*** Official MUNICH Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Chris]

This happens all the time with films based on historical events. Eventually, people do feel obligated to point out how the film 'changes' or alters history for dramatic purposes. But in the case of Munich, the changes are pretty severe in comparison to the reality, which greatly diminishes the film to me.

http://www.slate.com/id/2133085/nav/tap2/

 

[Robert Crawford]

It doesn't diminishes it to me because no matter what's been written about this alleged covert action, we will never know the real details behind it.

I found "Munich" to be one of the best films of the year and totally engrossing for me.






Crawdaddy

 

[RobertR]

Problem is, millions will come away from the Spielberg film thinking "yes, that's how it was", even though he delberately distorts known facts.

 

[Robert Crawford]

That's not Spielberg's problem! He's in the entertainment business and just like many directors before him, he's telling a story to the movie-going public. This story is alleged to be based on actual events, but much of the plotline is nothing more than fiction from the writer minds that wrote the screenplay. When it comes to historical facts, why should Spielberg be held to higher standards than Ford, Hawks, Wyler or any of the other great directors? All of these directors are nothing more than storytellers, who's job was to entertain people with their films.

I know what I'm about to say in my next sentence is harsh, but people shouldn't automatically believe what they see nor hear from any media source, whether it's a book, newspaper, film or whatever. Any adult that is lazy enough to believe a movie as pure fact without thinking beyond what was shown to them, deserves to remain in an ignorant state.

Back when the film "Pearl Harbor" came out, I was very critical of the filmmakers for distorting historical facts. I was wrong in that approach because I forgot or perhaps ignore the fact that these filmmakers are not supposed to be history teachers, but instead suppose to be entertaining me with a film. Whether that film was good or bad is not important in this discussion, but Pearl Harbor's main purpose was to entertain the general public which in turn will hopefully, generate enough revenue to continue that same process with future films.






Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Munich" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Munich" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

 

[MikeRS]

Ebert's telephone call with Spielberg

More like Spielberg Unbound.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Mike, thanks for posting that. Spielberg surprised me in some of what he said, such as him saying outright that he agrees with Meir's response.

Intercutting the death of those involved in Munich with Avner's sex scene did not work for me. I am unsure if sprinkling the Munich event throughout the film was the best approach. My guess is that there are two reasons to construct the film in such a way. For the narrative, the movie is supplemented with another powerful moment near the end, after Avner no longer in the killing business. The other explanation would be to constantly remind us of what happened in Munich throughout the film. I think the moments would have been more powerful if it were one long sequence at the beginning of the film, and maybe frontloading such a sequence would make the Israeli response seem more urgent and necessary, thus provide a bigger contrast when Avner begins to question his actions.

In yet another very impressive year in John Williams' career, I think Avner's theme is his best theme of the year.

 

[MichaelBA]

A few more relevant links:

The New York Times

The New Yorker

The Village Voice

 

[Chris]

This to me strikes me as a convenient cop-out. I've seen the film, so I just want to make several comments.

First, I do believe Directors have a right to make "artistic" decisions in regards to their film, even in a historical context. No one will ever know what say, Lee said at xyz civil war battle, so assigning him dialogue is OK. That is within thier license.

Second, what is important is that the outcomes and events are not so significantly changed that they are no longer historically honest. Imagine if I made a civil war movie, except in my movie, which I pronounced as "based on real events" I portrayed Abraham Lincoln as a drunken lout and Jefferson Davis as a man who hoped for the rise of black men in America. People would protest (and they should) because I would have altered history and presented what at best could be called a "lie" at worst, propoganda.

Speilberg comes dangerously close in this film to doing that.

Spielberg, for dramatic license, notes that since 11 Israeli athletes were killed, 11 palestinians would be killed. This never happened. No one has ever claimed anything like this. In fact, even in "Vengence", the controversial book in which this is partially based, notes how every case was done case-by-case and a case had to be made on each one.

He presents the assassins as reliant on outside groups; something the Mossad would never have done. This is a minor nitpick in comparison to the serious historical problem above, but it's one that changes the way people view the Mossad - and how Israel has always used them.

The problem I have with this film's historical problems could go on for pages, but I won't go through all of them. The film recognizes some of this, and says "a fictional" at the beginning. However, at the same time, Speilberg has been doing an advertising campaign marketing it as a "prayer for peace".

Which is fine, he can have that as a goal. But if he is going to do that, he needs to be honest with the source material.

The film has other problems which I found just as serious as the historical innaccuracies; the dialog is at times so "blah" that it is hard to watch and the characters never really materialize as much more then charactures. Some scenes were terrible in how they portrayed.. almost like something out of a "Bourne Identity" type film as they sat in open areas and talked about their melancholy.. somehow, I doubt careful assassins ever had such a moment.

Yes, I do hold films that take on a historical event to a high standard. Too many people will view this as a "record" of history, and too many HS History Teachers (who are basically coaches in disguise Will use films like these to "teach".

 

[Robert Crawford]

Then you and I have a fundamental difference that no amount of discussion can overcome which isn't a problem, but an acknowledged difference in thought pattern.






Crawdaddy

 

[Quentin]

I don't think Spielberg is held to any standard higher than anyone else approaching this subject matter would be held.

If he wanted to make a film about moral equivalence, with the theme of "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," then he could have done it without using the Munich murders as his basis. He could have made up situations and people much like SYRIANA does.

As soon as he chooses a major historical moment, he sets a higher standard - one of respect to history.

I disagree with you Robert. This is not about people learning history from movies. They do deserve what they get. It's about being entertaining, and how respecting the history is part of entertaining and enriching the audience that KNOWS the truth. I think films based upon history DO need to respect that history. I'm not talking about nitpicks like pilot helmets/microphones in PEARL HARBOR. I'm talking about the foundation of the events just Chris' Civil War example. You can't get away with distortion of that level and not take a lot of critical lumps. MUNICH is going to take its lumps for its distortions, and may lose out on major awards because of it. And, it's a well made thriller, so that is a shame.

Spielberg's next film IS about Lincoln. I dread the thought if he chooses to make any statements and take major license.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

But then the specific commentary of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict becomes muddled under the more generic "Middle Eastern conflict" banner. In order to approach this same scenerio from a fictional basis, he would have had to almost go into allegory via fantasy or science fiction to create a conflict that matches up closely to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, which is unique within the middle east. There have been other civil wars over culture, but they themselves are important enough that to make one set in one of those and the film would become about them. There's no Korea to Spielberg's Vietnam, like there was for Robert Altman.
But then again, no one turns to Altman's M*A*S*H for historical accuracy like they do to Spielberg.
From what I've heard, it's a message film; if that's the case, the message and themes are necessarily going to take paramount focus over historical accuracy. Otherwise he might as well make a documentary.

 

[Ray H]

Just got back from seeing this. It's a powerful film. It's engrossing and very well done.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The known and well documented inaccuracies in "Pearl Harbor" would overcome what may or may not have happened in this film about a hit squad that may or may not have existed. Based on some of your previous comments, it appears that Spielberg really struck some negative chord with you about this film. Anyhow, I'll bow out of this discussion and can't wait to read other opinions about this film.






Crawdaddy

 

[TheLongshot]

He's held to a higher standard probably because he's more high profile than most directors. Also, people are more willing to ignore historical gaffes if the movie is entertaining. Braveheart is a good example. There are plenty of people who point to that as one of their most favorite films, but there are others who hate it because of all the liberties that Mel Gibson took with history to make that entertaining film.

Spielberg doesn't do historical films for enertainment purposes (or at least he claims he doesn't.) He does them because they are "important" films. The problem is, when you make films for that purpose, the microscope is going to be on you, and more people are going to take issue with what is on the screen. That's more likely if the time period of the film was within the last 100 years.

Jason

 

[MichaelBA]

The title card to ANCHORMAN:

"The following is based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed."

 

[ZacharyTait]

I saw this today and it's still swirling around in my mind. IMHO, this is Steven's best film since Minority Report and his 8th masterpiece of his career.

I view Munich the same way I view Oliver Stone's JFK: it's one person's view of historical events.

It is such a great film that even if you take away the messages and themes, you are still left with one hell of a thriller and actioneer.

Eric Bana is terrific as Avner. The sex scene intercut with what happened to the athletes didn't bother me at all. He's trying to get back into a normal routine and no matter what he does, this horrific event haunts him. I could have gone without seeing his O face.

The supporting cast is great, especially Michael Lonsdale as Papa.

The killing that disturbed me the most was the woman on the houseboat. I can see where Avner can justify killing her since he has no idea whether or not she killed Carl.

I wonder if Salame ever knew how close he was to getting killed in the street when the drunk Americans (most likely CIA) disrupt the mission.

Anyone else catch the nod to The Conversation with the telephoto lens zoom in on the cafe?

The showing of the Twin Towers at the end is a gut wrenching reminder of the fact that terrorism can strike anywhere and at any time.

I still can't believe that Spielberg made this movie in the last 6 months.

****

 

[Michael Elliott]

My father and I watched this today and we both really loved it. Here are a few notes I wrote in the "Track" thread:


I haven’t seen too many films released this year but so far this is hands down the best. Steven Spielberg’s brilliant film telling the story of what happened after the 1972 Olympics is a sad, depressing and incredibly violent film that hopefully people will go see. I know there’s all sorts of controversy already surrounding this film and while I do think the film favors the Israeli’s there’s no doubt its message hits right at home without being preaching and without Spielberg adding a B.S. happy ending like he’s done throughout his career. Spielberg is being very brave here in how he tackles the revenge subject and especially in the way he shows the violence. Again, had this not been Spielberg the film probably would have gotten a NC-17 rating because of the gore and violence but not once is it shown in a stylish way or in a way trying to make it look like a good thing. The film starts off depressing and Spielberg keeps it that way all the way till the ending. The performances by the entire cast are wonderful and the film hits on all levels. A crowning achievment for Spielberg, which is a lot better than Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List. My father loved this one as well.


A couple other things:

Re: Changing the facts

This has never bothered me but often people say that someone might walk out of the theater thinking the film was the truth. As Robert brilliantly said earier, that's not the fault of the director. I think the majority of people know that movies don't tell the truth and if a person needs a movie/media outlet to inform them of the truth then that person has bigger issues than a film could solve. The "history" of Johnny Cash was changed in WALK THE LINE but it didn't get attacked too hard. Since MUNICH deals with politics I guess that's why it's going to get hit harder.

Over at the IMDB there was a small article with the head guy behind the Olympic killings. This murderer is upset because Spielberg didn't contact him for "the truth". For starters, why should Spielberg contact this killer? Secondly, if this guy is willing to kill then why should we believe what he says is "the truth"?

Re: Rating

As I said in my notes, any other director and this would have been NC-17 or had something cut from it.

Re: Film for Peace

I've read a couple interviews with Spielberg where he states he hopes this film will bring peace but I couldn't help but feel this film, bringing up those tragic events, would just cause more harm. I can't see both sides watching this and agreeing with the message at the end. I think both sides could view the violence and get upset and want to kill again.

Re: Olympic scenes

I really didn't mind these scenes being cut throughout the film. This wouldn't have worked with SAVING PRIVATE RYAN but they are fine here.

Re: Political game

Like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, JFK and I'm sure the upcoming 9/11 film, this here will be attacked for political gain. I don't want to write too much about this but this is a movie so trying to make something political out of it doesn't make much sense to me. As Kubrick once told Spielberg "The truth is boring".

Re: Spielberg the cop out

I've often bashed Spielberg for throwing in "happy" endings, especially with WAR OF THE WORLDS earlier this year. I think S. LIST was also ruined due to the ending but I'm very thankfully he didn't pull any punches with the violence. To me the film started off very sad and tragic and just grew more sad and depressing as it went along. I certainly mean this in a good way and I'm glad Spielberg didn't give us some happy ending that goes against everything we've just seen.

Re: Gunshot

During the second viewing of the Olympic events when the terrorist shot the one guy through the cheek, did anyone else find this to be one of the most realistic gunshot wounds ever? I swear it seemed like the actor was really being shot!!!

Re: The Bed Bomb

I've always wondered what the terror would be like being in one of these bombings. A couple years ago THE AVIATOR pulled off the horror of what it would be like going through a plane crash and this film really gave me the worst feeling when the bomb bed went off. We were expecting the blast but we didn't expect it going towards the main character so the horror of him going into the next room (where the bomb went off) and then over to the next room with the couple really packed one hell of a punch.

 

[Quentin]

I have to agree with this. I've always contended that there are two films here:

One of them is a really excellent, well made espionage thriller/procedural. On the level of RONIN or DAY OF THE JACKAL (curiously, all three films star Michael Lonsdale in awesome roles). It is intense, paranoia filled stuff with a theme of loyalty at its heart and a subtle but impactful message that killing changes you and eventually will catch up to you. Who can you trust and why? What is home? What is worth fighting for? Does killing harden you and make further 'sins' easier? Really good stuff – a sort of more intimate/personal version of the spy game stuff in RONIN.

Then there is the 2nd film… Ugh. Overly-sentimental, message heavy tripe. Real Spielbergian garbage (even if there isn't a happy ending). The whole message of “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” An attempt to show the tortured conscience of the Israelis (one particular speech about righteousness leaves a bad taste in my mouth). And, an attempt to humanize the PLO and give their side in an obvious maneuver to allow a PLO operative to speak his piece. It’s all so obvious and manipulative.

And, it distorts the history and truth in a way I found distasteful. Not because I'm worried people will take it as truth (though, some will), but because I know the truth and every time Spielberg alters it to tailor to the message he wants to send it offends me.

Oh…and, it has THE single worst sex scene EVER put on film awkwardly intercut with flashbacks to the Munich massacre. In fact, I think each attempt to flash back on the Munich events was both awkward and unnecessary.

I just keep wishing you could strip away the 'bad' movie because the good movie is SO very, very good.

 

[Sam E. Torres]

you know, it's really funny that people keep mentioning the sex scene in this thread. to me, any sex scene in a spielberg movie has always been awkward to me. out of his films that i've seen, i think this is only his third movie to have a sex scene (schindler and minority report are the others).

to me, the most impactful part of the scene is in the end, when avner's wife extends her hands to cover his eyes from all the nightmares and then tells him she loves him. that really took me by surprise. i didn't think spielberg had it in him to have such an intimate, important, and subtle moment like that. in a lot of ways, i almost hoped the film would have faded to black right after she said "i love you"...but i'm glad it didn't, because we got to see that amazing last shot.