Munich
Also reviewed by:
Noah K.
Spielberg is undoubtedly one of the greatest American directors of all time. If I didn't believe it myself, there are endless polls that are happy to tell me this is so. Even so, the man hardly has an unblemished career, it's just that his great films make you forget about his mistakes. And let's face it; he is the man responsible (for better or for worse) for shaping the Hollywood blockbuster into the machine it now is. Undoubtedly he will be remembered forever for his contribution to cinema. It may seem then somewhat blasphemous to suggest that the man responsible for Schindler's List has got in over his head with Munich, a film that chronicles the repercussions to the terrorist act against the Jewish Olympic team in 1972 in, well, Munich obviously, but that's exactly what has happened here.
I feel for the quandary Spielberg got himself into. With this material he could have had a kick-ass action espionage film on his hands that no doubt would have been a lot more enjoyable and entertaining, but also would have been a hollow effort that reduced the importance of this historical moment to near pointlessness. So instead we get a bloated film that may as well have a caption pop up on screen saying ‘THIS IS IMPORTANT, PEOPLE!' with scene after scene of folk discussing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, mixed in with some truly exciting assassination sequences.
As excellent as they are, these sequences also represent one of main problems of the film's structure, which is the bad rhythm we get into as Avner (Eric Bana), the man chosen to lead the revenge attacks against the perpetrators of the events in Munich, and his team meet with his source, get info on their next target, do the groundwork for the hit, go do the hit, have bomb trouble, meet again with his source, get info on their next target, do the groundwork for the hit, go do the hit, have bomb trouble, meet again with his source, get info on their next target etc., etc. – I'll stop here as the cycle repeats quite a few more times over.
Bana starts with the same blankness he carried all the way through Hulk, but at least starts to show a little “acting” as his character opens up along the way (read: gets angry, gets sad, has an emotion, etc.). Oscar worthy? Hell no. But since when did that have anything to do with actually winning one? I don't wish to pay out on the guy, but he really has been quite unremarkable in everything except Chopper. Maybe it's that he is being hired for these 'passive' roles like in Hulk where his character was supposed to be an emotionally-repressed zombie (to contrast with the id of the Hulk's ultra-emotive smash-bash anger, you see) or here, where his character is supposed to be an unremarkable yes-man that puts his country before his individuality. Still, Bana is a likeable chap, and there was something a bit cool about watching him and fellow local boy Geoffrey Rush share scenes in this massive film from America's numero uno filmmaker.
There's a shitload that could have been trimmed from Munich's indulgent length. Did we really need to keep meeting Avner's source (a Roman Polanski look-a-like who should be careful if he ever sets foot on American soil), or his “we hate governments” family? Spielberg also still seems stuck in his "Crap I don't know where to end the film!" rut, and while there at least no tacked-on fourth act like his A.I., Catch Me If You Can and Minority Report, the film does dawdle and limp to a close. So what else could have been cut you may ask? Hmmm, well there was one scene that springs to mind…
When the dust has settled and this film becomes just another entry on the Spielberg resume (and it will be just a footnote – regardless of its interesting ambiguous political agenda), I will still remember Munich as the harbinger of the most unintentionally comedic sex scene of recent times. Well, since Gigli's “turkey time” sex scene anyway. At the end of the film while Avner makes sweet sweet love to his wife, his mind travels elsewhere, back to the Munich terrorists killing the Israeli hostages at the airport shootout. Now Spielberg's been in the game a long time, so how the hell did he figure that cross-cutting two such moments would lead to any real poignancy? Guns and blood and brains splattering CUT TO sweat flying hips thrusting veins popping out of neck strained orgasm face. Surely someone along the line pissed themselves in the making/editing/preview screening of this film to tip him off? Is Avner trying to fuck his inner demons away? Is Spielberg suggesting sex is a battlefield? What the fuck does it all mean?
Speaking of meaning, there has been and will be a lot of talk about Munich's true intentions. Whose side is it on? We follow a group of Israeli assassins, seeking revenge for those who died at the hands of the Munich terrorists, and the film is peppered with a slew of 'Jews are the persecuted race' speeches that may lead you to believe that at least part of Spielberg believes their actions may be justified if it means the survival of his brethren's way of life – the protection of their home. However these guys are killers, soldiers ignorantly doing their masters work, and their actions spark retaliations that kill many more innocents. Sure Avner ends up haunted by his actions – but it is just really fear of further retribution against him and his family. A somewhat sympathetic, or at least empathetic, Palestinian point of view gets spoken for by a few characters in chunky staged monologues – but these guys die pretty much soon after they condemn Israel. Plus their ruthless retributions that we hear about on news reports are cold callous indiscriminate acts of terrorism while it is stressed that Avner's bunch have adopted a nice family-friendly 'don't kill any innocents' approach, moralistic bunch that they are. They even stop an assassination half way through because the target's little girl could have been hurt. Those dastardly Palestinians wouldn't have done that, would they?
Okay, I'm being a bit facetious. Personally I think Spielberg was trying to create this murky ethical situation where everyone believes they are righteous, but regardless of where you are from and what you are fighting for bloodshed ultimately begets bloodshed, violence begets violence, and thus the film asks the question; are there any real winners or heroes among them? The relevance of this is brought back to the present day with the final shot, where we see the Two Towers still featuring prominently in Manhattan's skyline, but what exactly is that saying other than the obvious ‘violence/bloodshed/war is bad' rhetoric? It is still a pretty broad statement to make in a film that on the surface seemed to have a lot to say. Ultimately did I really need to sit through two-and-a-half hours of this film just to learn that violence, terrorism, and revenge are all evil and cannibalistic creatures? Do you?