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

Lots of subtlties. The last exchange b/w Bana and Londsdale when the former is leaving the country house: ("You could be my son. But you're not") and its agonzing payoff later, when Papa seems to sell Avner and his gang out.

Welcome to the converts' tent, Alfred! Today's Village Voice digs in its heels: "a paragon of moral and political incoherence."

They wouldn't be me, tho.

Good attention to detail recreating 70s urban Europe I guess. That's about it. Or if making The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion look like the instruction pamphlet included with Candy Land is your thing, I guess it was pretty good at that too.

Filth. Good to know that human beings are all basically savages though, I hadn't ever thought about that before.

Spielberg's not got a tenth of the cynical chops of his idol. And yes I mean ...Capra.

John Williams's score came from an old DAT he found in his basement and then shipped USPS Media Mail. Didn't even bother with the bubble envelope.

Trying to one-up DePalma & Peckinpah (after quoting them endlessly throughout the movie; I'm amazed none of the PLOers got hung from a chopper) by delving into pornographic snuff probably not the best idea our Stevie's ever had.

The Godfather schtick was cute but also just as pointless as 85% of the other things that happen in this movie.

The final scene with the fucking and the machineguns and the slow-motion sweat droplets is one of the worst things I've seen on film in a very long time in terms of painfully, painfully hackneyed nonsense, and I've sat through at least 30 minutes of Bulletproof Monk on cable.

One last thing and I'm out: I amused myself endlessly this weekend imagining Owen Wilson cast in Daniel Craig's inexplicable part, and saying "The only blood I care about is Jewish blood!" in his easygoing texan accent.

?!

Lately I just imagine Ian McKellen playing every part:

"The only blood I care about is mutant – er, JEWISH – blood!"

Daniel Craig is absolutely terrible in this movie, btw, why is he in it? Wasn't there anyone else? Like actual Israelis maybe? Or hell, Ian McKellen or Owen Wilson, I don't care. Made me very much not look forward to the Bond film, though I never really do.

But yeah, what's the consensus? Gets better on second viewing? Not subtle, but not an unholy sin against the art of filmmaking? Everyone I talk to blows trumpets about how Spielberg "humanizes the terrorists" and my reaction is kind of, "yeah, three-dimensional characters, WHAT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT."

i still like it, though! it's pretty tense and extremely well-made. i like daniel craig (i'm guessing it's possible that a south african jewish chap would throw his allegiance in with the israelis?)

and again the last shot of the film is nice.

The discussion well upthread about how the film is overlong and had seemingly 5 potential endings up thru the actual ending is pretty OTM, and the ending sex scene basically ruined the movie for me (I understand the "message" but I also wanna just quote s1ocki upthread: O RLY, Steven? RLY?). And everyone who claims the score to this is "subtle" is either a deaf person OR has such, such low expectations from John Williams at this point that anything seems subtle (the music in the sex scene finale, which hasn't been mentioned up to this point as far as I can tell, is absolutely the worst thing about it).

Eric Bana is surprisingly good in it, and his accent is excellent. The story itself is compelling. It has more in common with a couple of Baader-Meinhof inspired German films than it does with a lot of films referenced throughout this thread, and I guess ultimately I'd rather watch Bruno Ganz than Eric Bana. Overall kind of middling IMO, the last third of the film has a completely different pacing than the rest of it (a change for the worse), and some of the flaws become frustrating because you can see the point being made, but the execution kind of made me want to scream, "Yes, yes, we get it, v. clever, here's a pony ride."

It is, FWIW, much better than SPR or Amistad.

xpost possible but if that's what that accent is supposed to be he's going a bit Patsy Kensit isn't he.

The last third didn't seem rushed anymore. Since we'd followed these men for close to two hours (and several years) it made dramatic sense to see Bana, et al dessicated and embittered. This is signalled in the horrifying murder of the female assassin. Not that shes didn't have it coming, but the coldness with which Bana shoots her suggests that he's becoming the inhuman killer that Golda Meir claimed the Munich abductors were.

The sex scene still blows, but so few films are perfect I've learned to accept a fair amount of ridiculousness.

Like this guy?
http://www.jewishxpress.com/issue28/images/abba.jpg

I'm never going to get this out of my head.

I'll take that over three over-indulgent hours of Spielberg just based on which will damage me less, but it still wasn't better than 'kinda good.'

Give me the risk of ridiculousness over competent, unadventurous "McCarthy was evil" pandering with a jazz-sampler soundtrack anytime.

The John Williams score was way above average as I scarcely noticed it.

btw, Munich was gratuitously pilloried in the NY Times Book Review this week (the film criticism anthology) for being "written by people who don't know half enough about politics." (Was it Clive James, or Tombot ghosting?) I don't think Tony Kushner is always right, but he's more than half-on.

That was one of the best parts of the movie, that entire mini-arc. It was the bit that I thought most did something interesting with how violence develops and where it can lead, so to speak.

I still kind of feel like a lot of the final act belonged to a different film. The music becomes more intrusive, the pacing completely changes, there's a lot more "O RLY?" moments in the visuals...I dunno.

The problem for me with it is that, you know, I accept a lot of ridiculousness (I mean this film would've definitely been improved by Magneto's presence), but it just depends on the kind of ridiculous I guess, and when a filmmaker I dislike starts doing the kind of thing I totally, totally expect them to do after 2 hours+ of actually doing something I think is well above-par for him...it makes it easier to pick apart flaws in the superior first acts, leaves a bad taste. Everyone's got that director so I'm not saying anything particularly world-shattering here.

awful sex scene vs. unnecessary jazz interludes

The music was totally unnecessary and got annoying after a while. It was cute the first time, like watching old tv, here's the little interlude but after 6 times it was kind of like PLZ stop.

I don't understand propping or knocking either GNGL or Munich on the basis of making daring or fresh political statements, because neither does.

i dont really want to watch it again. but it struck me as a viscerally disturbing tour through the moral wasteland of the 20th century. use that as your pull quote!

The thing about Munich's lathering up of the Likud/neocon crowd is that it really doesn't take MUCH to lather them up--just suggesting that any of Israel's actions were anything other than completely justified and right.

A bold suggestion! Never before has it been made! You realize that right-wing pundits have gone all foamy at the mouth over GNGL daring to suggest the controversial idea that witch-hunts are bad, right?

So, I say it again:
I don't understand propping or knocking either GNGL or Munich on the basis of making daring or fresh political statements, because neither does.

Getting someone's panties in a wad does not equal making a daring or fresh political statement that is unusual in film (even other fairly well-known films). Neither film should be judged on its merits as a political statement. Ryan is OTM regarding human condition; Munich is a film about the nature of violence and revenge.