Munich
3.5/4
Starring: Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hanns Zischler, Mathieu Almaric, Michael Lonsdale, Ayelet Zurer, Lynn Cohen
Rated R for Strong Graphic Violence, Some Sexual Content, Nudity and Language
Too seldom do we get a movie that is as provocative as "Munich." The film asks many difficult questions, and wisely doesn't answer them because it knows that there are no absolutely correct answers. It is impossible to sit through this film without taking a long look at the world today and how we live in it.
September 1972. The world watches as a group of Palestinian terrorists kidnaps 11 Israeli athletes at the Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany. The incident ends in disaster, with all the athletes and 5 terrorists dying (a German police officer died as well). Israel's Prime Minister, Golda Meir (Cohen), vows to retaliate. "Forget peace for now. We have to show them we are strong," she says. She send five men to hunt down and kill those responsible for the bloodshed. Aver (Bana) is the leader. Steve (Craig) is the muscle. Robert (Kassovitz) assembles the explosives. Hans (Zischler) forges the documents. Carl (Hinds) is the clean-up.
There are so many questions that the film raises that it's nearly impossible to list them all. Is Israel's motive for going after the perpetrators "defense," as Meir claims, or revenge (notice how Meir tries to justify her actions to herself and others in an early scene). What is the morality of revenge, especially when the results aren't what you'd hoped? Or what about the cost of violence? The more people they kill, the less of an effect it has on them.
Many critics have pointed out the connection to the "War on Terror." In past wars, you fought the enemy (who had bases and uniforms) and pummeled each other until one of you surrendered. It was very simple when you got right down to it. Here, things are no longer as simple. The enemy is widespread, but hiding in plain sight. There is no "one" leader like Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini. It's a large number of independent cells. And because they are driven by faith and ideology, there are no shortage of members who are willing to replace those who have been killed. The same principle applies to Black September as it does to the "War on Terror." This theme has lost none of its relevance and never will because Spielberg is not making a comment on a specific time period; he is making a comment on human nature. A person is much more dangerous when they're fighting for personal reason they think is worth dying or killing for than a man who is simply wearing a uniform and holding a gun.
But what really struck me about this film is that it displays the power of personal interaction. For most of the film, the enemies are just names and actors with next to no dialogue. We see them as the characters do: out and out villains who need to be killed. But there is a scene where the five agents end up in the same room with a number of PLO operatives (by accident, of course). There, Avner and one of the PLO members have a frank discussion about their points of view. Both think that they are fighting on the right side. But Avner sees his opponent (who doesn't know he's Israeli yet) as a human being, rather than a target. This not only influences Avner's actions later on, but the film's as well. When Avner and the others confront an assassin, we hear her talk.
Or what about Avner's source, Louis (Almaric) and his father Papa (Lonsdale), who have become so disenfranchised that they have become apolitical? You give them the money and they'll tell you where to find your target. They don't work for governments because whenever a leader is taken out a worse one always takes their place. Is this the reality of the world, especially when violence begets violence?
The true genius of Spielberg's film is that he weaves all of these fundamental questions into a compelling narrative filled with all the trademarks of espionage thrillers like this. Gun battles, races against time, betrayals, secrets...they're all here.
Unfortunately, this all comes at a cost. Character development is minimal; apart from Avner, the majority of the characters are one-dimensional. The performances are all fine (as is the case with a Spielberg film, "War Horse" being the exception). Special mention has to go to Michael Lonsdale, whose performance of Papa is wonderful. Papa has a strict code that he has set for himself and his family. Yet, he has no qualms about conflicts of interest, which makes him threatening.
On a technical level, the film is also very good. The film is wonderfully shot by Spileberg's constant collaborator, Janusz Kaminski. The film looks more professional than much of Kaminski's works; there's very little desaturation and graininess. It's still just as gritty and suspenseful as anything Spielberg has done.
Ambitious in scope and thematically rich, "Munich" is a thought piece that is definitely worth savoring. Especially if you have people to talk about it with afterwards.
Starring: Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hanns Zischler, Mathieu Almaric, Michael Lonsdale, Ayelet Zurer, Lynn Cohen
Rated R for Strong Graphic Violence, Some Sexual Content, Nudity and Language
Too seldom do we get a movie that is as provocative as "Munich." The film asks many difficult questions, and wisely doesn't answer them because it knows that there are no absolutely correct answers. It is impossible to sit through this film without taking a long look at the world today and how we live in it.
September 1972. The world watches as a group of Palestinian terrorists kidnaps 11 Israeli athletes at the Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany. The incident ends in disaster, with all the athletes and 5 terrorists dying (a German police officer died as well). Israel's Prime Minister, Golda Meir (Cohen), vows to retaliate. "Forget peace for now. We have to show them we are strong," she says. She send five men to hunt down and kill those responsible for the bloodshed. Aver (Bana) is the leader. Steve (Craig) is the muscle. Robert (Kassovitz) assembles the explosives. Hans (Zischler) forges the documents. Carl (Hinds) is the clean-up.
There are so many questions that the film raises that it's nearly impossible to list them all. Is Israel's motive for going after the perpetrators "defense," as Meir claims, or revenge (notice how Meir tries to justify her actions to herself and others in an early scene). What is the morality of revenge, especially when the results aren't what you'd hoped? Or what about the cost of violence? The more people they kill, the less of an effect it has on them.
Many critics have pointed out the connection to the "War on Terror." In past wars, you fought the enemy (who had bases and uniforms) and pummeled each other until one of you surrendered. It was very simple when you got right down to it. Here, things are no longer as simple. The enemy is widespread, but hiding in plain sight. There is no "one" leader like Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini. It's a large number of independent cells. And because they are driven by faith and ideology, there are no shortage of members who are willing to replace those who have been killed. The same principle applies to Black September as it does to the "War on Terror." This theme has lost none of its relevance and never will because Spielberg is not making a comment on a specific time period; he is making a comment on human nature. A person is much more dangerous when they're fighting for personal reason they think is worth dying or killing for than a man who is simply wearing a uniform and holding a gun.
But what really struck me about this film is that it displays the power of personal interaction. For most of the film, the enemies are just names and actors with next to no dialogue. We see them as the characters do: out and out villains who need to be killed. But there is a scene where the five agents end up in the same room with a number of PLO operatives (by accident, of course). There, Avner and one of the PLO members have a frank discussion about their points of view. Both think that they are fighting on the right side. But Avner sees his opponent (who doesn't know he's Israeli yet) as a human being, rather than a target. This not only influences Avner's actions later on, but the film's as well. When Avner and the others confront an assassin, we hear her talk.
Or what about Avner's source, Louis (Almaric) and his father Papa (Lonsdale), who have become so disenfranchised that they have become apolitical? You give them the money and they'll tell you where to find your target. They don't work for governments because whenever a leader is taken out a worse one always takes their place. Is this the reality of the world, especially when violence begets violence?
The true genius of Spielberg's film is that he weaves all of these fundamental questions into a compelling narrative filled with all the trademarks of espionage thrillers like this. Gun battles, races against time, betrayals, secrets...they're all here.
Unfortunately, this all comes at a cost. Character development is minimal; apart from Avner, the majority of the characters are one-dimensional. The performances are all fine (as is the case with a Spielberg film, "War Horse" being the exception). Special mention has to go to Michael Lonsdale, whose performance of Papa is wonderful. Papa has a strict code that he has set for himself and his family. Yet, he has no qualms about conflicts of interest, which makes him threatening.
On a technical level, the film is also very good. The film is wonderfully shot by Spileberg's constant collaborator, Janusz Kaminski. The film looks more professional than much of Kaminski's works; there's very little desaturation and graininess. It's still just as gritty and suspenseful as anything Spielberg has done.
Ambitious in scope and thematically rich, "Munich" is a thought piece that is definitely worth savoring. Especially if you have people to talk about it with afterwards.
Comments
Post a Comment