rosenbam's statement is coached in cynical terms, but this a subject where one is driven to cynicism. On intentions, Spielberg's Munich is admirable -- though maddenlingly naive. But in my view, and I think Rosenbaum's, Spielberg's perspective is too limited (and naive) to bring a satisfactory result. And in my view, his result is a film that is ultimately more a muddle than a clarification, for all its dramatic effects and apparent desire to depict moral complexities.

Some additional statements I've recently found that flesh out my point of view on the film, which may arouse your further derision, no doubt? Also to be refuted by dismissive laughter? --

Robert Fisk: "My challenge for Steven Spielberg: 'Munich' suggests for the first time on the big screen that Israel's policy is immoral." (An article (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11632.htm) in The Independent, London, January 21, 2006.)

Mas'ood Cajee: "Imagine if we were in a parallel universe in which Hollywood gave Arabs and Muslims a fair shake. Here are ten films (all based on true stories) that are just waiting for Spielberg's magic." ("Beyond 'Munich': The Ten Movies Steven Spielberg has yet to make," altmuslim (http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1607_0_25_0_M), December 8, 2005).

[arsaib4]

No, you're not about to arouse anything further no matter how hard you try. I had read Rosenbaum's comment before, which was nothing but a cheap shot, but I wasn't going to respond until you posted it here. I exactly know why you did that, and you'd be naive to think that I was gonna let you get away with it.

"It's not about "enjoying killing Arabs," but approving the slaughter of Palestinians -- while now feeling bad about feeling good about(approving) it. It is only about being an observer, not about being a participant, that Spielberg takes this stand. For the participants, I take it his point is clearly made that killing fucks you up pretty bad. If you misstate the idea, you will not grasp its point."

huh?

Anyway, I'm not interested in your point-of-view (whatever it is) because you've proven time and time again that you aren't capable of acknowledging one that opposes yours. No wonder it doesn't take you long to resort to quotes and links.

The next time people watch this film, hopefully they'll pay attention to the fact that it features a world-renowned Palestinian actress named Hiam Abbas (who also served as a technical advisor). She played the wife of an alleged Black September collaborator, and was the one who brought up the issue to Israel's bombing of Palestinian targets in neighboring countries in order to exact revenge, something conveniently ignored by Israeli media. Also pay attention to the fact that Munich had the audacity to suggest CIA's involvement with both the PLO and the Israeli covert squad. And also pay attention to the fact that the answer isn't a "yes" when Avner asks Ephraim whether the men they killed were the ones involved. I have a feeling that if an honorable Muslim filmmaker were to make a film about the operation, it would end up being a lot like Munich. But it wouldn't mean the same because its director wouldn't be an American Jew who happens to be the most famous filmmaker in the world today.

Since exchanging links is what others like to do around here, here's Armond White's review (http://www.nypress.com/18/51/film/Armond%20White.cfm).

Also, Sun-times editor Jim Emerson's article (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051214/EDITOR/51215001).

I guess it's time to move on before members are subjected to reading one more circular discussion involving Chris Knipp.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

[stevetseitz]

I can safely say that Munich is a well crafted film. Spielberg presents a sobering and serious character study of a man given a grisly and dangerous assignment. The film itself is engrossing, beautifully shot and believable. Eric Bana, with a simply perfect reaction to hearing his daughter speak on the phone, establishes himself as a heavyweight actor.

That being said, Munich is a highly manipulative film. Spielberg makes clear by his emphasis on and juxtaposition of certain elements that his contention is that to respond in an "old testament" fashion to terrorism is pointless and merely continues the "cycle of violence".

This logic is seriously flawed if you put it to the test. First of all, there is no moral equivalence between a terrorist act and violent action against terrorists. Terrorism in the deliberate targeting of civilians and non-combatants to create fear among the general populace to manipulate the political landscape. Terrorism is cowardly, reprehensible and the last refuge of the ignorant and incompetent.

The "cycle of violence" argument is weak. If a thug punches some lady and takes her purse, is the cop that forcefully arrests said thug perpetuating a "cycle of violence"? Of course not. Spielberg's other contention in the film is beautiful and noble stated by the character Robert played by Mathieu Kassovitz. He states that all the years of suffering and persecution that the Jews have gone through has made them righteous and shouldn't "lower" them to the level of their enemies.

First of all, it is an insult to the foundation of Judaism and to the intellectual and spiritual contributions of the Jews to suggest that it required thousands of years of persecution to make them "righteous".

I believe that only someone like Spielberg who was born and raised in America and who has lived in relative safety, affluence and luxury his entire life could actually believe in the impractical course of "inaction" that he espouses.

I also have a problem with the depiction of the cold, methodical methods used by the Israeli hit-men, particularly when the film goes so far to paint the Palestinian terrorists almost as innocent victims of circumstance. In the movie, the Palestinians who slaughtered the Israeli athletes are shown sympathetically as if there actions are simply responses to forces greater than themselves. They shoot in confusion and desperation, while the Israelis are portrayed as calculating and reasoning.

If this was not merely my perception but a goal of the filmmaker then there is really an inherent racism in the film. It depicts the Palestinian terrorists almost as sub-human, which is really a cop-out and downplays the cruelty and heinous nature of their crimes.

As a film, "Munich" is of high quality. As a political statement it is disingenuous and naive. I would only recommend this film to those who have an informed sense of history. Specifically, research the history of the Levant and the Six-Day War.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by arsaib4
you've proven time and time again that you aren't capable of acknowledging one that opposes yours. No wonder it doesn't take you long to resort to quotes and links.
I guess it's time to move on before members are subjected to reading one more circular discussion involving Chris Knipp.


I know very well that Chris Knipp is quite capable himself of retorting with grace and wit to these statements. If he feels a need to do so, that is, since their outrageousness and utter lack of factual basis might merit they simply be ignored. I've taken that route before, but my emotions won't allow it this time. For almost four years, disagreements on films and issues with Knipp have resulted in consistently fair and fruitful debates. Consequently, I MUST register a personal protest against the opinion quoted above. My exchanges with Chris Knipp and a few similarly learned and open-minded members are the reason I contribute to these forums. Personal attacks are not conducive to enjoyable and edifying exchanges. Please refrain from resorting to them when faced with members who disagree with your opinion.

Oscar Jubis.

[arsaib4]

If Chris Knipp needs to defend himself, he'll do so personally. The comments weren't "outrageous," nor did they lack a "factual basis"; I'm not here to embarrass anyone, otherwise I could've taken that route. Oscar Jubis should be the last member here to "protest" (?) because he/she is one who has often insulted others when faced with an opposing view. I'm sure it's been noticed that I don't take part in conversations that involve this member, and I will continue to do so.

[Howard Schumann]

MUNICH

Directed by Steven Spielberg (2005)

"For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?"- Matthew 16:26

Steven Spielberg's Munich is a lament for the loss of idealism, not only for Avner (Eric Bana), the leader of an assassination squad, but also for Israel, a country that once proclaimed the supremacy of human values. The film deals with events stemming from the deaths of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, Germany at the hands of a group of Palestinians who came to be known as Black September. It is not a documentary but historical fiction that dramatizes the unofficial Israeli retaliation for the deaths in Munich, depicting the revenge killings of a secret intelligence operation.

There is much bloodshed and horrific violence in the film but there are no heroes and no villains and, to the chagrin of supporters on both sides, the film contains more questions than answers. Will the killings stop the terror or will the men killed simply be replaced by even more dedicated terrorists? What is the result for an individual's soul and indeed the soul of a nation? Is revenge killing ever justified? These are questions in which Spielberg has shown considerable courage in raising.

The leader of the unit is Avner, a member of the Mossad, the Israeli version of the CIA, and the son of a war hero. Though he is reluctant to leave his wife who is pregnant, he does not question his mission out of his belief in the righteousness of the Israeli cause. His team includes Steve, a dedicated Zionist from South Africa (Daniel Craig), a toymaker who has turned to making bombs (Mathieu Kassovitz), an antique dealer (Hanns Zischler) and a veteran military officer (Ciaran Hinds). All work for Mossad and their case officer (Geoffrey Rush), though officially no one has an identity or connection to the organization. The film shows that the primary decision was made by a high member of the government, presumably Prime Minister Golda Meir, who justifies the assignment by proclaiming that “every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.”

Each assassination attempt is shown in detail, including the planning and the execution as the team carries out its operations in Rome, Paris, Cyprus, Beirut, and Athens. As the killings pile up, the bloodshed begins to take its toll, especially the gory "personal" killing of a woman operative who lured and killed one of the members of their unit. The once idealistic Avner becomes disillusioned by the experience and he and others begin questioning the morality of their assignment and whether it will ultimately help or hurt the Israeli cause. Some like Steve, a hard liner says, "the only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood". One member of the Israeli group, however, says "Jews don't do wrong because our enemies do wrong. We're supposed to be righteous" Another says, "Palestinians didn't create terrorism. Palestinian lands were taken by bloodshed and terrorism".

The Palestinian point of view is represented by a group of Arab bodyguards who unexpectedly share a safe house with the team in Athens, each unaware of the other's true identity. One of the bodyguards, Ali (Omar Metwally) claims that the Palestinians can "wait forever. You don't know what it is not to have a home. Home is everything". Although the film does not take a stand on how countries should react to terrorism, it questions the wisdom of the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" philosophy and the ethical basis of the operation. When Avner concludes, "there is no peace at the end of this", he demands evidence from his superiors that the men they killed were actually involved with the Munich massacre.

Munich is an honest, tightly woven, and very suspenseful film that contains some fine performances, especially that of Eric Bana. More importantly, it asks us to look at what is possible in today's world beyond the exchanging of atrocities, to perhaps even envision the day when claims of religious superiority ("religionism") will be seen as racism and homophobia are today, as relics of an ignorant past. It allows us to dream that the ultimate solution to the Middle East conflict will not be a political one based on dual states enforcing a religious apartheid, but a spiritual solution where direct experience, not ancient scriptures, will lead people to the divine presence.

GRADE: A-

[Chris Knipp]

A fair and balanced account with a convincingly positive spin on the film, though much more favorable than my view of it. You don't consider the film's various faults in editing and blind spots or biases, but of course you are right that "both sides" are annoyed by it.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
A fair and balanced account with a convincingly positive spin on the film, though much more favorable than my view of it. You don't consider the film's various faults in editing and blind spots or biases, but of course you are right that "both sides" are annoyed by it. Thanks for commenting. I read your review and others and have considered the film from many different points of view. I guess where I ended up is that the positives far outweighed the negatives. I think its one of the few films I've seen that calls into question the so-called war on terror and the morality of revenge. As such, as David Walsh pointed out, "it provides little comfort for defenders of the status quo, in Israel or elsewhere". In addition, the spiritual aspect was more important than any editing miscues and I guess, bottom line, I liked it more than you did.

[Chris Knipp]

Actually if you look back I wrote two reviews, and I believe I started this thread. There was some heated discussion, though in some cases, participants declined to consider assertions of others (even of such eminence as Jonathan Rosenbaum) and merely "refuted" them by calling them "laughable." I did say pretty much what I had to say, if you read the thread, I think you see my position, and the objections I have. On the basis of them, I couldn't list Munich among the year's best. It made my Shortlist, along with Crash and Syriana. Well-meaning efforts all, all with much to say about politics and world affairs, but misfires, in my view. Naturally not everyone agrees with me.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Actually if you look back I wrote two reviews, and I believe I started this thread. There was some heated discussion, though in some cases, participants declined to consider assertions of others (even of such eminence as Jonathan Rosenbaum) and merely "refuted" them by calling them "laughable." I did say pretty much what I had to say, if you read the thread, I think you see my position, and the objections I have. On the basis of them, I couldn't list Munich among the year's best. It made my Shortlist, along with Crash and Syriana. Well-meaning efforts all, all with much to say about politics and world affairs, but misfires, in my view. Naturally not everyone agrees with me.
I read every post on this thread and I understand your objections but I feel differently.

[Chris Knipp]

I understand.