We finally got a chance to watch the controversial film Munich last night with the Jameeds, Beisan, and another friend. After the movie each of us had a different opinion. We could not really agree on whether the movie was balanced or not. I personally thought the movie was very well-made and did a decent job portraying both sides of the bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I thought the movie’s message was targeted more towards Israelis, as it was highly critical of the actions of Mossad’s killing machine and the blind patriotism that exits amidst Israeli society. One particular quote that stood out was from Carl, a skeptical Mossad agent: "Israel was not created by being nice." Another quote of note was that from a trigger-happy Mossad agent who remarked that the only thing that matters to him is Jewish blood.
One thing I liked about the movie was that unlike many other Hollywood movies, Palestinians were portrayed as human and not just these blood-thirsty terrorists. They were shown as refined, highly cultured, and family-oriented. The film also questioned the involvement of the targeted Palestinians in the actual killing of Israeli athletes in Munich.
Blogger Angry Arab believes that the majority of those assassinated "had nothing to do with Munich" and that the movie failed miserably in showing their innocence. I tend to agree with Angry Arab that the alleged Palestinian involvement should have been dissected more thoroughly. Although the movie made sure to present the Palestinian side of the story, I thought it was shown a bit hastily and not given enough prominence. For someone unaware of the conflict, the Palestinian side of the story might not have been made clear enough.
The movie was also highly informative for me personally. One interesting bit was seeing Ehud Barak dressed as a woman while pursuing PLO fedayeen in Beirut. The movie’s final message: Violence breeds violence and tit-for-tat policies only result in more bloodshed. Overall, I thought the movie was very good and I’d give it a score of 8/10. Here are some reactions from the blogosphere: Angry Arab, Palforce, and Egyptian Sandmonkey.
Dear Shagfee,
First I would like to thank you for taking the time in writing such detailed review.
Though I agree with you that “Munich” was rather balanced, i would say that Spielberg could have done better job in clarifying certain aspects not only about Munich itself but also about the conflict as well; as most of people who went to see the movie did not anything about the conflict or how it started the first place.
Yes the movie tried to change the vilifying portray that the media had draw of Arabs and Palestinians in particular but I did not see an effective effort in trying to define the real role played by Israel in Munich.
If you remember, when the terrorists were getting into the bus with the athletes Salame told one of them who seemed very scared not to worry and that he would be fine, the look in the eyes of Salame was not lying he was sincere. As id Salame knew something that the athletes did not know. The second thing is that at that exact time the Israeli television reported the athlete’s safe while they have reported the terrorists all dead.
I think Spielberg hide himself behind allusions, which he should have made clear for some of us who are not good in analyzing and to those whom just want to know the truth or what is close to it.
Keep up the good work Mamma!!
Posted by soumiaz | January 4, 2006, 1:37 PMI heard an interview with the guy who wrote the script for Spielburg. He said that when you watch the film and see the Israeli actions that you MUST understand what the Israelis have been through to understand how they could justify such a thing. I sat there thinking “what about what the Palestinians had been through since 1948 and have been through since that would need to be looked at to justify or understand what they did”?
He said a film needs to be done to show the Palestinian side of events and their tortured history, but this movie wasnt it. It is clear from his talk this movie was by, for, and about Jews. As to a film coming out of holiday that would show the Palestinian side and give voice to their history, I wouldn’t hold my breath. I guess this movie is better than most in its depiction of Palestinians and Arabs. I do remember that Angry Arab said there is not one Palestinian shown in the movie that did not have a firearm.
Posted by Abu Sinan | January 4, 2006, 1:38 PMDear Abu Sinan,
I do not agree with the Angry Arab’s observation that all the Palestinians in the movie were shown with arms. The first Palestinian who was killed by the squad was a shown as a writer. The second was shown as a family man. I don’t recall seeing any of them with guns.
Posted by natasha | January 4, 2006, 1:45 PMThank you so much for posting this review of the movie. I am so conflicted regarding whether or not I should watch it. I have a gut feeling that it will cause me internal conflict and perhaps disturbance, and I am concerned about the highly stylized, dramatized, sensationalized packaging that the film will undoubtedly come in. Regardless, it is really interesting to see how people react differently to the film, so thank you again for sharing!
Posted by Lulu | January 4, 2006, 1:50 PMLulu,
You’re welcome. I think you should go ahead and watch it to judge for yourself.
Posted by natasha | January 4, 2006, 1:53 PMSince when did Massad take Steven Speilberg or anyone else into their confidence and tell him all about how they operate and how/who they went after.
The only part about Munich that we know for sure is that “Palestinian” terrorist killed innocent Isreali athletes …
The rest is Steven Spielburgs imagination.
And by the way it was 10th at the box office this week.
Posted by jack | January 4, 2006, 2:26 PMWhat has been said is absolutely true. The film doesn’t delve that deeply into the Palestinian reasons behind the Munich action. There are hints and subtleties. But, as is also well noted, when you tell a story, to tell it well you must have a perspective. This is a film about this event from the Israeli side. What is notable is that it provides a fairly complex version of things on the other side. That’s notable because Arabs are so often vilified and dehumanized in Hollywood. Here, because of the perspective of this story, it would have been easier still to go that route.
It would not have made sense –- from a filmmaking standpoint -– to try and tell both stories. Spielberg chose a point of view, albeit the one from the book. But, while I do think he danced away from some things he could have explored -– like he could have integrated that some of the assassinations that took place were totally botched; completely wrong people were targeted -– he managed to put complex human faces on these “enemies of Israel.”
Spoiler alert: You look at the first target: the man is a poet, poor to the point of translating 1,001 Nights. But upon hopes of success, he gives a grocery clerk a tip; he’s a gentleman. He -– as Natasha notes –- is never seen carrying a gun. Next on the list is a member of the intelligentsia in Paris. His daughter plays piano. And he provides the bogus reporter a fairly broad perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
And here is one of the scenes where an attempt is made to give some Palestinian context. Here, his wife fills in details and gives a broader perspective of the conflict. The only problem is that is goes by so quickly. But there is something to keep in mind. This is a movie; there is a story being told that is meant to both entertain and inform. You can’t allow characters to go on and on without it becoming something else. Later, Spielberg introduces Ali, who provides the second extended discussion of the Palestinian plight and their determination to win.
Even here, when two enemies are thrown together, there’s an element of birds of a feather –- both are doing what they think is right for reasons they feel are justified. And both reasons are given voice, without prejudice really. When Ali is killed, there is a moment where our protagonist pauses, signifying his recognition and his growing unease with the “cause.”
The first comment from soumiaz is correct: Some of these things are a bit subtle, maybe covered too quickly. The facts aren’t just plopped down for someone to learn. And for some, that just doesn’t work. But, obviously, this film is a political hot potato. Spielberg wanted to make a film that wouldn’t offend either side too tremendously for obvious reasons. He had to be subtle. But he still allows for moments of real clarity if you think about it. I think for some, a second viewing might really broaden your view. Of course, I do agree, there could be improvements.
But this is a complex, dark tale. Spielberg could have easily made it a “rah rah” Israel film. After Schindler’s List, there were certain expectations for what a film like this would deliver. He did not meet those expectations for many. He could have easily demonized “the other.” He did not. There’s something to be said for that, not because he is a Jewish filmmaker but because this is an Israeli story. This is the story of an Israeli action. To be as inclusive as he is about the thoughts, motivations and very character of their enemy is notable.
When you tell a story that has such polarized politics, it’s not easy to walk the line between. Even to simply tell a story from one point of view and be as inclusive as he is here is a challenge. Ask any writer. To do that in 2 hours and 40 minutes while keeping up an historical storyline AND keeping an audience entertained is tougher still. I think the film is a real triumph.
That said, it would be a fantastic bookend to have this story told from “the other” perspective. It’d be good historically and informatively. But it’d also be interesting to see if another director could convey a new perspective while humanizing the “enemy,” as Spielberg did here. I think it must be said that Spielberg has irritated both sides. And there are some historical inaccuracies. But this is a movie, not a documentary. To have caused concern on both sides speaks volumes about the balance he did achieve here. The dialogue it has sparked is also a powerful testament to the quality of this film.
No, he doesn’t answer all questions or provide the entire history of this event. That likely would have been impossible, most certainly unwatchable. Here, he’s told a story very well and pushed many to explore something more than they would have otherwise. Watching his oeuvre grow and mature, I’m eager to see what he does next.
Posted by Jeff | January 4, 2006, 2:33 PMMunich was Spielberg’s adaption of another movie called “Sword of Gideon”.
I thought his version(Munich) was not well done, in terms of acting.
The Main character Avner(unit leader), does not look good in a hat.
Any hat!
Posted by laminar_flow | January 4, 2006, 7:32 PMYou and your readers might find my magazine’s interview with Hiam Abbass, the Palestinean actress who acted as Spielberg’s Technical Advisor for “Munich,” of interest. You can find that story here: G21 Interviews: Hiam Abbass.
Have enjoyed visiting here. Thanks to Toot!
RA
Posted by Rod Amis | January 4, 2006, 9:34 PM“The film doesn’t delve that deeply into the Palestinian reasons behind the Munich action.”
Nor should it! I was 9 years old and watching that live on television in 1972 and I still recall every moment. That’s the first time I ever heard of the PLO or of Yasser Arafat and I’ve never forgotten. I still associate that childhood trauma with Palestinians every time I hear the word “Palestinian.”
If the film wants to show the moral dilemmas of Mossad agents and their questionable retribution, that’s fine by me. But to paint a sympathetic picture of the people who kidnapped and murdered Israeli Olympic Athletes would be despicable.
Posted by Programmer Craig | January 5, 2006, 1:56 AMJack…
While we all condemn the act of hostage taking…I would like to correct the very false statement you just made: “The only part about Munich that we know for sure is that “Palestinian” terrorist killed innocent Isreali athletes”
Thats not true…Many recounts of what happend in Munich show that after the german police started firing at the hostage takers in the airport did they shoot back and kill themselves and the hostages….Had their demands been met and had they not been trapped i am sure the result would have been different…
and Craig…Its very sad that the first time you and many others had heard of the word “plo” and “arafat” for the first time was in 1972…after almost of 30 years of constant killing of INNOCENT palestinians by the Isralis. Its very sad that the Palestinians had to reach such a radical conclusion and use hostage taking as a way to make their voice heard..and let the world take notice of their suffering…
Posted by basboos | January 5, 2006, 12:14 PMAnd by the way…Aside from what really happened in Munich…I think the bottom line of this movie is a very honorable message “Stop the constant Bloodshed”, and violence only brings more violence.Its a great message sent by Speilberg during the world political events we are living now…I think that both the innocent Israeli and Palestinian citizens have had enough and want Peace….
Posted by basbooos | January 5, 2006, 12:21 PMBasboos:
“Many recounts of what happend in Munich show that after the german police started firing at the hostage takers in the airport did they shoot back and kill themselves and the hostages….Had their demands been met and had they not been trapped i am sure the result would have been different…”
The hostage takers are responsible for what happened to the hostages. Period. They created that situation, and they are responsible for it’s conclusion.
“Its very sad that the first time you and many others had heard of the word “plo” and “arafat” for the first time was in 1972…after almost of 30 years of constant killing of INNOCENT palestinians by the Isralis.”
Dude! I was NINE YEARS OLD!! I was watching the damned Olympics.
“Its very sad that the Palestinians had to reach such a radical conclusion and use hostage taking as a way to make their voice heard..and let the world take notice of their suffering…”
If you think I took notice of their “suffering” you are badly mistaken! I took notice of their MURDERING.
I’m going to boycott this movie now, sine Boosboos likes it. I cannot find a way to reconcile his views of what happened at Munich in 1972 with my own, and I don’t want to watch a movie that supports his version.
Posted by Programmer Craig | January 5, 2006, 2:24 PMUm, Basboos is a ‘she’ there Craig. But since you are unable to reconcile things that differ from your particular worldview that reality likely doesn’t matter to you. There are different perspectives out there BTW. Sometimes you might find that you actually learn something when you allow that your perspective might not be 100% correct – it rarely ever is. Seeing things, even if only for a moment, from a slightly different angle can provide a more complete understanding. It is only once that effort is made — that you take that risk — that you can really claim to fully comprehend an event. Even if you disagree with what that view might present, you’ve learned something by taking a moment to consider it. That’s really one of the best parts of the movies isn’t it? Although, I’m fairly certain Spielberg won’t miss you.
Posted by Jeff | January 5, 2006, 4:16 PMJeff, I don’t WANT to see murder of the innocent as anything but what it IS, an act of absolute EVIL. I have no sympathy for murderers. May they burn in hell for eternity, whether they are Palestinian or otherwise. There’s no gray area when it comes to murder of the innocent. Hate is not an excuse for murder, Jeff. Suffering is not an excuse for murder. Injsutice is not an excuse for murder. There is NO excuse for murder.
My apologies to Bosboos for misunderstanding her gender.
Posted by Programmer Craig | January 6, 2006, 2:00 PMI think you’re wring Jeff – I think Craig is being fair. Basboos may also be right in that both Palestinians and Israeli’s are tired of the violence. While it is true that no one was real familiar with the plo or the palestinian “problem”, the MURDER of the athletes is still unacceptable and not within reason. Basboos noted “…after almost of 30 years of constant killing of INNOCENT palestinians by the Isralis.”(sic). That’s perspective too – the same valid perspective that Craig has of murder. No one seems to be apologizing about that. It’s always as though taking hostages is legitimate – and murdering them expected.
And what of the Palestinian problem? How will it be solved? Basboos suggests the film has an answer. But how is it implemented and who starts it? It doesn’t seem to be slowing down.
“Seeing things, even if only for a moment, from a slightly different angle can provide a more complete understanding.” I don’t ever want to see murder from a different angle. Murdering Palestinians is no justification for murdering Israeli’s – or vice versa – it’s still murder. Perspective is when you irrationally excuse it.
Posted by tblubrd | January 6, 2006, 2:20 PMI would only say, to the both of you, that I don’t think Basboos (though I’m not speaking for her), Spielberg, or I is trying to excuse murder. If you are unable to get past that, perhaps that’s an issue you should examine. This film is not an excuse for anything. Some have described it as an apologetic for the Israeli actions that follow those of Black September. It’s a film geared towards Jews, IMHO, that attempts to explain how these actions could have happened, examining whether or not there is “any” way to accept them.
When an action is taken that you find reprehensible, you can strike back, you can ignore, you can hate … you can do many things. But perhaps the best thing is to try to understand the context. That doesn’t suggest you’ll ever accept what occurred or that you should. That’s not the point. What I am saying is that trying to understand could benefit you. Risking your mores — for a moment -– by trying to understand why on earth someone might do something you find reprehensible can produce a benefit.
You can choose to live in a black and white world, saying, “that’s just wrong,” where there are only innocents and murder never has justification. I’m sure that’s a wonderful “ideal” place. But thoughts like that strike me as a bit naïve. Things are never quite that simple. Actions based upon simplistic understandings of a circumstance produce dire consequence; ones that are perhaps unexpected (see Iraq War). Trying to understand -– even those things we might find reprehensible -– is important and can be a step to making this a better world. Don’t confuse understanding with acceptance or justification.
Posted by Jeff | January 6, 2006, 3:43 PMJeff,
The only thing I may disagree with Basboos on is the suggestion that “hostage taking” was legitimate somehow. I can try to understand that but I fail.
As to your statement-
“Actions based upon simplistic understandings of a circumstance produce dire consequence; ones that are perhaps unexpected (see Iraq War). Trying to understand -– even those things we might find reprehensible -– is important and can be a step to making this a better world. Don’t confuse understanding with acceptance or justification.”
Is there a type of understanding you want to entertain? What is the difference in “simplistic” understanding and – just plain understanding? How hard is it to understand Osama and his like? “We declare war on America.” I understand.
“We want to eliminate you.” from Mawassi(?), a former LEADER of Hezbollah. I understand that.
So America will do what it has had to do before – defend ourselves. And not tolerate those who do not tolerate us. My understanding of that is clear. And it may be, as you say, “simplistic”, but they have not made it complicated to deal with. We shouldn’t confuse understanding with inaction or tolerance.
As you said “Risking your mores — for a moment -– by trying to understand why on earth someone might do something you find reprehensible can produce a benefit.” Not for me. Murder is something I also understand. And murder of children is something I understand – I understand it is reprehensible, disgusting and heart breaking. I see no benfit in risking my mores to “understand” killing a child. The Islamic facists say the children are fair game. I say kill the facists. Maybe THEY will then understand that we won’t tolerate their behavior. Two way street.
Posted by tblubrd | January 6, 2006, 5:04 PMSorry we have a basic difference of how to deal with criminals.
If the world meets the demands of “hamas” … do you think they will amend their charter?
Give the criminals the keys to the city and crime will stop is not acceptable solution for me.
Posted by jack | January 6, 2006, 10:37 PMI think Jeff has a point about understanding why people do what they do.Terrorism and murder do not exist in a vacuum,and we should pay attention to the context.However,there comes a point when understanding and empathy must give way to ultimatums and action.If an intruder enters my home and tries to harm my family,I do not care if he had a bad childhood or is addicted to drugs,and there is no excuse for his behavior.He will suffer the consequences,no matter what his motivation or justification.
The Palestinian situation is not entirely the fault of the Israelis,and the amount of anti-semitism in the world is way out of proportion to their numbers and influence.Israel will always be a thorn in the flesh to her enemies,but she will never be defeated by them.
Speaking of giving criminals the keys to the city,has anyone noticed what’s happening in Gaza since it was returned to the Palestinians? Yep,it’s becoming a home base for terrorists. So much for the idea of land for peace,eh? Btw,the president of Iran said he hopes Ariel Sharon dies.But Sharon did what the Palestinian wanted,didn’t he? Why then aren’t they praying for his recovery? I’m still trying to understand Islam,and am learning a lot by reading the koran…but in the interest of tolerance I will keep my opinions to myself.
Peace
Posted by Dan | January 7, 2006, 4:24 AMFine, I will admit that there are Palestinian terrorists who are “refined, cultured, and highly educated.”
Does that make them any less terrorists? Do you think the man whose pregnant wife and 5 children were shot at point-blank range in their car a few years ago really cares how refined and cultured their murderers were?
Should we give a pass to terrorists who have a BA and appreciate Van Gogh?
And excuse me, “the Palestinian side?” What side is that- the one whose acts of terrorism have killed any chance of peace in the Middle East? The one who holds the lives of their sons in so little regard that they happily send them off the be suicide bombers? The side which has been offered chance after chance to have its own state but has either refused to deal with the Israelis or has refused to stop the terrorism?
Or is it the side that receives more international aid per capita than any other country in the world, but instead of investing it worthwhile causes chooses to instead buy bombs, suicide belts, fund summer camps that teach children to become terrorists, and print maps devoid of the word “Israel” and schoolbooks that teach children to hate, hate, hate anything and everything Jewish.
I know you’re an Arab so you can’t be expected to root for the Israelis, but I admit I expected more from a seemingly liberal, educated woman.
By the way, your own King Hussein said:
“Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner…. they have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and,
I could say, even criminal.”
This quote is from 1960, long before he made peace with Israel. A quick Google search will show you that many Arab leaders agree with him.
I would urge you to consider that it is not Israel which has put the Palestinians in their current position, but rather their own rotten leadership.
Posted by Harlan | January 8, 2006, 5:17 AM‘Munich,’ the Travesty By Charles Krauthammer
“The only true part of the story is the few minutes spent on the massacre. The rest is invention, as Spielberg delicately puts it in the opening credits, “inspired by real events.”"
See the whole article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201541.html
Posted by Dan | January 31, 2006, 4:39 PM