Vengeance for Dummies

It comes as little surprise that the early reviews for Steven Spielberg's Munich have been, for the most part, glowing. His films that tackle controversial subjects (slavery, the Holocaust, WWII) have always been critical darlings, and this one is no exception, thanks to its air of self-importance, and its arrival in the midst of a holiday season filled with mostly escapist fare. Still, what is surprising is that, as of this writing, the only truly negative reviews have come from the neocons, who are outraged that Spielberg humanizes the terrorists, and puts them on the same ethical plane as Mossad. It's a shame that the polarization is strictly political, for the film's faults have little to do with Spielberg's so-called liberal viewpoint. Munich is a dumbed-down, condescending, wishy-washy take on a serious subject that is more about Spielberg's moral egotism than anything else. Violence begets more violence, which begets even more violence. This is what the film teaches us, repeatedly, for two and a half hours. Munich tells of the Israeli response to the massacre of eleven athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. A super-secret hit squad is formed, ensuring that there are no official ties to Mossad or the Israeli government. The group, led by Avner (Eric Bana), is sent to Europe to assassinate all who were responsible for the attack. The team ranges ideologically from the bloodthirsty "kill every Palestinian" Steve (Daniel Craig), to Matthieu Kassovitz's reluctant bomber with a conscience, while Ciarán Hinds and Hanns Zischler function as the older, wiser counterparts to those two. Screenwriter Eric (Forrest Gump) Roth uses this ready-made conflict to create a series of inane moral diatribes between the team members that serve as little more than a device to ensure the audience fully understands what they are meant to think about the violent scene that preceded it. (It's possible that Tony Kushner, co-screenwriter of the film, wrote these scenes, but his contributions appear to be limited to several lengthy monologues that are decidedly different than these overly simplistic, insulting sequences.) Must we be spoon-fed our morality lessons? Is it that we are incapable of drawing our own conclusions, or is Spielberg worried that those conclusions might not match his own? This type of condescension, so typical of Spielberg films, is cranked up to eleven here -- there's no room for even a hint of interpretation. Case in point [mild spoilers] -- three team members travel to Amsterdam to assassinate a young woman who killed one of the other members. This is not part of their charge, but a premeditated act of vengeance. It's a powerful, unsettling scene made even more disturbing by the fact that the woman winds up sprawled out nude with three holes in her chest. Avner covers her with her robe, but one of the others stops him, and insists on leaving her exposed. That brief moment tells us plenty about the two men, and of the moral ambiguity of the scene. Yet not five minutes later (in the mandatory post-mortem discussion scene) the same character says, "I wish I had let you close her robe." What function does this serve? To show that even a hired assassin can feel regret? Or is it rather a reminder that Avner is the righteous one of the group? (As if a token of decency somehow justifies a revenge killing anyway.) Of course, Munich wouldn't be complete without the director incorporating his signature device -- the child-in-peril sequence. Though shot in slow-motion to increase the suspense, there's never a doubt about the outcome -- this is a Steven Spielberg film after all. Spielberg must think that audiences are cold, unfeeling, desensitized beings, and that only by threatening us with the death of an innocent child can we muster up an iota of emotional response. Why else would he have to resort to this tactic? If, as Armond White claims, it is to hold us in a "moral, negotiating vice" [sic] why fabricate a scene to do so? If Avner is meant to be our moral surrogate, why not recreate their assassination of an innocent Moroccan man in Norway -- an event that actually occurred? Of course that might make it difficult for some of us to side with Avner, and Spielberg will have none of that. This is the real problem with the film. Spielberg wants us to identify with Avner, but never judge him. He may question his own actions and suffer from doubt, but never for a moment are we to feel he's anything but the hero of the story. He never makes mistakes -- poor judgment, perhaps, but never wrong. Every action is laid forth in front of us, and explained, rationalized, etc. To show Avner killing an innocent man would have added a level of depth to our relationship with the character, and Spielberg goes out of his way to avoid that. Neither complex nor ambiguous, Avner is the typical one-dimensional Spielbergian hero, daddy issues and all. (Filmbrain joked about this a few weeks ago -- never really imagined it would be in this film as well.) Spielberg does do a decent job of portraying the Palestinian terrorists as human, though they don't have a lot to do in the film other than smile, offer a cigarette or two, and blow up. In one extremely contrived sequence, Avner and his team find themselves sharing a house in Greece with a group of PLO members. While the scene does include a somewhat interesting (albeit simplistic) ideological conversation, it's ruined by a radio showdown that ends with the two groups learning about the healing power of Al Green. As the body count increases, so does Avner's doubt and paranoia. Fleeing to Brooklyn (where his wife and baby daughter live) he exorcises his Munich demons by imagining the execution of the athletes while he has aggressive sex with his wife. With buckets of sweat flying off his body (in slow motion, naturally), his orgasmic thrusts are perfectly synchronized with the murders. To call the scene ham-fisted would be an understatement, though Spielberg saves his most offensive, most manipulative shot for the very end, where he clobbers you over the head just in case you didn't get it for the last two and half hours. Invoking 9/11 to make a point is an even cheaper tactic than threatening to blow up a little Arab girl. Munich is neither fish nor flesh. It has the makings of an interesting political thriller, but instead of giving us a Z or Day of the Jackal, Spielberg felt he could both entertain and bring peace to the Middle East. As a meditation on vengeance, the problems of terrorism/counter-terrorism, and the Israel-Palestine situation, it is substantially lacking in original ideas, and its moral/ethical discussions never rise above the painfully obvious. Its attempt at even-handedness, to not reduce matters to black and white issues, is ultimately its downfall, for what we are left with is a dull grey. Had Spielberg been brave enough to actually take a position, we might have wound up with something a bit meatier than this obvious bit of Oscar-bait. Art will never solve the world's political problems, and neither will Steven Spielberg's ego., ,

Comments

[Edmund]

Ugh. Leave Kieslowski out of this.

[Mikko]

Jurgen,

I find your thoughts on A.I. ludicrously repugnant. Even the thought of Spielberg being capable of making an "infinitely richer" film than Kubrick is, well, to put it mildly, a little out there.

The point I'm after here is that no one has seen A.I. by Kubrick. Whatever you have imagined based on scripts or whatever is not even remotely comparable to what might have ended up on the screen, had Kubrick been there to produce it himself.

But I imagine we can't really have a serious discussion on this matter as I have only seen A.I. once. I can't remember much of it, because half the time I was cringing in my chair covering my eyes and trying not to feel so embarrassed for Spielberg.

[cinetrix]

Filmbrain,

When you say, "To call the scene ham-fisted would be an understatement," does that mean it's kosher--or treyf?

[Jurgen]

Mikko:

I should clarify that by saying Kubrick is my absolute favourite filmmaker, and I don't for a second think had Spielberg made, say, "Full Metal Jacket" it would have been a superior film. (A part of me will always resent "Schindler's List" for leading Kubrick to shelve "Aryan Papers".) But given "A.I."'s specific themes and its narrative demands, I honestly believe the Kubrick-Spielberg hybrid is an infinitely richer film than had the colder Kubrick had tackled it alone. Full stop. Like I said above, I think "A.I."'s greatness derives from Spielberg's willingness to embrace the human emotions in a story that is about the (possible) emotions of non-humans within a structure plays against Kubrick's intellectual vision and pragmatic existentialism. Spielberg's earnest emotionalism is completely essential to the film's success. The fact that Kubrick (supposedly) discussed producing the film for Spielberg suggests that he realised it as well.

[Campaspe]

Absolutely superb review. I haven't seen the movie, and have no idea whether I will agree with your thoughts (I suspect I will), but this was just sheer pleasure to read.

[greg samsa]

I think the main problem with your review is it ignores the films greatest strength. Questions of morality aside this is one hell of a gripping movie. From the opening attack on the Olympic compound, the planning of the mission, and the methodical ticking off of names from the list, the first hour and a half especially were totally engrossing. To me it brings to mind The Battle of Algiers and the best moments of Stone’s Nixon and JFK. Some of the sequences I found to be truly outstanding, the Israeli Special Forces attack in Lebanon, the Athens hotel room bombing, the inter-cutting of documentary and news footage during the initial standoff in Munich. Spielberg’s endings continue to be problematic in terms of finishing things off in a timely and satisfying way, but I certainly found it a compelling choice to end on the image of the two towers. What other narrative films from Hollywood have ever dared question the way the “war on terror” is being waged, even if it does so here in a roundabout way. I don't expect any film to solve the moral dilemma of the Irsaeli Palestinean conflict. In an age of infantile blockbusters I do find it refreshingly relevant that a Hollywood filmmaker is willing to ask these questions even if no answers are given. Beyond the films content though, in terms of form this was an incredibly beautiful film to look at. The art direction, costumes and cinematography create such an evocative and credible facsimile of the era - I can't think of a film that has even done it as well. The level of filmmaking at work to me seems far beyond the Soderberg-lite of Syriana.

[missj]

thank you. this is a bloated film from a bloated ego. did you notice that the little Arab girl was even dessed in red, a reference to the little girl in Schindler's List? sorry all of you who liked the movie, but S's mistrust of his audience is getting real old.

it's only stating the obvious to dwell on the offensiveness of the sex & violence scene.

i was 18 when the munich massacre happened. any of us who witnessed this is every bit the authority that Mr. BigFilmMakerAuteur. he got it all wrong.

and as cinema - it sucks out loud.

[Eric]

I disagree with your interpretation for why he wished he covered the female assassin with her robe. He enjoyed looking at her and he couldn't get the image out of his head. I'm almost positive about this. It makes the controversial sex scene at the end much clearer. Keep in mind Spielberg is not Lang so you have to be careful on how you read into his films' moral agenda. He's just as sexually disturbed as every other filmmaker, don't let his family films fool you. Take another look at MUNICH, it might be one of the darkest films he's made simply for these reasons alone.

[marz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/26/arts/26conn.html?pagewanted=2

[marz]

rather:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/26/arts/26conn.html

[Filmbrain]

Greg --

There's amazing potential for this to be a gripping political thriller. However, Spielberg destroys it by turning it into a morality lesson. The countless number of pedestrian dialogs between the assassins destroys the flow (as does Spielberg's ego).

I do, however, agree with you about the filmmaking itself. It is one of the best looking films of the year.

[Greg Samsa]

Well nobody can accuse Spielberg of moral complexity. At the same time however these scenes didn't really diminish the assination and espionage story for me. In looking back on it they remind me more of the scenes that link the big set peices of The Wild Bunch, with the characters sitting around analyzing what they are doing and questioning if any of it is worth it. The other thing is that these guys in their dayjobs were tradesmen, I don't expect them to sound like a bunch of philosphy graduate students when talking about life and death, and right and wrong.

As to the look, I think the scene with Bana and Rush walking on the Israeli beachfront is one of the most beautifully shot I've seen all year.

[fission mailed!!!!!]

Ugh. *Leave* The Wild Bunch out of *this*.