A Look In To Steven Spielberg’s “Munich”
‘Unimpressed, very unimpressed,’ is what I thought to myself half way though the 3-hour movie about the abduction and assassination of 11 Israeli Olympiads during 1972’s Black September.
The film is sluggish and repetitive and it is too turgid and redundant to have any ‘real impact.’ It is supposed to be a thriller which doesn’t thrill and it has absolutely nothing new to say. In fact Todd McCarthy’s review stated that, “…members of the general public will be glancing at their watches rather than having epiphanies about world peace.”
Well, I am not an objective observer (in this case) and since I am Palestinian, I was reading in between the lines and really analyzing the movie’s plot, screenplay, cinematography and factual content in great depth.
I thought the movie centered too much on the plot and did not provide any sort of insight on the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Without doubt, it is entertaining to know how the ex-Mossad recruits were able to hunt down and kill almost all of the 11 Palestinian assassins however I felt that should not have been the crux of the movie per se. In fact, the end of the movie sheds disappointment and an absolute impression of hopelessness.
Is their really a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem?
For the uninformed audience, Munich fails to send a message home; in fact there was no message. Avner (played by Eric Bana) realizes that the conflict is chronic and destructive in a very self-perpetuating manner. Once his mission was almost accomplished, he had an epiphany. ‘The Palestinian men who were taken down will simply be replaced by others; more violent and deadly.’ Is this really the message Spielberg was attempting to send home? Was he trying to point the blame on Palestinian militants and terrorists?
The movie had a negative feel to it and moreover expressed grave skepticism on whether there truly is a solution. The impression I had was that Spielberg feels that there is absolutely no way out of this problem except for total Palestinian acquiescence. Violence (from both sides) will prevail and unfortunately continue to exacerbate the situation. The Israelis and Palestinians shown are aggressive, uncompromising and far from moderate.
The Palestinians have nothing to lose whereas the Israelis have everything to lose. The Palestinians will continue to fight their battle regardless of Israeli resistance – they are hoping to push the Israelis hard enough until a critical breaking point. If it takes 10, 20 or 100 years, they will still continue to do so.
Spielberg genuinely attempted to portray an ‘objective’ perspective on the events of Munich as well as the general problem. However, the movie still managed to sway towards a pro-Zionist sphere. Many Israelis and Jews were in fact arguing the opposite; however the fact that Spielberg does not mention that the ex-Mossad crew assassinated an innocent Palestinian (mistaken for one of the 11 perpetrators in Munich) in Oslo, Norway has proven to them otherwise. If he had mentioned that in the movie, he would have certainly come under anti-Semitic scrutiny.
The whole events were not quid pro quo as might have appeared from the movie. The year 1972 brought about huge antagonism from both sides and during the ex-Mossad crew’s mission to hunt down the perpetrators, other pertinent events were simultaneously occurring (such as the hijacking of the Lufthansa flight or the 1973 war with Egypt).
The film is sluggish and repetitive and it is too turgid and redundant to have any ‘real impact.’ It is supposed to be a thriller which doesn’t thrill and it has absolutely nothing new to say. In fact Todd McCarthy’s review stated that, “…members of the general public will be glancing at their watches rather than having epiphanies about world peace.”
Well, I am not an objective observer (in this case) and since I am Palestinian, I was reading in between the lines and really analyzing the movie’s plot, screenplay, cinematography and factual content in great depth.
I thought the movie centered too much on the plot and did not provide any sort of insight on the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Without doubt, it is entertaining to know how the ex-Mossad recruits were able to hunt down and kill almost all of the 11 Palestinian assassins however I felt that should not have been the crux of the movie per se. In fact, the end of the movie sheds disappointment and an absolute impression of hopelessness.
Is their really a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem?
For the uninformed audience, Munich fails to send a message home; in fact there was no message. Avner (played by Eric Bana) realizes that the conflict is chronic and destructive in a very self-perpetuating manner. Once his mission was almost accomplished, he had an epiphany. ‘The Palestinian men who were taken down will simply be replaced by others; more violent and deadly.’ Is this really the message Spielberg was attempting to send home? Was he trying to point the blame on Palestinian militants and terrorists?
The movie had a negative feel to it and moreover expressed grave skepticism on whether there truly is a solution. The impression I had was that Spielberg feels that there is absolutely no way out of this problem except for total Palestinian acquiescence. Violence (from both sides) will prevail and unfortunately continue to exacerbate the situation. The Israelis and Palestinians shown are aggressive, uncompromising and far from moderate.
The Palestinians have nothing to lose whereas the Israelis have everything to lose. The Palestinians will continue to fight their battle regardless of Israeli resistance – they are hoping to push the Israelis hard enough until a critical breaking point. If it takes 10, 20 or 100 years, they will still continue to do so.
Spielberg genuinely attempted to portray an ‘objective’ perspective on the events of Munich as well as the general problem. However, the movie still managed to sway towards a pro-Zionist sphere. Many Israelis and Jews were in fact arguing the opposite; however the fact that Spielberg does not mention that the ex-Mossad crew assassinated an innocent Palestinian (mistaken for one of the 11 perpetrators in Munich) in Oslo, Norway has proven to them otherwise. If he had mentioned that in the movie, he would have certainly come under anti-Semitic scrutiny.
The whole events were not quid pro quo as might have appeared from the movie. The year 1972 brought about huge antagonism from both sides and during the ex-Mossad crew’s mission to hunt down the perpetrators, other pertinent events were simultaneously occurring (such as the hijacking of the Lufthansa flight or the 1973 war with Egypt).
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 12:20 PM
13 Comments:
Observer,
You completely missed the point of the movie! Maybe because you are trying to read more than you should into it?
The message of the movie is that at some point in the struggle, there are lines that once you cross, everyone is the same, i.e. a terrorist. This was evident in Avner's come back and realization of his situation to the extent that he threatens his country.
The cinematography is out of this world, and the movie is as powerful, if not more, as Saving Private Ryan. Maybe you don't have an eye for the artistic aspect of the film making process.
Also, the movie is not pro zionist at all, in my mind at least. The whole idea is that Spielberg is questioning the morals of Israel as a state and its leaders. This was never done before by someone with Speilberg's status; considering he's a champion of the Israeli cause. You should read some of the post film interviews with him to come to appreciate what he did.
Finally, I just think you totally didn't get the movie. Sorry.
Hi Egyptian Observer.
A comment on your : "‘The Palestinian men who were taken down will simply be replaced by others; more violent and deadly.’ Is this really the message Spielberg was attempting to send home? Was he trying to point the blame on Palestinian militants and terrorists?"
Avner is of course speaking from his point of view.
I think that Spielbergs point is that violence or striking back with violence is not the solution. It will only cause escalation of violence and hatred from both sides.
And that the conflict will not have any chance to solved until both Israel and Palestine realize that.
Regards Martin
@AhmedT. I felt that the most impressive aspect of the film was the cinematography and I do not feel that I missed the point of the movie, but I read it differently.
Again, the problem is that the movie was too fixated on the ideas of "Vengeance" and "Revenge."
For the uninformed audience, these are the sorts of messages that they might take away. Yes, Spielberg might have been flirting with the idea of questioning Israeli's existence however that did not gain my sympathy.
Spielberg is pro-Israel of course and so I would expect the movie to be pro-Zionist. Thus any futile efforts and attempts to portray a neutral ground will be completely bashed. I would (as would others) think to myself that Spielberg is trying too hard to maintain the objectivity of the movie.
The lines have already been crossed from both ends - but the key is that they were crossed by the Jews FIRST back in 1948. Now, because the movie is a snapshot of the struggle, it equates the violence and strife from both ends which SHOULD NOT be the case. The Palestinians are reacting to an action taken against them in 1948 - it is as simple as that.
Palestine is for the Palestinians and their sovereignty was clearly infringed upon in 1948. Today co-existence is the ONLY possible compromise.
However, that has proven very difficult for a plethora of reasons. Those kicked out in 1948 would never want to compromise - that is understandable no?
However the reality now is different, a more pragmatic solution needs to be achieved. A one-state-soluton? A two-state-solution? I will discuss these issues in my upcoming posts.
OK, Egyptian, I'm a Westerner who saw the movie some weeks ago. I was slightly disappointed as you were - I was looking forward to a moral political thriller (if a genre like that exists at all) with a strong message and wished thus to leave the cinema sad... but no... well, I didn't observe my watch either but I would have loved to see a stronger message there. I love sad movies.
Myself, I'm neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian and to be honest, I'm quite bored with the crisis which gets too much attention globally. Observer, now that you're a Palestinian, you might find this offensive but the point is not to hurt your feelings. As a participant you have the right to feel whatever you want, as a non-participant in the crisis I think it's sad there are more serious conflicts in the world which get far less attention (Darfur, Congo, constant famines, North Korean starvation etc.) they deserve. Although what's happening in Israel/Palestine is the focus of worldwide attention, the fact remains that in its core it's a local conflict and not even a particularly bloody one. Why it's so much in the global focus is another story but to put it shortly every killed Israeli and every killed Palestinian reserves much more attention than every other killed person of any other nationality, save perhaps Americans murdered on 9/11.
Back to the point, for me it was hard to see any pro-Zionism in the movie. My general feeling afterwards was that it was against a vicious circle of revenge leading to violence against people whose guilt is dubious (the Norwegian guy's story has been repeated in articles on the movie and its background). I'd label the movie anti-state sanctioned violence if something.
And of course it is and can be only a snapshot of history as movies are. If you want to make a movie of the thousands of years of Arab-Jewish relations in Palestine, it'd last a decade or so and that's not what movies are about. Take Schindler's List - it focussed on a certain period of Jewish (and German) history and didn't need a historical preface to be understood. And we can make a movie about life in Cairo in 2006 with no reference to the pharaohs.
Interesting to read a perspective different from my own ... I agree that Spielberg's ultimate message was one of hopelessness in the cycle of violence, but starting with that, he had nowhere to go .. As the ex-Mossad agents were on their mission, it was somewhat interesting, but the last half hour was just wretched
Hi Egyptian Observer. Nice Blog:)
Just a little point (veny national schauvenistic, yes I know)
Achmed Bouchiki was of Moroccan origin and he was killed in Lillehammer, not Oslo, right in front of his pregnant wife. He had absolutely nothing to to with the Palistinian/Israeli conflict whatsoever. I did think it strange that this wasn't included in the film, especially since four of the group involved in his murder were in fact arrested and convicted of it. I agree with dotblue, though, I think the film is more about the US reaction to 9/11 than the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
Kind regards, K from Oslo
whether the movie is with palastinian or against them...spielberg is a pro-isreali or not......
the problem is ...we _the arabs_ find it difficult to see any movie or read an article that support isreal even by one inch...
it need centuries not decades to accept the existance of the jew...
but what i see here that the jewish or pro-isreali are free to make movies in hollyood that support their ideas, but the palastinians don't have the same option...why??
the answer is: because the isreali lobby are controling usa and using usa according to the isreali agenda....
the question is why??
why is that huge american support of isreal??
what is the real benfit that usa gains from that support??
what are those benfits that sacrifices the american security??
i thought that these are our talking here in the arab countries....but here are two academic proffessores in political science at Harvard university published a paper asking the same questions about the domenating of the isreali lobby on the american policy!!!!
@sara. Great comment. In fact the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is the topic of my next post.
Did you know that Walt is resigning his Deanship at Harvard because of the whole saga surrounding the paper?
If nobody has read it, I highly recommend it. It shows the links between the Israeli lobby and the US and why the latter is VERY inclined to support the former for the reasons it claims it does.
Also, visit http://www.nysun.com/article/29648 to read about the controversy surrounding the paper.
If anyone is interested, please contact me and I will send them a pdf. version of the paper.
I agree with you, the Arabs find it difficult to accept the existence of Jews and of their occupation in Palestine.
Obviously, the Palestinians will not have the same chance/option of expressing their views in Hollywood movies. The Israeli lobby will simply not allow it. Recent movies such as Paradise Now shed some hope in to the possibility of having Palestinian movies which send powerful messages across - but they will never gain the recognition that Spielberg (or other prominent Hollywood directors gain) receive.
@reel fanatic. I agree with you, I just felt he had no where to go and the ending of the movie was too abrupt and in my opinion just 'not sufficient.'
@far_north. I would like to believe that was Spielberg's main rationale behind creating this movie.
However, I think he could have done a better job at doing that. Again, centering 75% of the movie on the notions of 'vengeance' and 'ping-pong' antagonism does not really do this message justice.
The movie could have centered more on a sort of diplomatic dialogue surrounding the issue and even more on the Munich crisis but it ended up being a movie about 'getting back at the other side.'
Sara, are you serious? It's a fact there's a pro-Israeli lobby in the USA (among many other lobbies of course) but where that is is in Washington, not in Hollywood (well, sure it's true there are many American Jewish film makers but so what? Spielberg is an American Jew and this movie was not pro-Israeli). The pro-Israeli lobby might support pro-Israeli movies but not ban or hinder any pro-Palestinian ones. Please don't mix the American political support for Israel (a fact) with movies made in Hollywood. The former is governmental, the latter private business. In democratic countries, these are two different sectors.
And the USA is supporting Palestine as well. If you check the latest news, the USA and EU are now withdrawing their support from the Hamas-led government but directing it instead to Palestinian NGOs.
I just wonder... If the Palestinian cause is so dear to rich Arab countries, why has it been for years so that the evil, infidel USA and EU are supporting the government there (and the thank you received is burning their flags and kidnapping their citizens because of, among others, some cartoons), not rich Arab countries which instead of supporting the Palestinians as they should if they practice what they preach prefer for example investing in American companies and real estate?
The same could go for movies. With the current oil prices, there are tons of new money in the Gulf countries. Why not invest some of it in the Palestinian film industry? Maybe not because the gains are not that good or might it be perhaps because the rich Arab countries have no real cinema traditions, and in the most powerful of them all cinema is even banned?
We're not learning anything if all the time we always blame the opposite side for our own failures.
A European observer
Sara, I'm not an American, I'm a European as you could see from the signature from my previous post. And my country has nothing to do with whatever is going on in Iraq.
You manage to put quite a lot of martyrdom and conspiracy theories in one comment. Not a bad achievement, by the way. Needless to comment most of your post more.
As what comes to your claim "That is a talk based on ignorance", no, it's not. Of course I know of the rich Egyptian cinema tradition but please see, I wrote rich Arab countries. In Saudi Arabia, cinemas ara banned. And please mention me any movie from Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain or Libya. These countries have no movie tradition whatsoever and they are the rich Arab countries I was talking about.
A European observer
Sara, you can't be serious. If you condemn all Europeans because of some cartoons published in Denmark, who don't you condemn all Arabs because the same cartoons have been published in Egypt and Jordan?
You can't either condemn all Europeans because some European countries participate or have participated in the war on Iraq. Mine isn't and never has unlike Arab countries which support the war like Qatar allowing the US to use it as a base in the war.
And I've never seen a ban Muslims slogan in my country anywhere, unlike I've seen Arabs blowing embassies of European countries (not mine) and giving innocent people death threats.
Your stereotyping of a whole continent and culture is no better than those Westerners who think all Arabs are terrorists etc. which every sensible person knows is not true.
By the way, isn't the Egyptian president also in cold terms with Hamas? So what makes that different from European countries? And how much aid is Egypt giving to your Palestinian brethren? And do you yourself do anything to help Palestinians?
A European observer
Post a Comment
<< Home