How ironic is it that the only moving scene in a film created to "make a statement" appears as the film is about to end? The Manhattan skyline dominates the final scene of Steven Speilberg's new film "Munich", with the girded frames of the World Trade Center overwhelming much of the scene's final moments. As the movie draws to close, the camera zooms slightly inward and the twin towers grow in doomed prominence. Though never quite taking center stage, they assert a gravitational force over the audience beckoning us forward, while they linger in the back. A case of life shadowing art shadowing life or just a clumsy belief statement? In the end it doesn't really matter because the image is too haunting to suffer the same ideological pratfalls that stymie other movies of the "statement" variety. Nevertheless, this fictional retelling of Israel's retaliation for the murder of it's 1972 Olympic team by Palestinian terrorists is not without the trappings of a strained political parity that undermines the divisions between the criminal and the judge. Rumors that the film somehow slams Israel are not entirely unfounded, though they are exaggerated. The film does makes subtle distinctions between terrorists and who seek to punish them, but they are dubious at best and lost beneath a sea of moral equivocation.
By now it's unlikely that many filmgoers will interpret "Munich" as much more than a grim-faced Indiana Jones flick and Spielberg is careful to underscore that it is merely "inspired" by actual events and not a thoughtful reconstruction of a verifiable story. The book it's based on, Vengeance by George Jonas has been largely dismissed as a fabrication (Jonas himself played no role in the Israeli actions, and his sources were shady at best) and no one involved in actions on either side were consulted for the purpose of accuracy. It's amusing to note that that both Israeli Mossad agents as well as the Black September mastermind have come out and denounced the film, providing further proof that nothing unites like bad PR.
"Munich" chronicles the exploits of covert Israeli operatives as they hunt, shoot and blow up members of the Palestinian Terror outfit that slaughtered the Israeli Olympic team. With the help of a dapper French informant, the team, led by the resolute Avner, played by Eric Bana, trek across Europe assassinating Arab terrorists and making it known to other would-be assassins that "killing Jews would now be a very expensive enterprise." That's all there is to it. With the exception of a stultifying exchange between Avner and a terrorist meant to voice the grievances of the Palestinian population, the film gets no deeper than the average attack and revenge thriller. Heck, even the aforementioned gripe-fest is wrought with a stupid, violent intent. "We will make it safe for Jews nowhere in the world," the terrorist beams. Spielberg gushed over that scene to a reporter for Time magazine, but it has anti-Israeli playwright Tony Kushner's fingerprints all over it.
Which brings me to why the "pro-Israel" crowd is so put-off by the film. Let's start with Kushner himself, a great writer no doubt, his play Homebody/Kabul kept me enthralled me a few years ago, but why did Spielberg feel it necessary to elicit the help of a man who has made no secret of his disdain for Israel? It's like getting Harold Pinter to write Tony Blair's biography, absurd to the point of farce. There is no shortage of talented screenwriters who's ideological leanings are somewhat less volatile. I think Spielberg diluted the veracity of his film by choosing so polemical and individual as Mr., Kushner to help write the screenplay.
Another complaint: how come every terrorist the Mossad agents kill is made to look like the old man at the grocery store who let you take the gum for free when you were a few pennies short? They're all avuncular, well-dressed, elderly gentleman who dote on their children and translate ancient literature. It's perfectly fine, even necessary to show people as people but these men were cold-hearted killers and taking that aspect away makes them as hallow and wooden as it would have been to depict them as bile-spewing, thugs shouting "Allah Akbar" and shooting haphazardly into the air. One should also note that none of the men the Mossad agents assassinate are seen in the sequences where the athletes are killed making it much harder to identify them as they terrorists they are.
As Bret Stephens noted in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the film works under the premise that retribution is somehow not a Jewish thing. Hardly. Christianity is the religion that espouses turning the other cheek, the Torah is replete with Jews taking vengeance upon those who would do them harm. In fact, Hanukkah, the holiday that ends tonight is, at least peripherally, a tale of Jewish revenge. Striking back is very Jewish, if only we would have done it earlier.
At the end of the film, a morally awakened Avner flees Israel to make his home in New York, ostensibly too righteous to continue living in a country that would ask him to kill so many people—terrorists or not. I found his unwillingness to return to Israel one of the most disturbing elements of the film and one tainted by a complete ignorance of Jewish thought and tradition. If anything, Avner's ethical renaissance should have reinforced his concept of right of over might, but then again, Kushner's "progressive" hand stymies the essential morality, opting instead for a pseudo-progressive, anti-anything framework. After killing so many, Avner wonders whether the whole "eye for an eye" thing is really what the world needs to stimulate peace. What we as Jews understand is that yes, an eye for an eye is exactly what the world needs to end violence because if someone attacks you and you let it pass you are condoning the wrong and authorize them to do it again your behalf. That's inexcusable, wrong and utterly and completely not Jewish. When you're attacked you strike back. Then, if your attacker is amenable, you can begin negotiations. Never before.
There are other complaints, but enough of those for now. Spielberg should be complimented for a few things. Well actually one thing: as slight a difference as he makes, he makes a clear distinction between terrorist and retributioner. This point is brought home in a scene where the agents plant a bomb in a phone and plan to detonate it when the perpetrator answers. When the man's daughter answers it, the agents run through the street in a mad, and successful attempt to alert those operating the remote-controlled explosive and aborting the mission. Compared to the wanton slaughter of the Palestinian terrorists the difference becomes clear.
There's a funny scene when an old Israeli tells Avner he wants receipts for all his activities. Some have said this reinforces the stereotype that Jews are cheap. To them I say, "get a hobby." We need to be able to laugh at ourselves and it was a funny scene. Even my grandmother, who has seen the horrors of ant-Semitism first hand, laughed at what felt more like an inside joke than anything else. It was a far cry from Spike Lee's cheap Jews in "Mo Better Blues." Chill, folks.
The movie did not live up to the hype and I wouldn't recommend anyone rush out to see it. At best it was a pretentious thriller at worst it was a bad pretentious thriller. See the documentary "One Day in September" for a more accurate description of what occurred during and after the Munich massacre.
Oh, and happy New Year everyone! I wish you all a wonderful 2006!
