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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Should provide a December cultural tempest, as it's already pissing off people when it's just begun shooting.


Next: Spielberg's Biggest Gamble

By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

LOS ANGELES, June 30 - On Wednesday, Steven Spielberg's apocalyptic thriller "War of the Worlds" invaded movie theaters worldwide. But the director had already moved on. That night in Malta, Mr. Spielberg quietly began filming the most politically charged project he has yet attempted: the tale of a secret Mossad hit squad ordered to assassinate Palestinian terrorists after the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.

Mr. Spielberg has taken risks before: he said he feared being seen as trivializing the Holocaust when he directed "Schindler's List" in 1993, at a time when he was best known for blockbuster fantasies like "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark." And with "Saving Private Ryan," he gambled successfully on audiences' tolerance for prolonged and bloody combat scenes.

But with the as-yet-untitled Munich film, already scheduled for Oscar-season release by Universal Pictures on Dec. 23, Mr. Spielberg is tackling material delicate enough that he and his advisers are concerned about adverse effects on matters as weighty as the Israeli-Palestinian peace process if his project is mishandled - or misconstrued in the public mind.

Indeed, the movie's terrain is so packed with potential land mines that, associates say, Mr. Spielberg has sought counsel from advisers ranging from his own rabbi to the former American diplomat Dennis Ross, who in turn has alerted Israeli government officials to the film's thrust. Mr. Spielberg has also shown the script to Mr. Ross's old boss, former President Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton's aides said Mr. Spielberg reached out to him first more than a year ago and again as recently as Tuesday. Mr. Spielberg is also being advised by Mike McCurry, Mr. Clinton's White House spokesman, and Allan Mayer, a Hollywood spokesman who specializes in crisis communications.

The film, which is being written by the playwright Tony Kushner - it is his first feature screenplay - begins with the killing of 11 Israeli athletes in Munich. But it focuses on the Israeli retaliation: the assassinations, ordered by Prime Minister Golda Meir, of Palestinians identified by Israeli intelligence as terrorists, including some who were not directly implicated in the Olympic massacre. By highlighting such a morally vexing and endlessly debated chapter in Israeli history - one that introduced the still-controversial Israeli tactic now known as targeted killings - Mr. Spielberg could jeopardize his tremendous stature among Jews both in the United States and in Israel.

He earned that prestige largely for his treatment of the Holocaust in "Schindler's List" and for his philanthropic efforts, through the Shoah Foundation, to preserve testimonies of survivors of the concentration camps. Until now, though, he has been relatively quiet on Middle East politics compared with more vocal American supporters of Israel.

Making matters more complicated, an important source for Mr. Spielberg's narrative is a 1984 book by George Jonas, "Vengeance," based largely on the account of a purported member of the Mossad's assassination team, whose veracity was later widely called into question.

Friends of Mr. Spielberg said he was keenly aware that admirers of his Holocaust work could misunderstand his new film and regard it as hurtful to Israel. And they noted that he had never before courted controversy so openly. "A lot of people around him never thought he'd make the movie," said one associate, who asked not to be identified, in keeping with Mr. Spielberg's preference for secrecy.

Typically, Mr. Spielberg keeps a tight lid on information about coming projects, and he has been especially careful to do so this time. He has revealed that the film will star Eric Bana as the lead Israeli assassin, along with Daniel Craig, Geoffrey Rush, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hanns Zischler and Ciaran Hinds. The director released a short statement simultaneously this week to The New York Times, the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv and the Arab television network Al Arabiya, but he turned down requests for an interview and declined through a spokesman to answer written questions.

In the statement, Mr. Spielberg called the Munich attack - which was carried out by Black September, an arm of the P.L.O.'s Fatah organization - and the Israeli response "a defining moment in the modern history of the Middle East."

Mr. Spielberg's interest in the question of a civilized nation's proper response to terrorism deepened, aides said, after the 9/11 attacks, as Americans were grappling for the first time with similar issues - for instance, in each new lethal strike on a suspected terrorist leader by a C.I.A. Predator drone aircraft. In Mr. Kushner's script, people who have read it say, the Israeli assassins find themselves struggling to understand how their targets were chosen, whether they belonged on the hit list and, eventually, what, if anything, their killing would accomplish.

"What comes through here is the human dimension," said Mr. Ross, formerly the Middle East envoy for Mr. Clinton, who has advised the filmmakers on the screenplay and helped Mr. Spielberg reach out to officials in the region. "You're contending with an enormously difficult set of challenges when you have to respond to a horrific act of terror. Not to respond sends a signal that actions are rewarded and the perpetrators can get away with it. But you have to take into account that your response may not achieve what you wish to achieve, and that it may have consequences for people in the mission."

Mr. Spielberg's statement indicated that, despite the implications for other conflicts, his movie - to be shot in Malta, Budapest and New York - was aimed squarely at the Israeli-Palestinian divide.

"Viewing Israel's response to Munich through the eyes of the men who were sent to avenge that tragedy adds a human dimension to a horrific episode that we usually think about only in political or military terms," he said. "By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic standoff we find ourselves in today."

That Mr. Spielberg has a daunting task ahead - and the degree to which his film will be scrutinized, interpreted and debated - can be seen in the way a few prominent Israelis responded to the mere mention of doubts on the part of the assassins.

"I don't know how many of them actually had 'troubling doubts' about what they were doing," said Michael B. Oren, the historian and author of "Six Days of War." "It's become a stereotype, the guilt-ridden Mossad hit man. You never see guilt-ridden hit men in any other ethnicity. Somehow it's only the Jews. I don't see Dirty Harry feeling guilt-ridden. It's the flip side of the rationally motivated Palestinian terrorist: you can't have a Jew going to exact vengeance and not feel guilt-ridden about it, and you can't have a Palestinian who's operating out of pure evil - it's got to be the result of some trauma."

And Efraim Halevy, a veteran Mossad agent who headed the organization, Israel's intelligence agency, from 1998 to 2002, warned against reading too much into the misgivings of Israel's hit men.

"I know some of the people who were involved," he said. "Maybe people have doubts. If they have doubts, I think it's to their credit. It's not an easy thing to do. But it doesn't mean it's wrong. I'd be very happy to see the doubts on the other side, the fierce debates going on about whether they should or should not do it."

Yet Mr. Spielberg's advisers say he is studiously avoiding the most glaring potential trap: drawing a moral equivalency between the Palestinian attack and the Israeli retaliation.

While people who have read various versions of the script praised Mr. Kushner, the author of "Angels in America" and "Homebody/Kabul," for humanizing the film's hunted Palestinians and giving a fuller sense of their motivation, they said the terrorists would hold little claim to the audience's sympathies. One scene added by Mr. Kushner, who was commissioned last year to rework an earlier draft by the writer Eric Roth, places an Israeli assassin, posing as a terrorist sympathizer, at a safe house where he listens as Palestinians give voice to their anger but also to their hatred of Jews, two people connected with the film said.

Moreover, Mr. Spielberg is making sure to provide enough historical context to explain what impelled Israel to make killers of its sons, as Golda Meir was said to have lamented at the time. "It's easy to look back at historic events with the benefit of hindsight," he said in his statement. "What's not so easy is to try to see things as they must have looked to people at the time."

Mr. Spielberg's movie will not be the first dramatic telling of this story. In 1986, HBO adapted Mr. Jonas's book as a television movie, "Sword of Gideon," starring Steven Bauer as the lead assassin, "Avner," along with Rod Steiger and Colleen Dewhurst. Mr. Spielberg became interested more recently, after learning that Barry Mendel, the producer of "The Sixth Sense" and several Wes Anderson films, including last year's "Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou," had acquired the feature rights to the book for Universal several years ago.

Anticipating questions about the authenticity of the book's source, Mr. Spielberg has sought to distance the movie from "Vengeance," insisting in his statement that the film is based on multiple sources, "including the recollections of some who participated in the events themselves." But one of them, people involved in the film confirmed, is Juval Aviv, a New York-based security consultant identified years ago as Mr. Jonas's Avner character, whose claims to a career in the Mossad have been disputed by experts on Israeli intelligence. Mr. Aviv did not respond to phone and e-mail messages.

Mr. Spielberg originally announced that he would begin production last summer of the script by Mr. Roth, the writer of "Forrest Gump" and "The Insider," but hired Mr. Kushner to humanize what he felt was too procedural a thriller in Mr. Roth's telling, people familiar with both scripts said.

In Mr. Roth's script, for instance, the Munich killings dominated the first 15 minutes of the movie. Mr. Spielberg, the readers said, was still weighing how to depict the massacre without minimizing its power, but also without overpowering the audience.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:29 (eighteen years ago) link

There was a made for HBO movie two decades back about all this -- can't recall if it was based on the same 1984 referred to or not.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Wow. Bad idea.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:36 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean if ever a subject was made NOT to be handled by a Spielberg-type filmmaker, I would think this one would be it.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:37 (eighteen years ago) link

Ned they mention the HBO thing towards the end of piece.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:37 (eighteen years ago) link

that's probably why he's doing it. hardcore

Another Allnighter (sexyDancer), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:38 (eighteen years ago) link

it really doesn't seem like there's a movie in this story, to me. Beyond its political touchiness, I don't see what a film about this subject, especially one by Spielberg, would have to offer.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 July 2005 16:40 (eighteen years ago) link

LOTS OF HANDWRINGING!

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:41 (eighteen years ago) link

>a Spielberg-type filmmaker

You mean, a great filmmaker? ;)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:43 (eighteen years ago) link

the problem insofar as there is likely to be a problem is that the broader political background will be elided in the name of an "intimate drama of morality." which is fair enough, but probably won't be as revelatory as the participants would claim, as a result. but i really like kushner so...

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:44 (eighteen years ago) link

Ned they mention the HBO thing towards the end of piece.

Ah, sorry, didn't skim down that far.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:45 (eighteen years ago) link

"You mean, a great filmmaker? ;)"

No, that's not what I meant.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:46 (eighteen years ago) link

Homebody/Kabul was an amazing political play, but I have to agree with Alex about Spielburg doing this.

jocelyn (Jocelyn), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:46 (eighteen years ago) link

just the whole "based on a true story" angle is stupid - it would be better to work it as an allegory - ie, frame the assassins as morally conflicted noir protagonists in a completely different setting... but then without the politically relevant "controversy" Spielberg probably feels he has no movie. He needs the borrowed moral weight to give him something to hang his schlock on.

(I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a Spielberg movie, he just has terrible ideas.)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 July 2005 16:47 (eighteen years ago) link

I like Kushner but this will still be a "Steven Spielberg movie"

I mean if ever a subject was made NOT to be handled by a Spielberg-type filmmaker, I would think this one would be it.

Alex OTM

Baby BobO (nordicskilla), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:48 (eighteen years ago) link

Mixing the goodwill Spielberg got from the most rightward Zionists via "Schindler" with the lefty Jewish dramatist they most loathe -- BOOM.

Since SS made the best Hollywood treatment to date of slavery... (I realize "Amistad" wasn't inventive cinema like "SpiderMan 2.")

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:49 (eighteen years ago) link

I haven't seen Amistad or Spiderman 2 (and honestly don't intend to any time soon)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 July 2005 16:50 (eighteen years ago) link

chill out, guys. it's going to be great. spielberg is reworking it as a comedy vehicle for Tom Hanks.

larry bundgee (bundgee), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:51 (eighteen years ago) link

if it gets Tom Hanks back in drag, I might see it.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 July 2005 16:52 (eighteen years ago) link

Like Life is Beautiful?

jocelyn (Jocelyn), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:52 (eighteen years ago) link

life is beautiful

larry bundgee (bundgee), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:53 (eighteen years ago) link

(for hanks)

larry bundgee (bundgee), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:53 (eighteen years ago) link

what's a spielberg type filmmaker?

this sounds like a really interesting project to me.

ryan (ryan), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:53 (eighteen years ago) link

Someone with absolutely no sublety whatsoever.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:54 (eighteen years ago) link

i think that's most of his critics you're thinking of

ryan (ryan), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:55 (eighteen years ago) link

Apparently it's most of his fans.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:56 (eighteen years ago) link

what's wrong with courting politically relevant controversy? who would be a better director for this project and why?

jones (actual), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:57 (eighteen years ago) link

Also Amistad as the best Hollywood treatment of slavery = whoopy-dee-fucking-do (also not patently not true.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:57 (eighteen years ago) link

I sort of LIKE Spielberg actually, more than most people on ILX, but he does lack subtlety!

Baby BobO (nordicskilla), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:57 (eighteen years ago) link

It really can't be any worse than Roberto Begnini's proposed Iraq war comedy.

jocelyn (Jocelyn), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:58 (eighteen years ago) link

Like the critics who thought "A.I." had a happy ending!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:58 (eighteen years ago) link

Surely the real danger here is misinformation.

Baby BobO (nordicskilla), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:58 (eighteen years ago) link

"Like the critics who thought "A.I." had a happy ending!"

They were asleep by the end! Give 'em a break!

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 16:59 (eighteen years ago) link

"Surely the real danger here is misinformation."

Actually that's really the only danger here.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:00 (eighteen years ago) link

It really can't be any worse than Roberto Begnini's proposed Iraq war comedy.

actually the two projects have merged, along with nora ephron's "you've got anthrax!"

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:01 (eighteen years ago) link

well yeah

xp

Baby BobO (nordicskilla), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:01 (eighteen years ago) link

But a fiction film, even one 'fact-based,' is not meant to be informative like reportage.

I think Alex is confusing Steve S with Ridley "In space no one can hear you snore" Scott!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:01 (eighteen years ago) link

I guess inciting more idiocy might be a danger, but I don't know how realistic that is.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:01 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh no, Morb, I know exactly who I am talking about (note: I don't want either Tony or Ridley Scott directing this movie.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:02 (eighteen years ago) link

why? i don't see ridley scott being any more irresponsible or hamfisted than s.s.

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:03 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't want ANY OF THEM directing the damn movie.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:04 (eighteen years ago) link

Besides, Steve usually has blasts of John Williams to keep the critics awake! (You and I would probably unify vs JW most of the time, but I think some of his "AI" score was actually SUBTLE.)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:05 (eighteen years ago) link

Ridley Scott is pretty dull. but he's a hell of a lot better than Tony Scott.

Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:05 (eighteen years ago) link

I fail to see any problem with this. If Spielberg makes a compelling film: great. If not: whatever. It's just another bad movie.

giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:05 (eighteen years ago) link

I liked Black Hawk Down. This makes me feel bad and dirty.

Baby BobO (nordicskilla), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:05 (eighteen years ago) link

Actually you know who might make a good political movie out of this: the guy who directed No Man's Land or the one who directed Before The Rain. The might actually manage to capture some level nuance in this material without grasping or making it uber-portentious. Or someone like John Frankenheimer could have turned it into a really crackling procedural thriller. But Spielberg is going to go for deep meaning and political correctness and it's just gonna be a fucking mess.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:06 (eighteen years ago) link

I think the only man to direct this film is Clark Johnson. And the only woman would be Mary haron.

Baby BobO (nordicskilla), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:07 (eighteen years ago) link

Frankenheimer's last 30 years were not so hot.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link

But Spielberg is going to go for deep meaning and political correctness and it's just gonna be a fucking mess.

That's probably true. Still: if it's a mess, then that's just incentive for someone else to tackle the subject a few years down the line and make a better one. This is neither the first nor the last film that will be made about Munich.

giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link

It's a pretty cheeky idea, at least, which there's something to be said for.

Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Friday, 1 July 2005 17:09 (eighteen years ago) link

someone please explain to me why gambit wasn't in this movie?

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:08 (seventeen years ago) link

(JK)

chaki (chaki), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, and Madrox is supposed to be a GOOD GUY. Duh.

Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:12 (seventeen years ago) link

Did you guys notice a little bike go across the moon? that was Spielbergs nod to the upcoming ET.

chaki (chaki), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:17 (seventeen years ago) link

i couldn't figure out why eric bana lost his powers at the end of the movie... was that supposed to be permanent or just until he agreed to go back to israel?

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:20 (seventeen years ago) link

Hey, Alfred, do you mind if I ask you to go into more detail on what you changed your mind about?

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.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:21 (seventeen years ago) link

that "gun under the umbrella" bit when they're stalking that chap down the city street still bothers me for reasons that border on pedantic.

gear (gear), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:27 (seventeen years ago) link

t/s: munich vs an american tail

chaki (chaki), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:32 (seventeen years ago) link

Ridiculousness is usually all I aceept in movies.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:40 (seventeen years ago) link

Just like typos are all I accept in most opinions.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 5 June 2006 22:41 (seventeen years ago) link

i'm guessing it's possible that a south african jewish chap would throw his allegiance in with the israelis?

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

tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 00:15 (seventeen years ago) link

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.

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

milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 03:23 (seventeen years ago) link

Was Good Night and Good Luck really that good? In a couple of big ways it mirrored the flaws of Munch -awful sex scene vs. unnecessary jazz interludes; absurd self-importance vs. a complete lack of gravitas. I wanted to like GNGL more than I did - good performances, outstanding cinematography, George Clooney seems like a bro - but I couldn't help but feel like there was nothing there, it was all surface and that made it kind of banal, an upscale 'you were there' history program.

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.'

milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 03:27 (seventeen years ago) link

it was OKAY

chaki (chaki), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 03:28 (seventeen years ago) link

milo, was it "damage" from a visionary moviemaker that made you lose the 2000-04 poll results?

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 12:35 (seventeen years ago) link

This is signalled in the horrifying murder of the female assassin.

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.

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:32 (seventeen years ago) link

Munich strikes me as only superficially political (basically in the way that you cant help being political with that subject matter). it's more about the "human condition" sort of thing.

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!

ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Judging from its lathering-up of the pro-Likud crowd, Foxheads and Krauthammers, Munich can be judged as daring for suggesting to millions of Americans that Israel's form of state vengeance has been bloodily counterproductive. (Something no Democratic senator will risk these days, far as I can see.)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:51 (seventeen years ago) link

can we use that as a pull-quote for this thread as well? (xp)

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:51 (seventeen years ago) link

Pretty much the only thing that takes GNGL out of just being an acceptable movie (IMO) is David Straithairn who has so much presence he pretty much pushes everyone else out of the frame. Additionally I appreciated that Clooney didn't make the CBS execs/advertisers out to be "OMG VILLAINS" because that would have been a really easy thing to do. Also I am a massive Robert Downey, Jr. fan.

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.

Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:54 (seventeen years ago) link

Munich can be judged as daring for suggesting to millions of Americans that Israel's form of state vengeance has been bloodily counterproductive.

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.

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:59 (seventeen years ago) link

This doesn't really entirely belong on this thread I guess, I mean it's a weird comparison and I'm not even sure why it was brought up. Munich is no more or less a film about Israel than GNGL is a film about McCarthyism; those are facile, shallow readings in my opinion, and I'd be willing to bet any number of pundits that got het up over either of those topics re: the films in question did not actually see either film. Neither film is a film about the choices of states and politicians; the politics within are politics about humans and psychology. They should be judged on their treatments of such, and not about the depth of the state-political statements they are making.

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:04 (seventeen years ago) link

This is totally not related to anything, but am I the only one who finds the article in the OP's suggestion that Munich had to be carefully planned lest it DESTROY THE ENTIRE WORLD, to be absurd beyond belief?

Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:05 (seventeen years ago) link

the handling of Hollenbeck's depression and suicide in GN&GL is hackish and cliche'd but it doesn't make me feel insulted the way half of Avner's conversations in Munich do

TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:18 (seventeen years ago) link

I think pointing out that the political bidness in Munich is intellectually weak is valid, though I'll now agree that if you're looking for some kind of intrigue it's more prevalent and done better in For Your Eyes Only

TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:20 (seventeen years ago) link

My biggest problems with Spielberg boil down to things like where the apparently random Americans cockblock Avner's A-Team when they're on schedule to put bullets in greasy bad guy no.8, knowing that greasy no.8 is associated with the CIA, he feels the need to have another expository convo between Avner and greasy ashkenaz no.1 wherein they wonder to each other if those apparently random Americans could have been GASP CIA.

"I've heard this forest is full of dragons"
*woosh of flame, flap of wings sound*
"Do you think that might have been a dragon?" - in other movies, this is called comic relief, but Spielberg thinks it is necessary, because he thinks that all of us are in the 2nd grade.

TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:25 (seventeen years ago) link

Americans, dude. They are in 2nd grade re geopolitics, and maybe I am cuz I didn't feel insulted.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:36 (seventeen years ago) link

Thanks Tombot for bringing up that scene - it reminds me of how much I enjoyed Munich. I thought that was a great scene, full of complexity and menace. It takes a quotidian sort of late-night encounter and shows it to us through a microscope, so that every particle of weariness, paranoia, loneliness and existential dread is thrust to the surface.

o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:40 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm not saying you should "feel insulted," I'm saying that "Violence begets violence" isn't exactly a stunning shocker of a political message, and the people who are dumbfounded that Israel/Palestine aren't cut-dry make me kind of sad. That's not something that has much to do with the film itself.

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:41 (seventeen years ago) link

I really don't know how clearer to say this. The film isn't about Israel. The nationality of those involved are only determined by the setting. I didn't, at any point, feel that Spielberg was attempting to make a point about geopolitics and I kind of think saying he was is probably a far worse insult towards the film than anything that Tom has said. I don't think it should be judged--either for good or for bad--on the daringness or lack thereof of its geopolitical mettle, or some of its factual flaws.

The reason I thought the film was middling was because I didn't feel it was as successful as several other thematically similar films I've seen on expressing the human consequence of violence escalation and revenge in a public setting. If I was judging the film as a geopolitical thriller, I'd give it higher marks actually!

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:47 (seventeen years ago) link

i agree largely with Allyzay's reading, except i would want to argue that the film situates itself as being about ww2 and fallout (ie, 20th century)--or the problem of "modernity" and violence, etc.

in other words, yeah it's about violence and revenge, but it's not trying to be Aeschylus.

ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:50 (seventeen years ago) link

Of course it's about universal human issues AND the Israel-Palestine situation. That it was made by the guy who, well, 'popularized' the Holocaust in this generation, and was lionized by many Zionists for it, suggests that the specific situation is relevant.

I was shaking at the end of the film, feeling mournful and depressed in a way that wasn't touched by A History of Violence, to name a stylistically dissimilar film that trivialized the Cycle of Slaughter theme.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 16:34 (seventeen years ago) link

A History of Violence kind of left me cold, I definitely feel like more of Munich stuck with me. Granted, I've seen one far more recently than the other but most people are pretty intuitive about such things; I remember being underwhelmed when I left the theatre.

Interesting comparison in terms of themes, that one didn't occur to me at all (insert joke about immemorability here). Even down to the contrasting semi-bookend sex scenes being used to illustrate the downward spiral!

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Irrespective of their sociopolitical contexts, Munich and AHOV moved me in different ways. If I liked AHOV more, maybe it's cuz I have a weakness for male revenge psychodramas.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 22:15 (seventeen years ago) link

morbius mccarthy WAS evil, or at the very least malicious and destructive. do you seriously debate that?

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 22:16 (seventeen years ago) link

If I liked AHOV more, maybe it's cuz I have a weakness for male revenge psychodramas.

Haha this doesn't explain anything to me! ;)

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 22:19 (seventeen years ago) link

ugh, AHOV was a complete dud. As shallow as GNGL and really really weak as a b-movie revenge flick.

milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 00:24 (seventeen years ago) link

It was a well-acted, overdirected b-movie, which was fine by me.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 00:26 (seventeen years ago) link

dood william hurt and ed harris were fucking awesome... "Joey"

chaki (chaki), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 00:32 (seventeen years ago) link

'a history of violence' is great!

gear (gear), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 02:30 (seventeen years ago) link

and not a revenge flick

gear (gear), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 02:32 (seventeen years ago) link

Not really but it definitely is what Morbius claims.

Ed Harris and William Hurt were definitely the best parts of the movie; I think part of the reason the film ultimately left me cold was that I just didn't like Viggo and wifey at all. AHOV does a fantastic job atmosphere building, Harris esp. is totally creepy and tense-creating.

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 03:03 (seventeen years ago) link

also howard shore's score >>>>>>>>> john williams' score

chaki (chaki), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 04:22 (seventeen years ago) link

I think part of the reason the film ultimately left me cold was that I just didn't like Viggo and wifey at all

The relationship (esp the sexual) b/w Viggo and Maria Bello was the most compelling part of the movie.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 11:47 (seventeen years ago) link

morbius mccarthy WAS evil...do you seriously debate that?

No, I don't want to see a 90-minute "earth not flat" film either.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:29 (seventeen years ago) link

I felt like it should've been more compelling, but it just...didn't do it for me. I really just didn't like them. The movie was well made and interesting but I didn't have much interest in either of the married couple; which is odd because clearly the tension and menace all surrounds Viggo's identity so I can't quite put my finger on why I felt all of that yet had such little interest in him.

It is thoroughly possible that my dislike for Viggo (and Eric Bana, for that matter, they kind of are similar in my mind) colors perceptions here!

otm on score.

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:59 (seventeen years ago) link

Can't remember a note of Shore's music. I think scoring the Dungeons & Dragons trilogy may have sent him down the chute.

Munich shows that the international death industry, presumably motivated by nationalism and securing the primal hearth, is actually just a big unstoppable economy (feeding families like "Papa" Michel Lonsdale's).

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:05 (seventeen years ago) link

Haha that seems akin to me to not wanting to see a 90 minute "earth not flat" film though! ;)

I liked that angle and the interactions with the family but I was half expecting Papa to come down with a heart attack during the idyllic countryside dinner sequence. Some of the shots were soooo similar, I am half curious if it was purposeful because of the inevitable comparison that would be made there regardless.

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:10 (seventeen years ago) link

twelve years pass...

What a film -- my first viewing since 2006.

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 April 2019 02:22 (five years ago) link

Spielberg had a pretty interesting run in the oughts: AI/Minority Report/Catch Me If You Can/War of the Worlds/Munich. (Didn’t see The Terminal)

Conceptualize Wyverns (latebloomer), Tuesday, 30 April 2019 02:34 (five years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.