We finally got a chance to watch the controversial film Munich last night with the Jameeds, Beisan, and another friend. After the movie each of us had a different opinion. We could not really agree on whether the movie was balanced or not. I personally thought the movie was very well-made and did a decent job portraying both sides of the bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I thought the movie’s message was targeted more towards Israelis, as it was highly critical of the actions of Mossad’s killing machine and the blind patriotism that exits amidst Israeli society. One particular quote that stood out was from Carl, a skeptical Mossad agent: "Israel was not created by being nice." Another quote of note was that from a trigger-happy Mossad agent who remarked that the only thing that matters to him is Jewish blood.
One thing I liked about the movie was that unlike many other Hollywood movies, Palestinians were portrayed as human and not just these blood-thirsty terrorists. They were shown as refined, highly cultured, and family-oriented. The film also questioned the involvement of the targeted Palestinians in the actual killing of Israeli athletes in Munich.
Blogger Angry Arab believes that the majority of those assassinated "had nothing to do with Munich" and that the movie failed miserably in showing their innocence. I tend to agree with Angry Arab that the alleged Palestinian involvement should have been dissected more thoroughly. Although the movie made sure to present the Palestinian side of the story, I thought it was shown a bit hastily and not given enough prominence. For someone unaware of the conflict, the Palestinian side of the story might not have been made clear enough.
The movie was also highly informative for me personally. One interesting bit was seeing Ehud Barak dressed as a woman while pursuing PLO fedayeen in Beirut. The movie’s final message: Violence breeds violence and tit-for-tat policies only result in more bloodshed. Overall, I thought the movie was very good and I’d give it a score of 8/10. Here are some reactions from the blogosphere: Angry Arab, Palforce, and Egyptian Sandmonkey.
“The film doesn’t delve that deeply into the Palestinian reasons behind the Munich action.”
Nor should it! I was 9 years old and watching that live on television in 1972 and I still recall every moment. That’s the first time I ever heard of the PLO or of Yasser Arafat and I’ve never forgotten. I still associate that childhood trauma with Palestinians every time I hear the word “Palestinian.”
If the film wants to show the moral dilemmas of Mossad agents and their questionable retribution, that’s fine by me. But to paint a sympathetic picture of the people who kidnapped and murdered Israeli Olympic Athletes would be despicable.
You and your readers might find my magazine’s interview with Hiam Abbass, the Palestinean actress who acted as Spielberg’s Technical Advisor for “Munich,” of interest. You can find that story here: G21 Interviews: Hiam Abbass.
Have enjoyed visiting here. Thanks to Toot!
RA
Munich was Spielberg’s adaption of another movie called “Sword of Gideon”.
I thought his version(Munich) was not well done, in terms of acting.
The Main character Avner(unit leader), does not look good in a hat.
Any hat!
What has been said is absolutely true. The film doesn’t delve that deeply into the Palestinian reasons behind the Munich action. There are hints and subtleties. But, as is also well noted, when you tell a story, to tell it well you must have a perspective. This is a film about this event from the Israeli side. What is notable is that it provides a fairly complex version of things on the other side. That’s notable because Arabs are so often vilified and dehumanized in Hollywood. Here, because of the perspective of this story, it would have been easier still to go that route.
It would not have made sense –- from a filmmaking standpoint -– to try and tell both stories. Spielberg chose a point of view, albeit the one from the book. But, while I do think he danced away from some things he could have explored -– like he could have integrated that some of the assassinations that took place were totally botched; completely wrong people were targeted -– he managed to put complex human faces on these “enemies of Israel.”
Spoiler alert: You look at the first target: the man is a poet, poor to the point of translating 1,001 Nights. But upon hopes of success, he gives a grocery clerk a tip; he’s a gentleman. He -– as Natasha notes –- is never seen carrying a gun. Next on the list is a member of the intelligentsia in Paris. His daughter plays piano. And he provides the bogus reporter a fairly broad perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
And here is one of the scenes where an attempt is made to give some Palestinian context. Here, his wife fills in details and gives a broader perspective of the conflict. The only problem is that is goes by so quickly. But there is something to keep in mind. This is a movie; there is a story being told that is meant to both entertain and inform. You can’t allow characters to go on and on without it becoming something else. Later, Spielberg introduces Ali, who provides the second extended discussion of the Palestinian plight and their determination to win.
Even here, when two enemies are thrown together, there’s an element of birds of a feather –- both are doing what they think is right for reasons they feel are justified. And both reasons are given voice, without prejudice really. When Ali is killed, there is a moment where our protagonist pauses, signifying his recognition and his growing unease with the “cause.”
The first comment from soumiaz is correct: Some of these things are a bit subtle, maybe covered too quickly. The facts aren’t just plopped down for someone to learn. And for some, that just doesn’t work. But, obviously, this film is a political hot potato. Spielberg wanted to make a film that wouldn’t offend either side too tremendously for obvious reasons. He had to be subtle. But he still allows for moments of real clarity if you think about it. I think for some, a second viewing might really broaden your view. Of course, I do agree, there could be improvements.
But this is a complex, dark tale. Spielberg could have easily made it a “rah rah” Israel film. After Schindler’s List, there were certain expectations for what a film like this would deliver. He did not meet those expectations for many. He could have easily demonized “the other.” He did not. There’s something to be said for that, not because he is a Jewish filmmaker but because this is an Israeli story. This is the story of an Israeli action. To be as inclusive as he is about the thoughts, motivations and very character of their enemy is notable.
When you tell a story that has such polarized politics, it’s not easy to walk the line between. Even to simply tell a story from one point of view and be as inclusive as he is here is a challenge. Ask any writer. To do that in 2 hours and 40 minutes while keeping up an historical storyline AND keeping an audience entertained is tougher still. I think the film is a real triumph.
That said, it would be a fantastic bookend to have this story told from “the other” perspective. It’d be good historically and informatively. But it’d also be interesting to see if another director could convey a new perspective while humanizing the “enemy,” as Spielberg did here. I think it must be said that Spielberg has irritated both sides. And there are some historical inaccuracies. But this is a movie, not a documentary. To have caused concern on both sides speaks volumes about the balance he did achieve here. The dialogue it has sparked is also a powerful testament to the quality of this film.
No, he doesn’t answer all questions or provide the entire history of this event. That likely would have been impossible, most certainly unwatchable. Here, he’s told a story very well and pushed many to explore something more than they would have otherwise. Watching his oeuvre grow and mature, I’m eager to see what he does next.
Since when did Massad take Steven Speilberg or anyone else into their confidence and tell him all about how they operate and how/who they went after.
The only part about Munich that we know for sure is that “Palestinian” terrorist killed innocent Isreali athletes …
The rest is Steven Spielburgs imagination.
And by the way it was 10th at the box office this week.
Lulu,
You’re welcome. I think you should go ahead and watch it to judge for yourself.
Thank you so much for posting this review of the movie. I am so conflicted regarding whether or not I should watch it. I have a gut feeling that it will cause me internal conflict and perhaps disturbance, and I am concerned about the highly stylized, dramatized, sensationalized packaging that the film will undoubtedly come in. Regardless, it is really interesting to see how people react differently to the film, so thank you again for sharing!
Dear Abu Sinan,
I do not agree with the Angry Arab’s observation that all the Palestinians in the movie were shown with arms. The first Palestinian who was killed by the squad was a shown as a writer. The second was shown as a family man. I don’t recall seeing any of them with guns.
I heard an interview with the guy who wrote the script for Spielburg. He said that when you watch the film and see the Israeli actions that you MUST understand what the Israelis have been through to understand how they could justify such a thing. I sat there thinking “what about what the Palestinians had been through since 1948 and have been through since that would need to be looked at to justify or understand what they did”?
He said a film needs to be done to show the Palestinian side of events and their tortured history, but this movie wasnt it. It is clear from his talk this movie was by, for, and about Jews. As to a film coming out of holiday that would show the Palestinian side and give voice to their history, I wouldn’t hold my breath. I guess this movie is better than most in its depiction of Palestinians and Arabs. I do remember that Angry Arab said there is not one Palestinian shown in the movie that did not have a firearm.
Dear Shagfee,
First I would like to thank you for taking the time in writing such detailed review.
Though I agree with you that “Munich” was rather balanced, i would say that Spielberg could have done better job in clarifying certain aspects not only about Munich itself but also about the conflict as well; as most of people who went to see the movie did not anything about the conflict or how it started the first place.
Yes the movie tried to change the vilifying portray that the media had draw of Arabs and Palestinians in particular but I did not see an effective effort in trying to define the real role played by Israel in Munich.
If you remember, when the terrorists were getting into the bus with the athletes Salame told one of them who seemed very scared not to worry and that he would be fine, the look in the eyes of Salame was not lying he was sincere. As id Salame knew something that the athletes did not know. The second thing is that at that exact time the Israeli television reported the athlete’s safe while they have reported the terrorists all dead.
I think Spielberg hide himself behind allusions, which he should have made clear for some of us who are not good in analyzing and to those whom just want to know the truth or what is close to it.
Keep up the good work Mamma!!