Movie Review: MUNICH (2005)
Munich (2005) – ****
It’s no wonder so many people, Israeli spies and PLO members, alike, feel threatened by Munich .Steven Spielberg has, in a fearless and revolutionary way, forced each person who views this film to bear witness to something that is quite uncomfortable. On more than one occasion,Munich made me squirm and question the paradigm with which I am so familiar. DoesMunich have an agenda? Hell yes. But for anyone with an opinion, Spielberg has one reply: reconsider everything.
After a sect of the PLO known as Black September kills nine Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics, the Israelis decide to send a message. They hire an assassination team, lead by Mossad agent Avner (Eric Bana), to kill the men who planned the massacre. As the body count increases, Avner’s group finds itself on the radar of other murderers and assassins. At the same time, Avner must struggle with the conflicted morality that rises out of the blood bath.
Avner has to give up his post as a Mossad agent in order to become an assassin for the Israeli government. Officially unofficial work is what he has to do, work so heinous and illegal that it can’t even be considered an official retaliation. During his initial briefing, Avner walks along a beachfront with an Israeli official played by Geoffrey Rush. As they talk assassination, they walk clandestinely among the civilization they protect.
The juxtaposition of civilization and barbarism in Munich is a dark and disturbing sentiment that I still can’t shake. It’s something that, were it handled like Spielberg may have handled any other spy film, would have simply been entertainment. In Munich, the juxtaposition is played as a tragic compromise for moments of peace.
There aren’t many moments of peace in this film, especially for the men who have to do the dirty work. As Avner, Eric Bana has to do some of the dirty work, and his performance is the stuff careers are made on. While he is a mere prop in the midst of Spielberg’s best directorial work in more than a decade (maybe ever), Bana still manages to embrace his status and, most importantly, respect the work that he knows he is doing.
What is that work? He is the main player in a film that, unlike the other politically charged thrillers of 2005, could actually change people. It’s rare to find a film that is challenging. Munich is beyond challenging to the point of devastation. It’s a dramatic thriller that disarms you and leaves you staggered.
With everything going for it, I don’t understand the negative reaction the film community has had toward Munich. Maybe Spielberg didn’t make a Spielberg movie. In recent years, however, you’d be hard pressed to find a film (with the exception of the debacle War of the Worlds) that is a traditional Spielberg film. Munich is much the same play with style, in this case the 70s crime and docudrama films, that has defined Spielberg in the beginning of the 21st Century. WithMunich he may have reached the pinnacle of his most recent period.
Spielberg has called this film his “prayer for peace.” Like most prayers, I imagine it will go unanswered. Using Tony Kushner and Eric Roth’s complex screenplay, however, he has done everything in his power as an artist to create a film that defines where the world should be. He sees the cycle of violence and makes the audience recognize it as well. What’s most important is that he may have done it in a way that won’t let people forget.
Munich isn’t Hotel Rwanda. People won’t leave saying that the events were heartbreaking then go shopping. It’s not even Schindler’s List. While Spielberg’s 1993 Holocaust drama had eyes toward remembering the past, Munich is only looking forward. I still don’t think Spielberg’s prayer will be answered anytime soon, but it will certainly get many more people looking in the right direction–inside.
Get Email Updates
