Film Review: Munich (dir. S. Spielberg, 2005)

[Spoiler alert.]

This is a great film, another Spielberg masterpiece. The film has received a lot of criticism from the right, especially the fanatically pro-Israeli right, for its "message." But I'm not sure that the message of the film is what its critics say it is. (It must be great to be able to plus almost anything into an ideological frame and find out what you think of it, without thinking.) Because like any great film or novel, this film offers different perspectives, different points of view. More on the "message" below.

I'm sure that you know the storyline--after the "Black September" Palestinian terrorist attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics, which left 11 Israeli athletes dead, the Mossad (Israeli intelligence) assembles a team to hunt down and kill the planners of the attack. (Or, at least, that's what the team is told.) The team is led by Avner (Eric Bana), a dedicated son of Israel whose father was some kind of hero of the war for independence (the father's heroism is never elaborated upon; it's a plot background point). Avner's wife is seven-months pregnant, but he answers the call of Israel and goes underground, leading a team--explosives "expert," document forger, hitman, "fixer"--in the dirty war between Israel and the Palestinians.

There's lots of suspense as the team carries out its mission, but the film's focus is the impact that the mission has on the team members. The explosives expert basically checks out. His speech on how if Jews lose their righteousness, then they lose their souls is an important one--an important perspective on the dirty war. The hitman, on the other hand, "rejoices" at the killings and cares only for "Jewish blood." The fixer is full of doubts, even about the mission--and his doubts prove well-founded, after he is murdered.

But the center of the film is Avner, a complex character. His character moves between various points in the family-loyalty to human beings-loyalty to abstractions-loyalty to the State space. Like I said, he begins the story by leaving his pregnant wife (family) to take on a dangerous and dirty mission for the State. But over time, his life becomes more complex as he develops a relationship with a mysterious French family that sells information, but not to governments. There's a great sequence--the screenplay here should win Best Adapted Screenplay (Tony Kushner was one of two writers)--where the Mossad wants to use some of the information, but Aner worries that this will blow his cover with his informant(s), and he is cross-pressured. In the end, it's interesting that his falling out with his Mossad handler (himself an interesting character, played marvellously by Geoffrey Rush) comes when the handler wants Avner to provide information about the informants, and he refuses. Avner's wife says at one point that "Israel is [Avner's] mother." Lots of playing on the family-State loyalty theme to chew on here.

There's a lot one could say about the film. I want to highlight some of the great storytelling. The Munich attack itself is presented from the perspectives of Israelis and Palestinians, which is an interesting touch. (This is probably one of the things the fanatical pro-Israeli right hates--presenting these things from both sides.) The film's narrative center is a conversation between Avner and a P.L.O. terrorist (Ali), which could just as easily be Avner's conversation with himself.

There's a great deal of cinematic realism. This is the first film I've ever seen that shows a husband having sex with his visibly pregnant wife. But here, realism means some gore. There's the assassination of the [spoiler!] beautiful Dutch hit-woman, which ends with the assassins leaving the Dutch woman naked and bleeding. Another shot I liked was the Israeli athlete shot through the cheeks.

The film looks like it was shot in the 1970s. The print is grainy, not super-digital sharp, which I liked. Great clothes, hair, and cars.

I could go on and on, here. Go see this film. I would be interested in what others took away as its "message." Because I think that it is a "message picture," even though that message is not the standard one you hear from the film's detractors: "Violence can't solve problems." It seems implausible that the director of Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List could think that. But in thinking about the "message," keep in mind the film's eerie last shot. I won't spoil that. You have to see it for yourself.