January 27th, 2006
Munich
Munich ****
The last time Steven Spielberg examined a key aspect of Jewish history, he was universally applauded and scooped the Best Director Oscar so long denied him. With Munich, he has irked everyone from Palestinians and Black September survivors to George Jonas, the man whose book ‘Vengeance’ the film is based on. The opening credits employ the Hollywood safety valve of ‘Inspired by Real Events’ and this is perhaps one of the mainstays of the flack Spielberg has received. If the subject matter is atypical of the feelgood blockbuster director, the opening sequence is definitely not one of his signatures. It jumps around, trying to cut to the chase too quickly and the effect is patchy, lacking the usual strength of a Spielberg opener.
After the initial murders at Munich, where 11 Israeli athletes are killed at the 1972 Olympic games, the film shifts to the central narrative . the response to and consequences of the killings. Post-murders, there is much Zionist soapboxing in a scene where Avner (Eric Bana) meets with Golda Meyer and is chosen to lead Mossad’s revenge mission. Just as this appears to be an early indicator that Spielberg is preparing to launch a one-sided crusade on Israel’s right to exist, we cut to a scene where the team of assassins meet up. Avner joins up with the impassive Carl (Ciarán Hinds), Steve (Daniel Craig) a combatant South African, ex-toy maker Robert (French actor Matthieu Kassovitz) and Hans (Hanns Zischler), a German forger.
Before their mission begins, they have dinner and break bread to a classical soundtrack. Nailing his colours to the mast, Spielberg opts to show the human side of terrorism. The languid dinner scene is a welcome water stop before the real plot kicks in. The quintet start to hunt down the alleged masterminds behind the Munich attacks and we’re dragged along with the film’s relentless pace. Presented in handheld shots, it’s edgy, claustrophobic, and at times, difficult to watch. The first victim is an elderly man, whose graphic murder coincides with Avner’s first bout of conscience about the veracity and motivation for what he’s doing. Quickly he and the group learn to abdicate their sense of guilt and get down to the task at hand. While rolling out taut, action-filled scenes, the film focuses on the five men and their response to the killings. While their MO demands subtle hits, the body count starts to creep up as tension rises and the assassins get clumsy. The unreliable bomb maker uses too much explosive, another bomb fails to explode and one of team finishes things off Terminator-style, stalking up a staircase to throw a hand grenade.
Despite its 15A cert in Ireland, there is much violence and some distressing scenes of carnage, particularly when bystanders are involved. When one of the team is targeted, their French source, Louis who works for his Bacchanalian baddie father, tells Avner that the hunters are now the hunted, by people who are “ideologically motivatedâ€?. Avner is torn between duty and the mission’s endlessness as he waits for his team to be picked off one by one.
While the events are certainly political, Spielberg bleaches politics from the main fabric of the story and focuses on individual lives, the effects of terrorism and the brutality of violence. He opts to show the suffering of both sides but has been accused of humanising the terrorists, but he also humanises the victims. Mohammad Hamshiri in Paris has a child, in Cyprus, an operative target comments on the beauty of the night air and offers Avner a sleeping pill to counter the amorous noise of a honeymoon couple in a neighbouring hotel room, unaware of his fate.
Certainly Spielberg has used historical bricolage for his story, discarding the bits he doesn’t want to use and including some questionable scenes. There is no mention of Ahmed Bouchiki, the Moroccan waiter, who was mistaken for Ali Hassan Salameh and murdered. When the squad are double booked with a PLO team, they argue over what to play on the radio (“Let’s Stick Togetherâ€? by Marvin Gaye is the unlikely decision). Ali, a young PLO member tells Avner that: “We Want to Be Nations. Home is everything.â€? Spielberg allows some of his characters to pontificate about homeland and it’s a recurring motif in the film.
While Munich has its flaws and is not entirely accurate, it achieves two things. Minimally it’s a hugely watchable, if exhausting film. The unlikely cast, particularly Bana, as the conflicted leader are highly accomplished. John Williams’ impressive score lingers long after the credits and location scale contradicts the suffocating core of the film. Mostly though, it encapsulates an obvious but widely held view of terrorism. Is this mission - or metaphorically any terrorist attack - a matter of political exigence or does it perpetuate an endless cycle of tit-for-tat? Spielberg instructs the audience in the mantra that terrorism begets terrorism and violence breeds more violence and the film’s final, lingering shot of the Twin Towers is meant to reinforce this.
January 29th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Hmm.. I should make it clear that I haven’t seen the film, Sinéad.. and I may not for some time.. I’m unlikely to deliberately seek it out.. that should, I guess, preclude me from commenting, but a couple of things worry me about the film from your review.
The first is “Spielberg instructs the audience in the mantra that terrorism begets terrorism and violence breeds more violence..” Do I, or anyone else, need to be instructed in that, or any other, mantra.. surely an accomplished film-maker, which Spielberg undoubtedly is, should seek to go beyond the mantra, and bring a new insight into the conversation they are conducting?
The second is the final shot of the Twin Towers.. it just sounds terrible heavy-handed.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Pete, with all due respect to people for whom the image of the twin towers means something, I personally thought the final image was quite tacky. From a cinematography point of view, it’s also presented as a slightly different colour to the rest of the skyline. Paler, ghostly even.
The point you’ve mentioned about terrorism/violence is one of the issues I have with the film. Spielberg could have made this point subtly and in a ’show don’t’ tell’ way - but he can’t resist spoonfeeding dialogue to the characters about the pointless cycle of killing. The final image is the same, forcing conclusions on to the audience rather than letting them make up their own minds.
That said, it is superbly acted, riveting, and - in spite of the subject matter - an entertaing, if harrowing film. I’d recommend it and would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
ok, I keep reading this thing about “no mention of Ahmed Bouchiki, the Moroccan waiter, who was mistaken for Ali Hassan Salameh and murdered”
Was that event in the book Vengeance? I don’t know, but it seems a lot of the reviewers/reporters who mention it don’t either.
It was clearly stated in the film that Avners team was not the only team out there. If the event was in the book Vengeance, and it was Avner’s team that killed him then yes, it’s a very odd ommission.
But if it was not in the book then there is no reason why it should have a place in the film.
Also, I really liked Spielberg’s response to criticisms of ‘humanising terrorists’ he pointed out that it was never acceptable for him to dehumanise anybody in his films.
I did see the film, I liked it a lot, and I have to admit I didn’t even notice the twin towers at the end.