March 31st, 2006
Went to see Spielberg’s Munich last night. A very topical film considering the proliferation of the coverage of terrorism in our society.
The Munich massacre, where Palestinian group Black September kidnapped and murdered 11 Israeli hostages was before my time, but the references to it still echo as Olympic seasons come and go. I guess the film already deserves some merit for simply highlighting the issues–issues that I want to research further into as the film didn’t pretend to have all the answers. Though the sceptical would expect to go into the theatre and be presented answers–Spielberg and Kushner both being Jewish–”how impartial can they be?” It really didn’t enter my mind; having seen how Spielberg’s Band of Brothers focused on humanity instead of just politics.
The aftermath of the massacre was in the form of a strictly unofficial, off-the-record, Swiss bank-account-paid retaliation by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. However that’s where the film enters the realm of fiction. Similar events of course did happen, but the circumstances in the film were fictional. Obviously this allows a cinematic statement to be made–it was never meant to be a documentary, or in any way to be taken literally.
The plot ensues with the classic cloak-and-dagger “you don’t work for us, but you do what we say” scenes, but quickly separates itself from the pack. The unlikely assassins form a quaint family with Avner (Eric Bana) at the head of the table–literally as he cooks up a mean brisket. Without saying too much, the early assassinations have a very humanistic feel to them, if you had to kill someone, you would probably act as they did. A kind of fumbling for the gun; you empathise with them.
The assassinations become increasingly messy as the family of hunters become the hunted. The film has come under criticism for being too “middle ground” but that’s because the people judging it are looking out for the wrong themes. If anything–it is family, and the protection of, that provide the central backdrop. In the foreground the audience witness the slow destruction of a man’s spirit which leaves them questioning if anything is ever achieved by the “eye for an eye” solution to terrorism. Suddenly the film does seem relevant, considering the way America and my home country went to war with Iraq, clearly an example of the “eye for an eye” stance. Whereas Spielberg can’t show the toll of this way of thinking has on armies, he is very clear on the way he shows it by the manifestations growing and taking over a man:
“There is something about killing people at close range that is excruciating,” Spielberg said. “It’s bound to try a man’s soul.” Of the real Avner, Spielberg says, “I don’t think he will ever find peace.”
The other film I can think of that shows the slow demise of a character as movingly would be The Pianist. I think if you’ve seen that then you’d understand that if Spielberg managed to achieve something similar, which I feel he did, then you’d deduce that the idea presented to the audience must have been done so effectively–this is the idea Avner realises at the end to his dismay: you can kill terrorists, but if the underlying regime is unresolved, then there will always be more to replace them.
April 1st, 2006 at 2:28 am
I find the topic of terrorism of late quite touchy; it is definitely a topic where people can have so many different opinions it seems there are more opinions to it than there are people.
The film review you gave above is enticing enough to try and get my hands on this film. The events were before my time though the topic has been raised with the coming and going of the odd Olympic games.
I think I shall watch the film and come back to this review.
Cheers,
Pascal