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 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".