MUNICH

Director: Steven Spielberg (1 or 2 movies you might know)
Starring: Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Geoffrey Rush

Munich ends with a wide shot of the New York skyline, the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the distance, and we can see clearly that the film isn't just an examination of how Israel has dealt with terrorism, but a warning to us not to make the same mistakes that they have. Broadly, this story is about the perceived necessity of revenge, and the reality of the cycle of violence that that revenge can actually breed. Specifically the plot follows the violent attacks and reprisals between Palestinian terrorists and Israeli assassins.

The plot of Spielberg’s Munich follows an Israeli hit squad formed after the terrorist attacks at the Munich Olympic games of 1972. Historically speaking, a Palestinian terrorist group took 11 Israeli athletes hostage at these games. Eventually, after a tense standoff with German police, all of the terrorists and all of the hostages were killed in a gruesome shootout at the Munich airport. Israel did in fact form hit squads to kill off certain Palestinian leaders and terrorists in reprisal for this act. This story is a fictionalized account of one of those hit squads. At times the film is beautiful and powerful. At other times it’s thrilling and informative. Unfortunately, there are also a few moments that don’t entirely work, but these are few and far between. Generally, this is an excellent film. Much better than A History of Violence, a recent film that covers some of the same thematic ground on violence and revenge.

I think my favorite aspect of this film were the characters themselves. Usually, international spies and assassins are portrayed as infallible experts, almost supermen. These hit men were talented, but nonetheless very human individuals taken from jobs that had nothing to do with what they were being asked to do. The bomb maker was employed to defuse bombs until the Israeli government asked him to start building them instead. Eric Bana, in a career-making role, was an army officer and bodyguard asked to lead this group. We see how at first he is reluctant to kill in cold blood. We also see how it becomes easier for him with each murder. Or are they assassinations? Although once his enemy strikes back again in retribution, he eventually comes to regret or at least question the cycle of strike/retribution/counterstrike that he has become embroiled in. Political revenge is often labeled as a show of strength. We see in this film that it might just be that showing the enemy that you are strong in this way may only lead to them hit you harder the next time they strike.

This is one of Speilberg’s better films and one of the best of 2005. It is not at the level of Schindler’s List, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it is better than his other statement films such as Amistad and The Color Purple. There are beautiful images peppered throughout. The acting was quite good. Bana was especially good, although I also very much enjoyed Ciaran Hinds as one of the Israeli agents. Truly there are many actors in this film, such as Geoffrey Rush, that deserve credit for their fine performances. I won't bother to name them all. Unfortunately, as I said previously, there were a few lesser moments in the film that did detract from the overall experience. By and large, however, they were soon forgotten next to the success of the rest of the film.

I should note how daring a story this is for Spielberg, as one of America’s most prominent Jews. Some of this film speaks to the morality of each side in the Palestinian conflict. Personally, I don’t agree that it was a moral act to create the state of Israel. This movie accepts that it was. Much of the film speaks about the necessity of having a home. Israel was created to give a wandering people a home, but it was at the cost of stealing it from an even weaker people. America stole its home from the Native Americans, and Israel stole theirs from the Palestinians. These are facts. Few Americans will argue that it was immoral to create their country. Few Israelis will argue the same for theirs. I think they’re both wrong, but who am I to think so? In the end, asking these sorts of questions is exactly why this is a good film. A story that doesn't dare ask you to question yourself and your society is a film that exists only as pure entertainment, not art. If you want that sort of movie, don't worry, you have plenty of options at your local cineplex.

Standouts: Direction, acting, story - an excellent film in most ways.
Blowouts: A handful of really cheesy moments in the script.

Grade: A

1/02/2006