(Amblin Entertainment / Universal Pictures)
During a movie season where we’re getting blockbusters with political themes, like Denis Villeneuve’s Dune Part 2 and Alex Garland’s Civil War, we’re also in the midst of some majorly divisive discussions on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Seemingly more Americans are willing to learn about the two cultures’ histories than before, which in return is leading movie fans to recall one of the less talked about films by one of the biggest directors in the world: Steven Spielberg’s Munich (2005). Set in 1972-75, the historical suspense thriller recalls the aftermath of when a dozen Israeli athletes and five others were massacred during the ’72 Olympics in Munich, Germany by members of the terrorist group Black September. We follow a small, undercover crew who were recruited by Mossad to assassinate those responsible for the killings. Eric Bana was cast as the film’s lead, fresh off Ang Lee’s superhero flick Hulk (2003), alongside Ciarán Hinds, Geoffrey Rush, Mathieu Amalric, Ayelet Zurer, Mathieu Kassovitz and a pre-007 Daniel Craig. Eric Roth of Robert Zemeckis’ Forrest Gump (1994) wrote the initial script based on George Jonas’ 1984 novel Vengeance, while Angels in America (1991) playwright Tony Kushner made his screenplay debut contributing rewrites for Munich. Actress and filmmaker Hiam Abbass, who is both Israeli and Palestinian, was brought on as a dialect couch and cultural consultant. Composer John Williams and cinematographer Janusz Kamiński of course returned as Spielberg regulars. While successful with both critics and award orgs, this remains one of the filmmaker’s more overlooked pictures in his lengthy repertoire.
My memories of Munich’s release are pretty vague themselves. For years the first thing I would think of is the club scene near the beginning of Judd Apatow’s Knocked Up (2007), where Seth Rogen’s character jokes to his friends, “If any of us get laid tonight, it’s because of Eric Bana in Munich.” I also remember Spielberg and his production team supposedly racing to get the movie finished for a Christmas release that year. As a 16-year-old high schooler, this type of movie was not really on my radar at the time, even though the man behind the feature has made many movies I love. But even beyond that, there appeared to not be a ton of press for the docudrama, at least compared to Spielberg’s other hits and general Oscar contenders. In fact, I was surprised to learn recently this is one of the few releases the filmmaker did very little promo for. The most in depth comments I could find from him is a 5 minute video included on the 2006 DVD for Munich. I guess this is Spielberg suggesting the film should speak for itself. Which it did, as it instantly received polarizing reactions from both Israel and Palestine. The former accused the creators of not being historically accurate and making the state look bad, while the latter called out the film for not focusing on the Palestinian perspective enough. Average movie goers found it baffling that, out of the 35 films Spielberg has directed, this is the one where he chose to shoot graphic sex scenes. As a viewer with only basic research of this very long-lasting battle in the east, my interpretation of the film is that Spielberg believes in Israel as a nation—but not as a government.
(Amblin Entertainment / Universal Pictures)
For nearly three hours, we follow five men from different backgrounds who come together in revenge for their fellow Jews who lost their lives in Germany. Israeli-American special agent Avner Kaufman (Bana) and Belgian bomb expert Robert (Kassovitz) each become more disillusioned and disturbed by how casual their fatal assignments are executed, while South African driver Steve (Craig), Israeli ‘cleaner’ Carl (Hinds), and German document forger Hans (Hanns Zischler) grow more psychopathically motivated. We see Avner suffer from PTSD induced paranoia after coming home from his mission rather than feel honored by Prime Minister Golda Meir’s (Lynn Cohen) congratulations or feel happy to be home with his wife Daphna (Zurer) and their two-year old daughter. Like any decent biopic, minor liberties are taken with historical accuracy to move the story along. The character of Avner is inspired by a real Mossad agent named Yuval Aviv, while Amalric’s role of Louis and Michael Lonsdale as Louis’ father, two French informants with communist ties, are apparently highly fictionalized. I wasn’t offended as some at the choice to portray one of Avner’s traumatic flashbacks occurring in the middle of sex with Daphna, and we’ve seen this kind of topic explored more in Jason Hall’s Thank You for Your Service (2017). But I agree the execution is a little jarring, especially since the flashback we see is actually the Olympics tragedy which Avner wasn’t present at.
Munich is also a rare Spielberg picture with an incredibly bleak conclusion. Unlike Schindler’s List (1993), where we receive relief that The Holocaust is over; or Saving Pvt. Ryan (1998); where Ryan returns home from WWII to start a family; or even Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Jurassic Park (1993) and Minority Report (2002), where the heroes defeat the villains; Munich doesn’t end with Avner celebrating killing members of Black September as justice. Instead, he vents to his case officer, Ephraim (Rush), that he doesn’t feel responding to murder with more murder resolved anything, and that he doesn’t think he can go back to Israel. After failing to convince Avner to leave NYC for his homeland, Ephraim turns down a traditional dinner at the Kaufman home and Avner returns to his family alone. This suggests that by not supporting Israel’s choices, Avner is not only seen to the Israel government as an outcast, but barely a Jew. That’s pretty dark.
For the past six months or so, I’ve seen many accuse Spielberg of being a ‘shill’ for Israel because of his belief that it can still exist as a concept and safe place for Jews despite the ongoing genocide happening right inside the location. I don’t know if this is completely fair. The man is proud to be Jewish and admitted in Susan Lacy’s 2017 documentary Spielberg that he rediscovered his faith while making Schindler’s List after spending his 20s and 30s secular. But Spielberg, Roth and Kushner were all but told not to visit Israel when Munich was released because the officials were so unhappy with the final product. The director’s association with Kushner—a Jewish artist with his own controversial opinions on Israel, including how legalizing the state might have been a mistake—alone shows he’s not opposed to various perspectives of the issue. I doubt someone who is on board with the government’s policies would portray them so harshly in his own movie. Why would he bother hiring Abbass for extra input? This is a movie that is relentlessly violent and graphic, even more so than Schindler’s and Pvt. Ryan in my opinion. There are various points where he highlights how Israel’s history isn’t less gruesome than any other country, and we have characters arguing over who has it harder, the Israelis or the Palestinians. While Munich is a film primarily from the Israeli and Jewish points of view, both the characters and the creators are self-aware, and the film is more a dissection on the mental toll being involved with a series of secret killings takes. Unlike a lot of historical dramas, this one doesn’t have a fully rounded conclusion. The genocide and hatred are still spreading today. The dialogue of the final scene almost sounds like Kushner and Spielberg suggesting it may not end anytime soon. “There is no peace at the end of this,” Avner claims, and Ephraim doesn’t refute him.
I tend to think I’m well-read and up to date on current events and history in the making. But I also try not to comment too much publicly about politics because it’s really easy to unintentionally stick your foot in your mouth. This specific discourse on what’s going on in the middle east is proving how important nuance is to serious discussions. It’s impossible to make everyone view every topic in a completely black or white standing. I’ll end with a quote from Mr. Spielberg on that DVD clip: “This is a very, very tough subject, and we decided to approach it honestly and unsparingly. This film is an attempt to look at policies Israel shares with the rest of the world. And to understand why a country feels its best defense against a certain kind of violence is counterviolence…I’m not trying to answer these issues and dilemmas. But the movie, apart from being a human drama, explores what these guys went through and will hopefully stir a discussion.”
Excellent