Spielberg & Kushner's Munich '72 / Israeli vengeance film

That said, I liked this film.

Also: nobody told me that the dude from Kings and Queen was in this (as Louis)!

bana is flashing on munich in this intimate moment (nevermind that he's seeing it as it happened; it'd be too difficult to show us his imagined version without incurring confusion) because spielberg wants to show us two things:

1) for the individual embroiled in it, revenge by terrorism has no logical beginning and no end. although bana has no direct connection to the events at munich, it nonetheless puts a machine in motion that will consume him, just as future terrorists will be consumed in the act of retaliating against his actions. the fact that bana wasn't even at munich is a critical component to him being haunted by it.

2) 'home' is as much about piece of mind and security as physical location (part of a larger statement about the counterintuitiveness of endangering family to fight for land)

on another note, did anybody notice that the middle of the film is a homage to Ronin, right down to Michael Lonsdale playing essentially the same character?!?

"Normally I would agree, but in this situation I think it is important. The Israel-Palestine conflict is one about which most Americans have very little knowledge and a great deal of misunderstandings. In terms of historical accuracy, this film comes off like something straight from Israeli propaganda, whatever Spielberg's intentions. Because of this, as much as I found the film enjoyable to watch, I think its garbage and will have many negative affects on the Palestinian struggle."

I have not yet seen the film but does anyone agree with this?

He's an anarchist *giggles*

The story isn't of the 'real' assassins (about whom almost nothing is known, the book could be a load of BS), so how they felt doesn't much matter.

you don't think the movie isn't aware of that?

Tony Kushner, who wrote the scenario to Steven Spielberg's film "Munich", defends himself in an interview with Peter von Becker against accusations that he was sloppy in his research. "The problem is that there are no accessible documents on the background to the events in Munich in 1972 and their aftermath. Each informant only tells his own side of the story. We know Abu Daoud's version because he wrote a book about it. Now he's gone into hiding, all the while complaining that we didn't talk with him. In truth he's insulted that until now there's been no English translation of his book! (laughs) Even among the Israelis there are differing accounts. And some would like to cover up the fact that the trail of the bloody retaliation for Munich leads to Israel's prime minister at the time, Golda Meir. I have a lot of respect for Meir, and the film doesn't put her down. But without her, Palestinian terror suspects across Europe wouldn't have been hunted down and liquidated, and a lot of innocent lives would have been saved."

hes questioning israel's use of terror, and the response to the munich killings is the specific narrative he's using.

Yes, well, Steven showed us nice well-mannered Palestinians smoking and sharing jokes with cutie Eric Bana, after realizing they'd been given the wrong room. Not even John Ritter had such luck.

-- alma (maltease...), January 18th, 2006.

The fact that atrocities were committed in the founding of Israel does not mean that all Israelis lack "core values" or that none of them have moral dilemas about anything. I could just as easily argue that there's no point in showing the "side of the story" of a group that kidnaps and massacres innocent olympic athletes to make their political point.

We're talking about trained killers who, in real life, had no regrets or moral dilemmas about the entire thing. The adding in of those emotions only serves propaganda purposes. None of the other violent killers in the movie are shown as human beings. Hell, the people who had nothing to do with it but were killed by the Israelis anyway are barely shown as human beings.

"i think speilberg is trying to question the morality/usefulness of political violence.
hes questioning israel's use of terror, and the response to the munich killings is the specific narrative he's using."

Hardly. The film more or less glorifies the killers.

"you don't think the movie isn't aware of that?"

"Yeah, I thought it took pains to emphasize that point."

Not really. The main killer questions it briefly at the end, but he is assured that they do and very little else is said about. The movie also ends by nothing that Salameh was killed, implying he was somewhat guilty.

Hahahaha. Most complaints I've heard try to make EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE point. "Oh, we only ever see the Arabs interacting with their daughters, or reading poetry and befriending shopkeepers, and never see them doing anything terrible!"

The main killer questions it briefly at the end, but he is assured that they do and very little else is said about.

Er, no. The Geoffrey Rush character basically tells him, "Who cares if they were involved in Munich? They did plenty of other bad things." And Avner is none too happy about it. It's not as if he strolls back to his Brooklyn walkup whistling.

I didn't think this while I was watching it. The criticisms listed above aren't convincing enough to me, and I suspect they're at least somewhat rooted in anti-Israeli and/or anti-Spielberg stances.

I thought that this film presented its point quite vividly.

The only thing that bugged me was the ott orgasm/airport carnage scene near the end

Now, I don't doubt that the people they chose weren't prone to feeling bad about killing - but everything about the Munich reaction is shrouded in secrecy and this isn't the 'true story' of what happened.

So, even if the real-life mindset were relevant to a fictional film (which it's not, as slocki said - it never makes any kind of truth-claim about the events), we have little or no evidence to contradict Spielberg's portrayal.