(4.5)Director: Steven Spielberg
Cast: Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush, Daniel Craig, Ciarán Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hanns Zischler
My fear going in to Munich was the obvious tension between Israel and Palestine that is still so prevalent today. Spielberg, obviously a Jew, has a certain amount of history and emotional attachment to the subject, as so many do. This made me wary that perhaps his views would be too far to one side or the other, villifying one, while victimizing the other. It's one thing to make a statement, it's another to provide a biased view to a mass audience.
However, I was greatly surprised at the give-and-take presented. I wish there would have been more, but there was one point in the film, after the second or third assassination where there is a Palestinian response and Geoffrey Rush says, "It's a conversation." I think that one word is key to the understanding of the conflict as a whole. Violence begets violence. There is a "conversation" in the way that Palestinians are retaliating for Israeli acts, while the Israelis are retaliating for the attack at Munich. But it neither starts with Munich, nor ends with the resolution of the film. Almost 35 years later, and the "conversation," the "give-and-take," the retaliation (whatever name you wish to call it) is still a part of everyday lives for those living in Israel, and for those around the world who sympathize and empathize.
Spielberg clearly understands this and I felt his message was one of non-violence. He didn't offer a resolution, per se, but he does show the futility of constantly violence toward each other. People die on both sides. Both suffer. Both lose. In the film, he makes the statement (and the characters realize, in true Spielbergian style) that those killed, the high-ranking, the official, are merely replaced by someone who may be just as bad, or in many cases, worse.
There was one scene which took place between Avner (Eric Bana) and his Palestinian "counterpart." I wished it would have delved a bit deeper, but each man is so stuck with his way of thinking that it is useless for them to even discuss matters. They will not change each other's minds or way of thinking. But, the importance may not be simply the belief system with which they grew up. Each man has invested so much of his life into working for a greater cause, often killing brutally in its name, that it would be absolutely devastating to take a step back and ask "why" or "where does it end" or "is what I'm doing right?" The two men will never reach a consensus because they can't without admitting certain faults and actions, which could only lead to deeply disturbing realizations and almost certain psychological damage. This aspect is also portrayed in the film when various characters begin to ask those unanswerable questions. The character who begins to doubt himself and his cause starts to slowly break down and it often ends in his death. For Avner, he becomes paranoid and deeply troubled as he tries to adjust to a regular way of life after living as an assassin.
Above all, Munich will make you think. I thought it was extremely interesting and left me shaken. The idea of a hired assassin may sometimes be glorified (the television show "Alias" comes to mind), but the film shows some of the pure brutality, which is at times difficult to watch. I have personally seen my share of blood, guts, and gore in the movies, but there were parts while watching Munich that I felt my stomach turn and I honestly thought about leaving the theatre. As the film progresses, the body count increases seemingly exponentially, and some of the deaths become more gory and brutal, and they come more quickly and closer together, and they start to blur in the mind. This is brilliant filmmaking on the part of Spielberg who purposely increases the pace as a way to show the growing numbness of an assassin. The faces start to get fuzzy, the names are gone with the wind, the crimes aren't always clear. Everything starts to blur and the body count becomes just numbers. As a viewer, I remember the story behind the first few men targeted and killed. I remember what they were doing and where they were, but the last 7 or so are completely jumbled in my mind. I remember how some where killed, but not where or when, or which man was associated with which scene. It's discerning to experience that numbness toward the latter victims when I can still feel a certain amount of compassion for the former.
Overall, I think Spielberg made a wonderful film that is at times difficult to watch but as a whole, gripping, fascinating, and important. The more I think about it, the more I find the brilliance.