BACKGROUND

During the Summer Olympics of 1972, a group of Palestinians belonging to the Black September Group (a splinter group of the PLO) broke into the Olympic Village in Munich, Germany, and kidnapped 11 Israeli athletes. This act of terrorism made headline news and the world was riveted to their television sets as the harrowing drama played itself out. In the end, 11 Israelis, 5 Palestinians and 2 German police officers were killed in a shootout that shocked a worldwide audience and prompted Golda Meir, then Israeli prime minister, to approve the retaliatory killing of the men responsible.

THE MOVIE

‘Munich’ opens with a re-enactment of the fateful kidnapping and archival TV news footage. The chaos and terror of the situation are extremely realistic and well-portrayed. We then see Golda Meir making the fateful decision that would propel an unlikely group of Israeli agents on a mission to target and wipe out the men responsible for the killings.

This task force is headed by Avner (played by Eric Bana), son of an Israeli war hero. He has a lot to lose (his young wife is heavily pregnant), but he has no doubt that what he’s asked to do is the right course; he doesn’t even have any questions about his mission, such is his trust in his superiors and the righteousness of their planned action. But as he leads his team members in their series of assassinations (and their victims are replaced by even worse leaders faster than they can assassinate the next one) he begins to question if what they’re doing is right or even useful.

Eric Bana gives an intense performance as team leader Avner. He portrays Avner’s transformation from an idealistic, unquestioning young officer to a distrustful and paranoid man, with convincing precision. Geoffrey Rush puts in a great understated performance as spymaster Ephraim, and the team members Carl (Ciaran Hinds), Hans (Hanns Zischler), Steve (Daniel Craig), Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz) are utterly believable with their various idiosyncrasies and insecurities. Lynn Cohen’s brief cameo as Golda Meir is pitch perfect and wholly plausible. Ayelet Zorer is radiantly beautiful as Avner’s wife Daphna who’s torn between her family and her country and yet responds drily when Avner professes that she is ‘home’ to him, a theme that would resonate later on in the movie as the age-old Israeli/Palestinian conflict is explored.

THE DIRECTOR AND THE CONTROVERSY

Known first and foremost for his blockbusters (E.T., Jaws, Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park), Steven Spielberg would have been forgiven for resting on his laurels. Yet time and again, he has delivered some thoughtful and finely-made serious films (The Color Purple, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan). Now 59, the aging wunderkind has this to say about the effect of age on his body of work:

"I guess as I grow older, I just feel more responsibility for telling the stories that have some kind of larger meaning…as I get older, I feel the burden of responsibility that comes along with such a powerful tool. I certainly have made movies by popular demand. There is a distinction between moviemaking and filmmaking. I want to do both."

There has been a great deal of controversy regarding Munich, most notably from some Jewish organizations in America. This is ironic (and probably hurtful to Spielberg) as he is Jewish and has always been a staunch supporter of Jewish causes. The ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) has called for a boycott of Munich, citing historical inaccuracies and ‘a moral equivalency’ assigned by Spielberg to the slain Olympians and the Palestinians assassinated by the Israeli counter-terrorism unit. The Israeli Consul General in Los Angeles accused Spielberg of being naive in making a movie that strives for the illusion of balance in a situation that is not. Spielberg has this reply for his accusers:

"The people who attack the movie based on 'moral equivalence' are some of the same people who say diplomacy itself is an exercise in moral equivalence, and that war is the only answer. That the only way to fight terrorism is to dehumanise the terrorists by asking no questions about who they are and where they come from. What I believe is, every act of terrorism requires a strong response, but we must also pay attention to the causes."
"I am as truly pro-Israeli as you can possibly imagine. From the day I became morally and politically conscious of the importance of the state of Israel and its necessity to exist, I have believed that not just Israel, but the rest of the world, needs Israel to exist.
"What I believe is, every act of terrorism requires a strong response, but we must also pay attention to the causes. That's why we have brains and the power to think passionately. Understanding does not require approval. Understanding is not the same as inaction. Understanding is a very muscular act. If I'm endorsing understanding and being attacked for that, then I am almost flattered."

The Palestinians aren’t too happy with Munich either. After all, the movie is based on the book ‘Vengeance’, the story recounted to author George Jonas by the real-life leader of the Israeli counter-terrorist team, i.e. ‘Avner’. The Palestinians can be forgiven for feeling that Spielberg is taking sides—the Israeli side, that is, even if the Israelis think otherwise.

Mohammad (Abu) Daoud, who planned the Munich massacre, scoffed at Spielberg’s description of the film as a ‘prayer for peace’ that would encourage reconciliation in the Middle East and complained that he had not been consulted about the plotline.

“If he [Spielberg] really wanted to make it a prayer for peace he should have listened to both sides of the story and reflected reality, rather than serving the Zionist side alone…How many Palestinian civilians were killed before and after Munich?…We did not target Israeli civilians. Some of them [the Israeli athletes] had taken part in wars and killed many Palestinians.”

The tabloids ask if Spielberg is deliberately courting controversy with Munich. Balderdash. The man doesn’t need to court controversy. By its very nature, the subject matter of Munich is controversial in the extreme—inflammatory even. What Spielberg did was lay out the situation (the age-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict underlying the dramatic episode that happened in Munich and its aftermath) and have the audience ask themselves if that (retaliation by targeted assassinations) is the answer.

“The thing you have to understand is, Munich is in Germany. And these were Jews dying all over again in Germany. For Israel, it was a national trauma. The Avner character, in the end, simply questions whether the response was right”.

MESSAGE/THEMES

Spielberg’s message is simple: Violence begats more violence, in a vicious cycle of terrorism vs counter-terrorism that has no end. And while it may seem imperative to respond to acts of terrorism in a decisive way, our methods to date are primitive and accomplish next to nothing other than a slow erosion of moral and ethical values.

“…I don’t have an answer. I don’t know anyone who does. But I do know that the dialogue needs to be louder than the weapons.”

On a more personal level, the counter-terrorists/assassins themselves devolve in a downward spiral as each becomes a little less human for each life he takes. Munich attempts to dissect the mind and heart of the assassin/counter-terrorist. As Eric Bana’s Avner crosses more and more enemies off his list, he slowly but surely unravels, to the point where he’s fearful of his own life and the lives of his family, and paranoid of all around him, including those of his own government who have recruited him. He questions their integrity and their intents, and comes to trust no-one.

Spielberg called Munich his ‘prayer for peace’. It is an admirable effort from an intelligent man who could have rested on his laurels but did not. Not only is he not naïve, he knew exactly the can of worms he’d be opening and the controversy that would result. Nevertheless, he went ahead and tackled it head-on. His moral courage stems from his parents and rabbi teaching him that discussion is ‘the highest good—it’s Talmudic.’ This is perhaps the best answer to people who charge him as being ‘no friend of Israel’ for questioning Israeli policies.

"Criticism is a form of love. I love America, and I'm critical of this administration. I love Israel, and I ask questions. Those who ask no questions may not be a country's best friends."

COMPLAINTS

My complaints are few but significant. First of all, I feel that Spielberg gave too little time to the Palestinian perspective. There was just this one scene where a Palestinian terrorist engages in an intellectual debate with Avner regarding the Palestinians’ fatalistic belief that they will triumph in the end, if only because they are willing to wait generations to achieve their aims. He explains that the concept of Home is what drives them, a people with no land to call their own. Spielberg touches on the impasse of two sides fully justified in wanting the same thing, but does not expand on this most fundamental of paradoxes.

My other complaint is the way in which the French family is portrayed. As a non-governmental private business organization that ferrets out information of the terrorists for a price, it is headed by an avuncular Frenchman who befriends Avner. (‘We are tragic men,’ he says to Avner. ‘Butchers’ hands and gentle souls.’). My opinion is that those who sell such information are just as culpable as those who pull the trigger. They know exactly what they’re doing and it’s blood money they’re raising their brood on. I can do without the glamourizing of such people.

Spielberg makes a big case for Family in this film, not just the vast extended French brood headed by its gourmet-cooking Big Daddy, but also Golda Meir’s insistence that Family Comes First, which is why she went to her sister’s funeral and not to that of the slain athletes.

As for the extreme violence in Munich, any criticism would be like saying a comedy is too funny. It’s the very nature of the story and I fail to see how the story could have been told if the violence was left out or toned down.

CONCLUSION

Spielberg tackles a controversial subject matter (the ongoing conflict in the Middle East), extrapolating from an inflammatory incident (the Munich massacre) and its aftermath (retaliation, aka counter-terrorism), and asks awkward questions that cry out for answers. He’s not completely unbiased, not by a long shot, but he opens up a dialogue for the audience, just as a dialogue needs to be opened up between the Israelis and the Palestinians beyond the language of weapons and warfare.

Until the vicious cycle of violence is broken, until the impasse of two sides wanting the same thing is addressed, there will be no peace in a land claimed by two peoples who feel equally justified and self-righteous. Home may be a person, a family, on a personal level, but a country--a homeland--is a reasonable desire for a people who have gone generations without a land to call their own. The Jewish people, with their diaspora, should understand this more than anyone else--the landless will always yearn for a land of their own.




Recommended:
Yes

Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age