[Tim Glover]

I just read Haggai's post and I agree with one part. The final sex scene is a strange one that was very awkward to sit through. That is really the only part that needed to be edited out. I didn't like that at all. There could have been other effective ways. Still, I give the film a 10/10.

[Haggai]

You only agree with ONE thing I said, Timobi? But that would mean that...you read everything I put in that gigantic post without falling asleep?

[Patrick Sun]

During the houseboat scene, I kept wondering how Daniel Craig (as the new James Bond) would have handled Jeanette (the Dutch mata hari) when she proffered her naked bosum to him in order to get out of her predicament. That's how awkwardly staged/written that scene was for me (not that I was ungrateful for the display, though).

[Robert Crawford]

During the houseboat scene, I kept wondering how Daniel Craig (as the new James Bond) would have handled Jeanette (the Dutch mata hari) when she proffered her naked bosum to him in order to get out of her predicament. That's how awkwardly staged/written that scene was for me (not that I was ungrateful for the display, though).

That part of the scene wasn't awkwardly stage/written for me because it again showed how this assassin would use her sexuality to distract men and give her an advantage, except it didn't work in this situation. Most of the time, I'm too engrossed in the film, if it's good and a first time viewing to think about anything except what I'm seeing and hearing in front of me.

[Michael Elliott]

Quote:

Mike, I don't think the point of the movie is that both sides were wrong, that's oversimplifying to a great extent. You really don't think we were supposed to identify with the guys in the hit squad and with what they were trying to accomplish? The point of the movie was to explore the personal costs and effects of the violent response to terrorism. I think it could have been more clear in what it was trying to say (or not say), but I don't think it was drawing a simple equivalence between the Israeli agents and the terrorists.

I might have taken the meaning of the film wrong and perhaps a second viewing will have me seeing things a tad bit differently but....

I really wasn't cheering for the hit squad to kill the 11 men the same way I wanted to three to kill the shark in JAWS. I found the entire film very depressing because the killing wasn't doing either side any good and I personally didn't see the reasoning behind it. I think the film would have been better off with its original title of VENGEANCE because that's exactly what the film was about to me. I'm sure the Munich attacks were brought on by previous killings and I'm sure more killings have happened due to the hit squad knocking off the 8 (or 9) of the 11. The vengeance these groups are after never really solve anything because the other side will always be looking for their own vengeance.

If Spielberg's message was for me to cheer for the 11 men to be killed then I'd probably lose some respect for the film. If what I've read is correct there wasn't any proof that these were the real 11 men behind the Munich attack so, to me, that would make this hit squad no different than those who were at Munich.

I really didn't know ANYTHING about these events except for what happened at Munich so perhaps I'm missing something or perhaps a second viewing will do me some good. However, walking out of the theater I was rather depressed throughout the 160-minute running time because I didn't feel there was any need for the violence on either side. The only thing the vengeance brought was more blood.


EDIT TO ADD: It kinda reminds me of the controversy surrounding DEATH WISH when it was originally released. Many people cheered on Bronson yet the "other side" were upset over this because they felt Bronson's revenge was wrong not to mention the fact he was killing people who had nothing to do with what happened earlier in the film.

DEATH WISH 2-5 were over the top action films and yes, I cheered for Bronson to kill the bad guys because these films weren't made to make us think. They were cheap exploitation films that had stereotyped bad guys put on screen to be killed by our hero Bronson.

The difference to me is that MUNICH doesn't go for cheap thrills. I think this is a film meant to make us think and the violence is so shocking and realistic that I really can't cheer for the so called good guys.

[Ocean Phoenix]

I skimmed through this thread before I saw the movie, and noticed someone complaining about a sex scene being intercut with the killing of hostages. Now I see that this complaint has been made more than once, and as I watched this scene, I was thinking about how whoever complained about that missed the point. The point is that Avner has become haunted by his involvement in the revenge mission.

The movie isn't just about how both sides are affected by the violence, it's also about how the individuals who commit it can be affected by it. That's what we learn through seeing Avner become incurably paranoid and obsessed by the murders that he committed, and the murders that others committed, which he had believed justified them. That scene illustrates the fact that he's so haunted by the murders that he cannot even concentrate on and enjoy intimacy with his wife. This is how I interpreted it, and that's why I did not find it gratuitious and unnecessary like some people here seem to.

[Patrick Sun]

I think it's possible to get the point and still complain about the intercutting of the sweaty Avner chasing that elusive rapture of his peace of mind through sexual intimacy, with the dramatic unfolding of the hostages getting popped unmercifully in light of "not going to make it out alive" odds faced by the same terrorists shooting the hostages out of spite by that point in time. It was just clumsy in execution to those who complained about it.

[Haggai]

Quote:

I really wasn't cheering for the hit squad to kill the 11 men the same way I wanted to three to kill the shark in JAWS...If Spielberg's message was for me to cheer for the 11 men to be killed then I'd probably lose some respect for the film.

Spielberg would undoubtedly agree that this isn't the same sort of story as Jaws, and that he's not going for the same reaction from the audience. Robert and some others have mentioned cheering for the death of the female assassin, but I thought it was pretty horrible, even while I understood why they were doing it. I certainly don't think Spielberg wanted the audience to react in the manner of our bloodthirsty friends on this thread...heh, just kidding there, no intention of indicting anyone for their reactions, but I think it's pretty clear that Spielberg wanted that scene in particular to be very disturbing.

Quote:

If what I've read is correct there wasn't any proof that these were the real 11 men behind the Munich attack so, to me, that would make this hit squad no different than those who were at Munich.

Well...not exactly. When Avner finally demands proof of the targets' involvement in Munich from Ephraim, he hears that even if some of them weren't necessarily involved in the Munich attack itself, they had been involved in planning many other terror attacks in the past, as well as trying to plan more attacks for the future. The movie does question this sort of reasoning, but it does not make the case that any of those targeted were purely innocent of being intimately involved in anti-Israel terrorism. Munich was by far the most visible and spectacular Palestinian terror attack of that time period, because of the international media stage of the Olympics, but there were many, many other attacks as well, including in the years before those Olympic games. And some of the guys on the Israelis' target list were undoubtedly involved in Munich specifically; I've never heard any reason to doubt that Ali Hassan Salameh, the real big fish who had the CIA connection, was involved in planning the Munich attack.

Quote:

I'm sure the Munich attacks were brought on by previous killings and I'm sure more killings have happened due to the hit squad knocking off the 8 (or 9) of the 11. The vengeance these groups are after never really solve anything because the other side will always be looking for their own vengeance.

The movie does raise questions about vengeance and a cycle of violence, of course, but it doesn't draw the equivalence you mention, of claiming that the Munich attack was brought on by previous killings. At least, not in the way that we would normally think of it. As more than one of the Palestinian characters in the movie claims, the Munich attack was all about bringing international attention to the Palestinian cause, which was devoted to the destruction of Israel. From the Palestinian perspective, of course, those who supported the attack would claim that they were doing everything in the name of re-claiming the homeland that was unjustly taken from them, as per what Ali says in his scene with Avner (and even those who didn't support the attack would at least sympathize with that reasoning). But few (if any) Palestinians would have claimed that Munich was just about simple vengeance for some specific Israeli action from around that time period, and nor does the movie suggest anything like that.

[Robert Crawford]

Robert and some others have mentioned cheering for the death of the female assassin, but I thought it was pretty horrible, even while I understood why they were doing it.

Why was it horrible because she was a woman? If we're going to feel horrible about a film character because she was a woman, how about that young woman that was blinded and hurt with that bed bomb? I felt horror for her because she was an innocent civilian on her honeymoon. The Dutch woman had a track record as a killer with enough of a resume to be photographed and identified with details about her life. She was a cold-blooded killer for hire that got what was coming to her. I'm not going to debate whether the team's deaths were deserving or not because when you're in the business to kill people with bombs and guns then you open yourself up to such violence being acted upon you in return.





Crawdaddy

[Chuck Mayer]

I think the point of the Avner sex scene intercut with the Munich murders is quite simple. Avner has found no peace or respite through the actions of his cell. The athletes were STILL brutally murdered, and their deaths still haunt him. No peace has been found, for them, for Israel, or for himself. Hence his last line.

I do not believe the film is about moral equivalence at all. That's a false interpretation too many critics have made. There is a difference between Avner's team and the Dutch assassin or Salameh. But killing someone who deserves it (and the people they killed did deserve it) doesn't solve the problem or make it right. I believe that is the point Spielberg is making. Killing the Dutch woman was probably easier...she's a hired gun, and they KNOW she killed a comrade.

It didn't feel much like a Spielberg movie. And I *DO* hold it to a higher standard. Spielberg is a major talent, and I have no problem holding him to a higher standard than other good directors. That's a result of my appreciation of his skills. I wanted to love the film. I merely liked it, mostly because I have gone down the philosophical paths in my head already. It did not illuminate my thoughts in any way...it just made me profoundly sad. The violence was terrible in it's authenticity, and the situation untenable for the leads.

I am glad Spielberg made the film. As for the claims of him fudging history, the people who walk out believing the film is completely true are the kind that believe everything they read (and what they now incorrectly know about Munich and the aftermath is still more than they ever would have researched on their own). Many others will investigate further, and learn that the film, like all films, took some liberties. And be more educated. That's a win.