*** Official MUNICH Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[PeterTHX]

Ah. Well it seemed they were away for longer, plus the baby's age seemed older than a year.

 

[Haggai]

Yeah, there might have been some weird time compression going on there. Not surprising that they didn't deal with that war, though, since it was such a massive event, and really not all that directly related to the Palestinians themselves, or the PLO and its offshoot groups.

 

[Brett_M]

"Too many people will view this as a "record" of history, and too many HS History Teachers (who are basically coaches in disguise (emoticon deleted) Will use films like these to "teach"."

Chris, as a HS teacher myself (science), I am offended by this comment. I doubt you know any HS History Teachers. The ones I know are highly intelligent and capable of seeing a film like Munich and enjoying it for what it is, rather than telling their classes to "go see it, this is what really happened." The same could be said of most films based on historical events, like JFK, et al. (Besides, Munich is rated R and we are not permitted to show any R-rated film in a public school classroom -- not even a clip.)

The teachers I work with often use films like Munich to generate discussion on topics that affect us as Americans.

The most we can hope for is that our students will see a film, ask a question or crack a book. To me, that is the power of film. Anyone who believes any film on face value is ignorant. The same people believe we didn't land on the moon and that the Holocaust was a hoax.

 

[Shawn.F]

I agree and hope for the same thing you do, Brett: that the film will inspire those who see it, anyone who sees it, to further investigate on their own.

I thought the film was the best I saw in 2005 and while I am sure it followed the events of the novel Vengeance pretty closely (I just started to read it myself), it should not be taken as the absolute truth. The title card "Inspired By Real Events" at the beginning of the film spells that out pretty clearly.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Thank you! When I was a kid and watched films based on historical events such as "Wake Island" or "The Longest Day" those films inspired me to find out more about the subject matter. Through my research, I discovered more accurate information, but I also learned that films are not historical records and shouldn't be use as such. Over the years, I've used that same concept as an adult which is why I'm a history buff to this day.






Crawdaddy

 

[GuruAskew]

I've skimmed through this thread and I can't help but think that anyone that would cheer any of the murders in this movie completely missed the point of the movie itself. This isn't a revenge epic that glorifies the death of those that deserve to be punished, this movie shows the ultimate horror of ending a human life, and the toll that the act takes on those who commit it. There's nothing glorious about killing an old man in a dark lobby as he's holding his groceries, nor is there anything glorious about killing a woman sitting in her home, defenseless. These people have committed horrible acts and deserve punishment, the victims of their acts deserve justice, but the decisions made to wipe them out, whether it was the large, expensive operation of the Israeli government or the personal revenge-killing of a single woman, was brutal, disgusting and ultimately hypocritical.

 

[Kain_C]

FINALLY saw this. Not at all what I expected from Spielberg, which is a good thing but not in a bad way if that makes any sense. I'm actually a huge Spielberg fan if that clarifies my feelings. Very straight story-telling with little to no pizazz or showmanship. Very moving and meticulously made and paced. Excellent. I wish I could go into more detail, but it's the type of movie that will have to churn around in my mind for awhile.

 

[Mike Graham]

Just got back from the theater, great film. The action sequences were as tight as a drum - Spielberg captures the chaos of the assassinations so cold heartedly that it doesn't leave your blood-pumping like an episode of say 24 would...

 

[Chuck Mayer]

The Hot Button (today's date) has a scene and Act breakdown for Munich. The breakdown is the main link above, but at the bottom there are three hyperlinks that are a more detailed look at each of the three acts. Well worth a read for fans (or critics) of the film.

 

[Paul Case]

I'm not really much of a Poland fan, but that is an excellent article about Munich. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I thought Munich was hands-down the best movie of 2005. Thanks for posting the link, Chuck.

 

[Brook K]

I thought the omission of mention of the Yom Kippur War was a telling factor in Spielberg and Kushner's agenda with this film and gets directly at what Quentin has been saying. While it falls outside of the chronology of the events in the film, it could have easily been mentioned on a text card along with the other text cards that end the film.

Israel is fighting a war for its very survival. The film's moral and political messages are deliberately confusing or stupifyingly naive on this very simple point.

Notice that the only resolute assassin, Daniel Craig, gets the least screentime and characterization. He doesn't get any 1-on-1 moralizin' with Avner, just some token "funny" moments. His character is reduced to a vehicle to get some period music on the soundtrack.

The "victims" of the Israeli assassins are deliberately humanized while the only thing we learn about the Israeli Olympic team is their names. The other carnage wrought by Black September and other terrorist groups occurs offscreen, often mentioned in half-drowned out radio and television newscasts. None of these people are granted a "thrilling" and suspenseful sequence where they are magestrially blown away onscreen.

Killing them doesn't matter? Doesn't solve anything? Violence begets violence? If we were just nicer to them, they'd be nicer to us? These are "hypocritical and disgusting" acts?

It's easy to say that from afar. The US has never been on the brink of annhilation like Israel would be a few short months after the film ends.

I'll just stop here before I get the thread shut down.

I agree with Quentin's stance (except about how good the "1st movie" is) and J. Hoberman's Village Voice review and am wondering if my initial "C" rating was too kind. The more I think about it, the less I can find the tightly executed "cloak & dagger" elements satisfying in light of the rest of the film.

 

[Quentin]

I'm actually considering changing my stance on the '1st movie' as well. I discussed the film with a colleague who finally saw it, and he thought the '1st film' was quite weak...and, for a reason embedded in the motives of the '2nd film'. He thought the espionage part was weak because, essentially, there is no villain/antagonist! He's right, of course, and we both had the same favorite section in the film: the blown hit when the CIA intervenes through the revenge hit on the woman assassin. Why is that the most effective part? There is an antagonist!

So, now I have to re-evaluate how I feel about the espionage part of the film...

 

[Haggai]

I don't agree with this at all. That war really didn't have much of any direct connection with the Munich massacre or its aftermath. Neither Egypt nor Syria fought the Yom Kippur War on behalf of the Palestinians; they fought it on the basis of what they perceived to be their own national interests, in terms of getting land back that they had lost when they blundered their way into losing the Six Day War (plus other more intricate geo-political reasons, like Sadat wanting to move Egypt out of the Soviet sphere of influence and into the American one). You may as well complain about the text cards not mentioning the subsequent Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt.

 

[rich_d]

Brook, well said along with your other points. I mean it seems that Spielberg was trying to deliver some message but I don't know what it was. I think he was trying for some middle nebulous ground but he picked the wrong subject matter to explore that with.

That everyone needs a place to call home? Got it. Not a hard concept. That people share more similarities than differences? Got it. That true progress requires leaders that have bold views of a future and the courage to go the path least explored? Sounds good for Star Trek the rest of these leaders need people to vote for them.

If he was, I'd suggest the old saying of 'if you want to send a message, use Western Union' versus just telling a compelling story.

I like a lot of Spielberg's films and I thought this film certainly had its moments. I did hear many people around me talking about the film's length and I would agree. Thought it could have been tightened up by 10-15 minutes.

Also felt the idea of the Israeli's as a bunch of bumbling rookies got real old.

I like the sections with the French middlemen, thought they were a highlights of the film.

Also I thought the casting was truly wonderful across the board.

The end portion that bothered me was Spielberg's flashback to the scene at the airport. Yes, we knew it was coming but to intersperse that with the guy and his wife making love? Poor, poor judgement and just emotionally cheap material. If you were a relative of one of those men that were shot how would you feel about that? Oh wait! Someone leaves the world, another comes into the world. Genius!

The film had its moments but at the end of the day it seemed one part Dr. Strangelove, one part Paths of Glory and one part The Conversation and one part quicksand of naiveté.

 

[Jason Hughes]

Finally saw this, loved it. Will add thoughts later.

But for now, what I want to know, who is the actress that played the Dutch chicked that they killed on the houseboat? I can't remember the characters name, could not figure it out on imdb.com. Nothing on the official movie website. Stunningly beautiful woman. Would love to know what else she has been in.

 

[Haggai]

Jason, that was the French-Canadian actress Marie-Josée Croze. Couldn't agree more on her hotness: yow!

 

[Nathan V]

I think the marketing approach was, in hindsight, an exceedingly bad idea. This could've been a huge, talked-about movie and frontrunner for best picture by now.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Haggai]

I don't know, there was plenty of speculation about it being the Best Pic frontrunner before anyone had seen it, which started to lessen once it was released. How could they have had pre-release Oscar buzz that was any better than what they got?

 

[Bob Graz]

I saw this film over the weekend. I thought it was well done and quite compelling. I never viewed the film as a historical record of the actual incidents following the murder of the athletes. I think the film uses this horrible incident to describe a world that we live in where you can never be sure of one's allégeance or motives. Underneath "normal" lives are covert activities being carried out by various nations. Sometimes these activities overlap and support each other, sometimes they overlap and come in conflict with each other.

Are these actions helping or hurting causes? There is no real answer to that question because it really depends upon what frame of reference you are watching from. The situation is so dynamic and complex with multiple and conflicting interests by the nations involved.

I agree that the WTC scene at the end was perfect. There are no winners, only what or how much you feel you can afford to lose. Very scarey thought.

 

[Jason Hughes]

Haggai,

Thanks for the info.

Going a bit OT, a friend and I were discussing the other day who should play Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale. I think she would be perfect.