*** Official MUNICH Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

IMO, that killing was strictly personal.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Of course it was. I was only pointing out that logically it was counter-productive and meaningless. But if someone killed a friend and co-worker of mine, I would want closure. I wasn't faulting the team or the film for it.

 

[Quentin]

Didn't mean to be rude or put words in your mouth, Chuck. Mea Culpa.

You do state:

If you read over my posts, you'll see that I agree and disagree. I still lay claim there are 2 movies here, and that is the major flaw of the film. There is an intense and personal thriller that is very much about how killing affects Avner and the team, and there is a movie about the political issue. The problem is there IS no specific theme. The 'cost to Avner' part is the part I like. Personally, I think Spielberg had a good movie on his hands but couldn't resist inserting his personal feelings and agenda. Unfortunately, it is that part of the film that really screwed things up for me.

It sounds like you and I both very much like the 'other' film.

 

[Quentin]

Yes, but he also regretted leaving her uncovered and couldn't get the image out of his head. It haunted him...his detachment from morality finally caught up to him.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I took no offense, Quentin. Hence the smiley.

I don't think Spielberg inserted his personal feelings any more than most directors/actors do. He allowed them a voice in the film...but not "the" voice. You can't separate the stories, in my opinion. I readily admit that some of my opinions come from personal statements Spielberg has made regarding the devil of equivalence or whatnot, but I find the situation in that region to be overly complex when it is quite simple at it's heart. I don't think there is an easy answer there, or the larger sense of justice becoming vengeance. I think it's very nature precludes a black and white response.

The most complex problems we face are always, ALWAYS derived from the most simple questions.

 

[Tim Glover]

Which is probably why I liked the film so much. I cared for Avner and the Hell he was going through.

Good discussion.

A film that requires a second viewing for sure to soak it all in.

Munich has many layers.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Glover, you hack...you're talking about second viewings and I can't even get in a first!

 

[Tim Glover]

:b

Well, they don't call me Master Obi Wan Timobi for nothing.

I usually don't like to see content like this again but this one is well done.

 

[Chris Atkins]

You'll always have 32, right Tim?

 

[Ray H]

This is what I was getting at. At the dinner, he mentions how leaving the woman's robe open is tearing him up inside. The scene showed how disturbed he was by his own actions, and to me, seemed hint that he would do something like take his own life. Of course, the next time we see him, he's dead on a bench.

 

[Tim Glover]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :b

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't think leaving the robe open is tearing him up. The killing is tearing him up. The robe is just the proverbial straw. I doubt he would stab himself. But the possibility is there.

 

[Michael Elliott]

War and terrorism are two things that I will not consider the same thing. The events of S. LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are no way in the same league as the events in MUNICH.

Whatever the reasons behind Munich, I'm sure this wasn't the first event with these two sides have useless killings. These killings continue today and I'm sure they're over the same reasons as before and after Munich.

This isn't you doing something to my country and I doing something to your country. This would be like you killing my father and then me seeking vengeance for the act by killing someone in your family. Then someone from your side would attack my side and then my side would attack your and this here would keep going for decades.

This might be a war to them but in most wars (I think) something is solved. What has been solved by all of this? Name one thing the violence has helped fix? There isn't anything so all of this killing has been for no reason.

At the end of MUNICH most of the 11 are dead, most of the hit men are dead and we're also reminded that those two towers are going to be gone soon. What good came out of any of this? I'm sorry but I don't see how anyone could say Spielberg was saying this stuff was good or solved anything.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Please, do not post copyrighted material in their entirety. You can post small sections of an article and provide the link to it for those interested in reading the article in it's entirety. Thank you.






Crawdaddy

 

[MichaelBA]

Enlightening Tony Kushner interview.

Related to this is the review of Leon Wieseltier.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

I've got to say that I am surprised by the reactions so far to the last scene showing the twin towers of the WTC. I'm a huge Spielberg fan, and usually defend him regarding his sentimentality and heavy-handedness, but the last scene struck me as being a little too obvious for this film. It's all too apparent that there are still maniacs in the world today and that they will go to extraordinarily evil lengths to make a "point".

As soon as the movie finished, I thought, "Well, that last scene is going to draw some serious fire on the HTF". Maybe if a scene like this agrees heavily with your point of view (mine is pretty much right in the middle), you aren't so quick to criticize? I'm trying not to be critical since the scene didn't bother me all that much (only a slight rolling of the eyes), and those who posted their approval of this scene may not be those who normally call out Mr. Spielberg. I just find it interesting that there weren't ANY negative comments regarding this scene so far.

It certainly didn't detract from what I thought was an excellent film. Personally, I would compare "Munich" more to a police procedural than a thriller.

 

[MichaelBA]

Another interesting review.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'm usually very harsh on Spielberg especially when he doesn't have the balls to go against a happy ending but I thought the ending worked fine in MUNICH. In fact, at first I wasn't looking at the background to notice the buildings. After catching it the scene (to me) just ended on the same down note that the entire film was.

 

[PeterTHX]

I, too, felt the Dutch woman's death was the most disturbing. She suffers the most. What got me was when she walked, mortally wounded, into the next room and basically said goodbye to her cat. As a cat owner this was wrenching. Until that I had felt no sympathy for her.

A note on the (as usual) outstanding effects by Industrial Light & Magic. From making wounds extremely realistic (shot in the cheek, the Dutch woman's body wounds) and subtle like erasing all the new buildings that have been built in Manhattan for the past 30 years...and re-inserting the World Trade Center, complete with the original temporary antenna.

One thing that confused me: they addressed all the terrorism that had been going on during their mission but did NOT address the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Once again, Israel was fighting for its survival and yet no one onscreen acknowledges this event.

 

[Haggai]

Peter, the movie ends before that war happened. It started in October '73, but Avner's last trip to Israel that we see, which is clearly not very long before the movie ends in NY, is in June of '73 (according to Ephraim).