Munich
The last one week, I have not been really watching movies. I have been just tracking the news, or watching the news channels, as i was first shocked and then outraged. In fact i have not yet watched OLLO or Sorry Bhai, maybe some time later this weekend. Anyway as i was looking for some DVD’s, just glanced at Munich and happened to watch it again. Well watching a movie on terrorism, that too during a time like this, might seem a bit odd. But maybe i felt it was topical, or the fact that it happens to be one of my favorites, made me watch it.Also, it happens to be one of my favorite Spielberg movies along with Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan.
Couple of reasons too. I have this interest in Jewish history, Israel and the Middle East from quite a long time. I got it from my father who admires Israel, and in fact dinner time, would be spent listening to his accounts of Israeli history. And when i was around 12 yrs old, i watched Raid on Entebbe, a movie about the Israeli attack on Entebbe Airport, to rescue its hostages from Arab terrorists. That really sparked a curiosity and as i grew up reading books like Exodus, Oh Jerusalem it just fuelled my passion further. The infamous Munich massacre where the Israeli athletes were killed by a fidayeen attack during the 1972 Olympic Games, was something i had read of in newspaper reports and clippings. And so when Spielberg came up with a movie on the incident, it really ignited my interest. So this is not a review per se, but just some random ramblings of mine.
After Schindlers List, this was Spielberg’s second movie i think with a Jewish background. But the task was more difficult here. In Schindlers List, the enemy was the Nazis, and it was fairly easy to make a good vs evil movie. While Oskar Schindler had shades of grey, as he was in fact initially more of an oppurtinistic wheeler dealer, Amon Goth was some one in which you could hardly find any reedemable qualities, unless you happened to be a Neo Nazi or an admirer of Hitler. But when you take the subject matter of Munich, here there was no black or white. Yes the fidayeen, were evil men, but their cause had a legitimacy in most of the intellectual circles in the West. While not many agreed with the fidayeen attacks, there were many who sympathized with the cause of a Palestinian homeland. It is one thing to show American soldiers going in and beating the crap out of Nazis, but trying to show an Israeli-Arab conflict in the same manner, would have made it a caricature. Yeah you had those Delta Force series of movies, where Chuck Norris goes and beats the shit out of the bad Arabs, but who takes Chuck Norris seriously in the first place?
While opinion about Munich, is divided, i rate it as one of my favorites, because of Spielberg’s approach. Instead of taking the easy way out, Spielberg tries to balance both sides of the conflict, and that is the toughest thing to do in the world. Being a moderate, with a centrist political view myself, i have found myself accused of being “Leftist” as well as “Rightist”. Walking the middle road, can often make you feel quite lonely, because you dont really belong anywhere. And i am sure Spielberg must have felt the same way, as he was attacked by both Jewish and Arab community leaders, as well as by many movie critics.
Munich remains the kind of movie, which polarizes people depending on what your view point is. Also because of its tendency to go into a more gray zone, trying to show the moral dilemmas the assasisn faced when executing the killers, the movie did not work with the general public too, who would have preferred a more straightforward “Bruce Willis going around killing all the bad Arabs” kind. Post 9/11, the anti Arab sentiment in US was high, and somehow American public could not really take to showing the Arabs in a more humane manner. Munich was not meant to be a movie that could make every one happy, the very subject nature was polarizing, and whatever is the kind of balancing act, you do, there would still be people not happy. But as a movie it does make you think, does make you question what you believed in earlier, whacks you out of your comfort zone. You may or may not like it, you may or may not agree with its content, but you can’t ignore it either. And there in lies the triumph of Munich, as it does not make a spectacle of a real life tragedy, but makes the viewer think about it.
“Whoever fights monsters, should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster”-Nietschze.
The main theme of Munich revolves around the quote. Though the movie is about a group of 5 assassins on a mission to track down and execute the perpetrators of Munich 72, at a deeper level, the movie examines the transformation of those men, their feelings. The most chilling scene in the movie is the one in the Cyprus hotel. Avner Kaufman( Eric Bana), the leader of the squad, checks into a room next to that of one of the targets, Hussein Abd Al Chir. Earlier the group had planted a bomb under his mattress, which would detonate when the target sleeps on it. Avner is standing on the balcony, as he hears the sounds comming from the next room, of a newly married couple making it out. If we see Avner’s expressions, it is he feels fascinated, by the sounds next room , desperately wanting to be a voyeur. It could be the fact that he is away from his wife, who has just delivered a daughter. But the best part is when the target comes out and has a brief chat with Avner. And then Avner goes back to his room, and gives the signal. That scene just hit me straight in the face. One minute you are talking normally with a person, and then the very next second, he is gone like that.
Another favorite scene of mine, is when the group ambush 4 PLO members in an Athens safe house and claim they belong to various European terror groups like ETA, Red Army and ANC, as one of their members Steve( Daniel ‘007′ Craig), is a South African. The dialogue between Avner and Ali the group leader, Ali’s stating his desire for a homeland. When Avner counters him saying that violence, would not help the Palestinian cause, Ali shoots back, giving example of the Irish and the Jews. In fact he makes a pertinent observation that the West German Govt, helps Israel, to assauge its guilt, and he asks “But did my ancestors send one of yours to the gas chambers?”. One of the best moments for me, is when the Greek porter in Cyprus, whom they have kidnapped, after the assault, is shocked at what he sees the brutal murder. In fact when one of the group members Carl, hands him money to silence him, he just spits on it and walks away. They might have succeeded in their mission, but they have lost something in their own selves. To the Greek porter, they are no better than thugs. And when Avner finds that the guard he had shot dead, while making an attempt on Salameh, the group leader, is just a teenage boy, he is totally dispirited and disillusioned.
Munich is Spielberg’s up close and personal look at the man who undertook the operations. It takes us into the minds of both the hunters and the hunted. Much as you hate the Arab terrorists, every time, when one of the targets is gunned down, you do feel a remorse, because, just moments earlier, he was another normal man on the street. Or was he really, i mean if they indeed were the brains behind the murder of Israeli athletes, it was just retribution. But then Munich provides no easy answers. You could watch the movie, many times, but still it does leave with you questions unanswered. Also Spielberg’s approach is totally understated here, in sharp contrast to his more in your face style. Even the explosions are shown like with a dull noise, not the usual high octane stuff, you see in standard Hollywood movies.
Also the detailing is really good here. For instance when Avner, meets the Mossad accountant, he is called as a Yekke, a term for German Jews. And later when Avner discusses it with Eprahim(Geoffrey Rush), he takes pain to emphasize he is a Sabra, a naturalized Jew born in Israel. Generally in Jewish society there is a distinction between Yekkes and Sabras. Also Jews of German descent, are not looked upon with favor by Jews of East European origin, especially those from Ukraine or Russia. Again when Avner tells his wife, Daphna, about moving to US, and she tells him that she does not want to be another “homeless Jew”. This again showing the attachment Jews all over have for Israel, as also the fact that Daphna was born and bought up in Israel, and she does not really relish the prospect of living her life in US. Again when Avner tells the group, that his wife is expecting, the other members say “Mazeltov”, which is the Jewish word for “Good fortune”. . Also Spielberg brings in the 70’s political scene, with references to ETA, Red Army, as also the West German Govt’s decision to release the arrested fidayeen, after terrorists hijack an airliner.
Well much as it was balanced, i feel that Spielberg could afford to do so, since he was a Jew himself. Inspite of which he received a lot of criticism for being a sell out. I am sure had the director been Catholic or Protestant, he would have been accused of not understanding Israel, and no Arab director would have even dared to make a movie out of it. Also i dont understand why Mossad would not want to get involved in this operation. Generally Mossad takes pride in dealing with enemies of Israel, and is not apologetic about its actions. Somehow the reason that Avner is not a field operative, and so the targets would not be as alert, as he is unknown, does not sound too convincing to me. Munich is not the perfect movie, i dont think Spielberg intended it to be, it has its flaws, and the pace slackens at times. But at the end it is movie that does make you think, and evaluate, and that in itself is something.
Tags: 1972 Olympics, Eric Bana, Munich, steven spielberg, Terrorism
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values… Golda Meir
Watched this early Feb, and yet again last week!
Yeah…Munich is one of the less talked films of Spielberg..dunno for what reason..it was well made..except for the last few minutes..but alll in all..i loved the film.
I happened to watch it the day before 26/11.
Sorry Ratnakar, to post a non -sensical comment, But couldnt stop myself
:-)
Hey Shreyansh, i could understand it, but if you dont mind, i would prefer comments relevant to the topic, i guess there are topics related to RBDNJ. Sorry to say, that i had deleted that comment, coz i dont want to divert into SRK now.
I expected that.No worries. :-)
Munich is really gripping in the first half and as you mentioned, it slacks off near the end. The ending kind of reminded me of Vaastav, where Avner is shit scared for his family and can’t sleep at nights when he moves to the US. I haven’t seen Munich a second time, time to watch it again I guess.
Just saw Munich on HBO. I liked the movie even the last moments. Avner is dipalced from his nation, missing his ageing parents and sick father, not willing to live in Israel as he lost faith in his country’s tactics or the cause. The movie ends with a dialogue and without answers suggesting the terrorism will continue and there is no solution or peace in the near future.
Watched it yesterday night on HBO like “J” …. really good movie but as u said it was lacking pace in some parts. It was intense though.
Like the scenes in second half in which Avner converse with the Arab militant and when he goes to the CLOSET to sleep. i would say its not in the league of Shindler’s List or SPR. These two are like legends which will be rememberd and revered for ages to come.
watched yesterday…a nice movie…who is the guy played the main character Avner…haven’t seem him much
@ Prashant-10, the guy who played Avner is Aussie actor Eric Bana. He appeared in the Ang Lee version of The Hulk, and also in Troy as Hector. He is more of an indie actor, generally does not come in too many mainstream movies.
@ Avi
Yes especially that last scene, where Avner is making love to his wife, and the visuals of the Munich massacre keep flashing, just did not understand what it was for. But still really intense movie. Well i would still rate it along with Schindlers and SPR, as Spielberg’s best.
@ J
If u take the last scene, Avner refuses to heed Eprahim’s request to come back to Israel, saying he is done.Avner asks Eprahim to join him for dinner, Eprahim refuses. I am not sure, of this, but i think its a kind of Jewish tradition, not to refuse an invitation for dinner. Could be that Eprahim, finally broke from Avner? Also he repeatedly tells Avner, that you are a nowhere man. Again does this indicate a division between Jews in Israel and Jews in other parts of the world. Quite an interesting point there.
Also remarkable and chilling (in the current circumstances) is the scene when Israeli commandos attack the Beirut hideout after coming via boats…..almost a reprise of recent Mumbai attacks…incidently I remembered of this very scene when I first heard of the modus operandi of Mumbai terrorists….a case of real imitating real I guess
@Param
Same here! When I first heard about the marine route taken by the mumbai attckers, that scene from Munich flashed in my mind… Strange..
Munich is indeed one of Spielberg’s less talked about movie. Maybe the topic is still very controversial and ‘gray’ as one can term it. There’re complaints about the movie not being true to history in some places (which is expected). Personally I really liked the movie. Some parts like the Frenchman (the fixer) and his family was distracting and not-so-convincing in my opinion. Overall it’s one of those movies which manages to ask some serious questions and definitely worth a second viewing…
@ avi, Param
Generally Israeli commando forces and the American Delta force are experts in that kind of operation. In fact CIA trained Cuban exiles, to attempt that kind of operation to overthrow Castro, but we know it was a fiasco.
Actually couple of months back i read Tom Clancy’s Teeth of the Tiger. In that a team of jihadi terrorists, actually strike at various shopping malls most of them located in small town America. The modus operanding of the Mumbai attackers, their attacks was chillingly same to the one mentioned in that novel. In fact the incidents at CST and Leopold, are exactly the same as described in that novel.
I think post 9/11, people were expecting a movie that would show the Arabs as totally evil. They were just not in the position to see Arabs in a Grey light. Again Munich was not the standard blockbuster entertainment kind, so not many really patronized the movie. Well that accusation is there against all movies based on real life incidents, be it JFK or Malcolm X or Hurricane.
Yeah ur right those scenes with Louis and Papa, do drag down the movie.
Maybe i am wrong here, but i think even United 93 based on 9/11, was not a commercial success too, and it also showed the terrorists in a more human light.
hey ratnakar, Munich is based on the book vengenace by George Jonas. All the research and detailing in the movie is all courtsey the author and his book. Read the book few months ago and just loved it, after that sorted out the movie, trust me read that book, its even better, lots of things have been left out in the movie due to time constraint.
Munich is a very moving film. His exploration of themes of the fragility of human beings who have reached the other polar end,seems very fascinating…
How the film shows them laughing and candidly talking on a dinner table about the people they need to kill and finally how they all break down and feel the need to be let off from this cycle…In a way they start by underestimating themselves as human beings… ina dark way in the film finally Speilberg makes humanity win as those people get defeated bby their own fears…..Also Spielberg is scourging to learn the Psychology and dialectics of the hunter/hunted combination….(When Avner opens his matress,phone and TV)And I particularly found the use of the little girl quite interesting specially because this is speilberg’s little girl…..
Saw it again last night…..your timing of this post couldn’t have been better
Even I have been a keen follower of the Arab-Israel conflict, and have been of the opinion that Israel’s eye-for-an-eye policy has done them more harm than good.
However when I saw this movie last night, I was thinking what stops us from taking similar steps and going after these jihadis….my ‘ringside’ view got turned on its head when the same events started to happen closer home…..
@ Ajay- Have not read the novel, though i heard of it. Well its quite impossible to capture all the details in a book in the movie. On a side note, Ayelet Zurer, who played Avner’s wife in the movie, will be comming opposite Tom Hanks in Angels and Demons.
@ Anubha
Exactly, Munich for me was more a look into the pysche of the hunter and hunted. It was not your conventional action thriller. In fact i think after Schindlers List, this was Spielberg’s most restrained and understated movie. Even the explosions are not the standard Hollywood Big Bang kind, its like very dull, very realistic, very gritty. In SPR Spielberg de glamorized war, and in Munich, he de glamorized the shadowy cloak and dagger world of espionage and counter attacks.
Also one more thing Avner migrates to US, out of fear for his own family, and his own life. But if you observe the conservation in the end he has with Eprahim, he tells him that those people whom he killed and he thought were decent people, were in fact responsible for grave crimes. I think Spielberg just left it like that, we are not yet sure whether Avner is feeling remorseful about his actions, or wants to do a rethink.
@ Avn
Actually as much as we hate Israeli policy, they have no other option. I mean ur surrounded by nations, which publicly proclaim that they will wipe you off the face of earth. So its like damned if they do, damned if they dont.
Also for most of the Arab states, Israel is a convenient excuse to cover up their miserable failures of governance. So whenever there is public anger or resentment, show them the Israeli bogeyman. It works.
@ratnakar
Is the book is based on true facts that happened after the munich killings?….in the end of the movie they show a text where they mention that guy salemleh whom avner could not kill was killed in 1979. I was curious if there were some people picked up actually buy israel govt to do this job?
@avn
i agree with ratnakar on israel policy. the nation does not have any other option left to protect its people and land from the surrounding countries. I even admire them for the fact that how a continuous threat from neighbour countries have made them so advance in terms of defence, technology and science.
@ Prashant-24
Yeah the book was published sometime in 1984, almost 12 years after the Munich incident.Well yes the author claims he based it on the experiences of his source, Yuval Aviv, who was named as Avner. But Mossad claimed that they knew none by that name. In fact he has been dismissed by both Mossad and CIA as a con artist. I think truth lies somewhere in between, because the real Operation Wrath of God, which was launched to hunt the people responsible for Munich, was a covert operation. There was a huge outcry, when Mossad shot dead an innocent Arab waiter at Lilleehammer.
Salameh was killed by Mossad in a car bomb explosion. Interestingly Salameh was a kind of go between for CIA and PLO, and he promised not to attack American targets in Beirut, hoping they would support the Palestinian cause.
The major problem, is that the entire operation being a covert one, and the Israeli Govt not actually wanting to get publicly involved, to date the facts are not yet known to any one.
I guess like JFK’s assasination, this will be discussed and debated for quite some time.
@ Ratnakar
Exactly! The film ends with a moment between between the two where they are about one metre away from each other in distance but world apart in ideology and belief. Eventhough from the same country, faith and working with each other for long and for the same cause, the moment suggests that they will never understand each other and connect as human beings. That’s how, i think, Spielberg suggets with an ironice metaphor that’s how we human beings differ in our beliefs and that there is no peace and the world may or shall remain without the ideal peace for the humanity.
@ratnakar -25
Thanks for the info. pretty interesting