The Movie Club Discussion - Munich

Munich (2005, Steven Spielberg)

I’m going to try and combine my thoughts on Munich with a few points for discussion to get you all warmed up. If you've not seen the film and would like to, don't read on if you're bothered about plot spoilers as I'm assuming everyone taking part has seen the movie in it's entirety.

What were your thoughts on the casting?

I think Bana’s crew was well cast - the firebrand (Daniel Craig), the veteran (Ciaran Hinds), the nervous one (Mathieu Kassovitz) and the quiet one (Hanns Zischler). There were certainly colourful enough to offset Bana’s brooding earnestness.

What were your thoughts on the direction? Was it suitably Spielbergian or was it refreshingly free from his signature touches?

Restrained and downbeat (from the point of view that this is a Spielberg film) for me, but overlong. Spielberg is a director totally comfortable with a variety of genres and long-time collaborator Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography gave a nicely washed-out Cold War feel.

Did Spielberg try to overtly illicit your sympathies towards the plight of Israel in 1972 or did you think he tried to be as even-handed as possible?

As a product from the most prominent Jewish filmmaker in the industry, Munich was bound to stand on one side of the line but I think Spielberg at least tried to show both points of view, especially in the scene in the Greek safe house where Bana and his men encounter an almost identical group of PLO members. The dialogue between Avner and his Muslim counterpart is perhaps a bit mawkish for my taste but I understand why it was there.

Geoffrey Rush's turn as Bana's handler could have been a little more subtle.

Ultimately though, Avner is an ex-Mossad agent who’s spent his life carrying out orders and I’d think it would be out of character to expect him to question more overtly - apart from at the end.

What did you think of the scene where Eric Bana, Daniel Craig and Hanns Zischler kill the female agent, Jeanette?

It was certainly quite hard to watch but, I feel, necessary from the characters’ point of view. She’d killed their friend and colleague and left him naked (and the zoom function on my DVD player wasn’t up to the job of finding out if Ciaran Hinds was totally ‘in character’ ) so their rationale was to do the same to her, as much to send out a message to other would-be assassins as it would be to sate their own feelings of vengeance.

The flashbacks to the Munich atrocity itself - Overused? Overlong? Unnecessary? Integral?

All of the above. Yes, they were a way for Avner to rationalise his mission and for the audience to feel some compassion for a man who is, let's face it, embarking on a clandestine murder spree through Europe but I think the hand was overplayed, especially during the love scene with his wife. We get the idea…

Overall I liked Munich, up to a point. Spielberg has never been one of my favourite directors but I can appreciate his storytelling strengths but not enough for me to want to watch the film again.

What did everyone else think?

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Nice poster.

What were your thoughts on the casting?

I love Eric Bana, so that was an immediate plus for me. I thought the gang was well cast, if a little stereotypical. I really liked the woman who played Bana's wife. I think she had to bring a lot of qualities to that role in order to deepen Bana's character's backstory, and she did. I liked the PLO guys, too.

What were your thoughts on the direction? Was it suitably Spielbergian or was it refreshingly free from his signature touches?

Refreshingly un-Spielbergian? There's usually a feeling of applique'd sentimentality to his stuff, for me, and that would have been terribly otu of place here and is, thankfully, absent. One could argue that it exists in the conversation in the stairwell between Avner and the PLO guy, and in the older assassin expressing his regrets later, but I'd argue it's not much of a film without those scenes.

Did Spielberg try to overtly illicit your sympathies towards the plight of Israel in 1972 or did you think he tried to be as even-handed as possible?

I think it was pretty even-handed. The situation was sort of laid out in the conversation you mentioned, and in the one with (I think it was) Avner's mentor, where they talked about walking the line between retaliation and balancing appearances.

What did you think of the scene where Eric Bana, Daniel Craig and Hanns Zischler kill the female agent, Jeanette?

It seemed really brutal, drawn out and cruel. I must admit, I hadn't noticed the tit-for-tat balance in her being nude, I think because the guy was presumably already undressed when she killed him, and she wasn't. I think it works in context though, as an illustration of 'going too far', and a character talks about that. There is a difference between vengeance and vindictiveness, and I think that scene was there to show that. On a national level, that's an important point.

The flashbacks to the Munich atrocity itself - Overused? Overlong? Unnecessary? Integral?

Necessary, I think, considering Speilberg's angle on the politics involved. In that the motivation in revenge is the memory of, and the reliving of, the atrocities that spark it. People with short memories don't bother, in other words. To have showed only a brief rendition of it at the beginning would have left the central characters looking pretty evil by an hour in, when our horror had subsided. Had Steve cared to make this more of a peacenik film, he could have done with a lot less of the kidnapping/murders and we'd have felt differently about Bana and Co, I believe.

I found this interesting from a historical perspective, but very much overlong. In fact I got a call 30 min from the end and never did get back to it. (2 Day rental from Blockbuster) It's not that it's bad, per se, it's just a bit heartless.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

I liked Munich a lot. It's perhaps the Spielberg film that I have been the most undivided about. I'm often going between enjoyment and irritation while watching his films but this one was... mostly good. There are of course things to discuss...

The casting. As with everything that Spielberg does he's very specific about in what direction he wants the feelings of the audience to go. There is one "right" way to feel or think about things - the ultimate classical storytelling. In Munich it is very obvious that Spielberg wants us to realize that there are no bad guys that are worse than the other side's bad guys. The terrorists look pretty innocent, like scared kids. All the arabs and terrorists are being portraited as human beings and Bana and his crew are being portraited as human beings capable of doing horrible things without a wink of the eye. It is all very simplistic, as usual with Spielberg, but it works. He gets the message through.

The directing is unusually un-Spielbergian but there are a few typical things. Right now I can't remember the use of music but I'm sure it was there in a typical manner, possibly a bit more subtle than in other films. The Mossad banker was very Spielbergian to me. The dust on the books, the short moment of humour and satire. Other typical things are the cliffhangers, the gadgets, the incredibly effective way he drives the story forward. Still, as you've said, I think he takes a few steps back and in favour of the characters and the psychology of them.

I really think his ambition was to be neutral in his depiction of the "two sides". As I said before, the arab and islamist characters are almost exaggerated in the sympathetic way they are being portraited. The protagonists are Israelis though and that's the guys we want to see win this fight, even if we're to be aware of the horrible and unproportional costs they paid.

The scene when they kill the female agent was the most interesting scene of the film. It is interesting to see how Spielberg allows the agents to kill terrorist after terrorist, not without reflecting upon their acts but still they do it almost in a machine-like way. When it's time to kill the female agent though it's like the film almost stops for a while. The woman becomes an object in a way, a misplaced object. She's not supposed to be here!! She undresses in front of the agents, desperately trying to buy time by offering sexual services in exchange for her life. By doing the scene like this, Spielberg in an awkward way suddenly brings eroticism into it all. To me it's like we, at least the male audience, are supposed to watch the woman and be amazed by how cold and hard these men are that can resist this temptation and even kill her. The purpose of the scene, imo, is to make us realize that these men are prepared to do anything for their cause. I can't decide if it's a terrible way to do it like this or if it's brilliant. I know that in the past when seeing other Spielberg films that the women in his films are very stereotypical and shallow and always playing the old cliché roles, being objects rather than human beings with flesh and blood. That goes for this particular scene as well, only I'm not sure this time if it's not done like that deliberately to tell us something about what MEN are like. I think I doubt it though.

The flashbacks were necessary in a way, I suppose. I think if they had showed the entire hostage plot in one piece and THEN jumped to the hunt for the responsible ones, the narrative would be a lot less driven. I just don't understand why the Bana guy keeps returning to these events in his mind. He wasn't there, was he?? And while getting busy with the wifey??? Now now...

Anyway... I liked it. It was a Hollywood tale with a relatively balanced message - for being Hollywood. I watched an inteview with Spielberg that followed with the copy that I rented and he said that it wasn't so much about whether it's right or wrong to go after the terrorists and kill them. What is important is to always ask yourself the questions; what will the consequences be, and is that the consequences we desire? The film obviously is a lot about the War on Terror and the War in Iraq and Spielberg's thought on that.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I think it's because they don't see her as a woman at this stage. She's the first of their 'targets' who they have a tangible gripe against and her execution is much more focussed and professional than any of the supposed Munich ringleaders'.

Her execution is also the beginning of the end as they realise that Louis has been selling information to both sides and the distrust and paranoia begins to escalate (with Bana ending up like Harry Caul in The Conversation).

I'd imagine that the flashbacks were images that Avner has concocted in his own mind (whether it's from news footage or first hand accounts) as a justification and driving force behind what he is doing. Unfortunately, as the blood on his hands increases, so does the power of the images...which climaxes during the love scene with his wife (who's not had sudden, unrelated thoughts occasionally invade the moment anyway? ).

Great posts, you two.

It's funny that. I watched Munich twice and, first time round, the final half hour washed over me too...

I'm going to start off with Bana relating the Munich massacre while having sex: I believe it was to interpolate the relationship between sex and violence. And no, I didn't think of this, somebody told me, but it makes alot of sense. Especially since it was the only part of the film that had me scratching my head.

To the cast: I was initially dissapointed by the fact that the agents were not speaking hebrew/german/french or any of the arab languages. At least before I saw it, I believed this would take away from the film. I was totally wrong, the english with a weird accent thing totally worked. I was convinced that these agents were in fact, agents.

To the movie: Simply astounding. With the exception of a few nitpicks, this is a flawless film. One thing that hit me particulary hard about this film is the theory about violence and its continuation. While the message is simple and clear, it is orchestrated by a master of sound and image, weaving the two together to create emotionally resonant instances. Every time I watch the massive assault there is a very clear stoppage of my heart, suspended in almost disbelief at the violence. Every time I watch that scene I want to cry, I never do, but I always want to.

This film sheds so much light on the middle east. Right now Israel is pounding Lebanon, and they really can't be blamed. Yet, on the other hand, we have civilians who are dying and being considered collateral damage by everybody but Lebanon. In future years, the widows and the orphans of these bombings are going to fly airplanes into the west, killing countless thousands. We are going to say they were evil, cowardly, possessed by the devil. When in reality, we created them. And "we" just doesn't mean the west, or jerusalem, or the arab countries. It means everyone who has ever picked up a weapon, for whatever reason. Munich illustrates this point. The Jewish state can't be bullied, nor can the west, nor can the arabs, and we won't learn this until the killing stops. And right now, the only way the killing could stop is if we all die. That's said, but it's a bitter truth.

Munich is easily one of my favorite films. I'm glad I have the DVD and I will likely invest in the special edition/BDR versions. (Universal is HDDVD right now, but I have a feeling in a few years it will be different)

__________________

I'm going to have to disagree. While the murder was indeed cruel. They were 100% justified in killing her (and humiliating her) based on the work they were doing. You can't show sympathy here and then not in another realm of vengeance.

In fact, I think it's that whole series of events that show just how horrible vengeance is. The fact that she was a woman, the fact that she was completely naked and vulnerable (almost pathetic), the fact that she was minding her own business at the time, completely oblivious to everything.

I don't think revenge can be quantitative or justified, and that whole sequence showed it. I do think that the characters in the film tried to make a distinction, but there wasn't one. Revenge is disgusting, a universal point.

Sorry, I just don't buy something as trite as that.

It makes sense to me for Avner to be overtaken by uncontrollable thoughts and feelings when he's in such an emotionally vulnerable position. Ecstacy, sadness, guilt etc can jumble themselves up when you've reached a low ebb.

That's my take on it anyway.

"You keep using that word (disagree). I do not think it means what you think it does." -- Inigo Mantoya

Can you please isolate from what you quoted of my post which part you "disagree" with, because it appears you said basically the same thing I did. Thanks in advance.

I simply read it is as a moment of purely visceral *release,* although I would have preferred if the sequence was further intercut with flashbacks to his own murders.

Yes, but isn't it interesting that Spielberg uses the old boob-trick to make us think "wait a minute! They're killing chicks too?!?!"? They don't see her as a woman, but we, the audience, do. And why? Because she's taking off her clothes and being seductive. This is what femininity looks like according to Spielberg. I think I might be reacting the way I do because he actually makes such a big point of this scene, such a big point of killing a female enemy. It would have been even more effective if they had killed her off in the same automatic manner as they killed the others. That would have made the point without relying on tiresome cinematic female stereotypes and reproduction of actually quite sexist ideologies.

Yeah, the execution per se is motivated. I agree.

I agree! That had bothered me about that scene, and now that you put it into words, yeah, I totally see what you're talking about. It's also the only killing I saw where they are eye to eye with the person they kill, and toy with them a bit first. This would have been really irritatingly sexist, had it not been the impetus for at least one of the gang to later realise that what they were paid to do was not as shocking as the fact that they'd enjoyed it.

Yes, the characters weren't acting in an explicitly sexist way. She was the one taking off her clothes to buy time, it was not they who told her to take them off. And sex worked the time when she lured that agent into her hotel room to have him killed so it's only logical she would try that once again. But I think the way Spielberg portraits women, in all his films, is worth discussing. In Munich he presents us with three very typical female characters: the wife, the mother and the femme fatale. When one of the agents makes them leave the dead body uncovered he underlines what her part is in this story: she was a whore and he wants the world to know it. Later on he regrets that they left her like that, of course. But still the female character is just an object in this story. She's showned by Spielberg as an object and is being killed by the agents for being an object. The fact that she's a mercenary underlines her role even further. The male terrorists have convictions, ideals and a Cause they are ready to die for. She doesn't have any of that. She's a contract killer doing her job by being a woman.

Well I read your response as justifying revenge in terms of quantitative value.

I dunno there. The scene unfolds in exactly the same way as the only other time Avner is face-to-face with his intended victim at the moment of death (the first guy), even repeating "Do you know why we are here?".

The differences are a lack of nerves (whether this is because the crusade has suddenly become more personal or simply that the group are now rather good at their jobs, I don't know) and the need to keep this killing as quiet as possible - they have no need to alert the public to this 'job'...it's a bit of very personal overtime.

I'll give you the female stereotype bit, so blame Ian Fleming and the fact that it's 1972 - there are enough 21st Century ideals in the film.

In the film Munich, the director Steven Spielberg gives us a film about the 1972 Palestinian terrorists who broke into the Munich Olympic grounds and took eleven Israeli athletes hostage. The story then follows the main character, Eric Bana and his team, who must travel through Europe hunting down the people who are responsible for the incident. Steven Spielberg creates a film that has impressive acting, beautiful visuals and a tight script which all make Munich a perfect choice for a Best Picture Nominee at the Oscars.



The cast all give great performances, but it’s Eric Bana that delivers the best performance of his career. Bana is able to convey numerous emotions in his character, who is proud to be on a mission for his country, but also faces the horrors that his mission may never really accomplish anything. When he eliminates one person, another will just take his place and the circle just continues. Bana is desperate to finish the mission, just so he may go back home to his wife and newborn baby. The most impressive scene would be when Bana calls his wife and hears the baby on the other end of the phone. He’s been on the mission for so long that aside from her birth, he has yet to see or talk to her. While on the phone with his daughter, he hears he say “dada” which immediately brings tears to Bana’s eyes. These are mixed emotions, tears of joy because his daughter knows who he is and recognizes his voice, but they are also tears of fear, that he may die while on his mission and never see his child ever again. Bana pulls this off beautifully and is robbed by the Best Actor race in the Oscars.



Spielberg’s last few films have been below his level of directing, War of the Worlds, The Terminal, and Catch Me If You Can were decent films, but not of Spielberg’s usual caliber. With Munich Spielberg has directed his best film since Saving Private Ryan. Straight from the start we see the talent of Spielberg as he inter-cuts the actual events of the hostage situation and what Spielberg has recreated. The film runs 163 minutes long, but Spielberg’s style is gripping enough to keep us wanting more. Spielberg’s visual style is back, with Bana going through the torment of his first kill, the blood mixing with the milk from the groceries the victim was carrying is horrifying. Spielberg handles a difficult subject very well showcasing the faults of both sides.



Spielberg and the script, by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth, explore the shocking consequences of the Israeli reaction through the recurring nature of violence and terrorism. The violence consumes the lives of Bana and his team as they celebrate small victories and anticipate horrors that may lie ahead of them. We feel connected to the characters because they are fleshed out, instead of having action on every single page; the script decides to have the characters eat dinner and converse with each other. They evolve in each task that they take on. On their first mission, they hesitated to kill their target and once they did, they fled in fear. One character exclaims that it is strange to think of himself as an assassin and Bana simply tells them to think of themselves as something else. They will do anything to not think about what they must do. Near the end of the mission, it becomes such an on going event in their lives that they delve deeper into the darkness and except that what they are doing is right.



Finally, with the beautiful story telling that Spielberg possesses, he is able to bring a great and emotional script to life through beautiful visuals and an impressive cast that delivers great performances. Spielberg manages to make one of the best films of the year, that is well worth the Oscar nominations that it has received.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Hmm.. You're right, the first murder is also drawn out since the hesitation and conflict is central. But the difference is that Avner is the center for our attention, it's his conflict we're focusing on, and sure we're supposed to feel sympathy for the victim as well. But the victim isn't at all as objectified as in the case with the female contract killer. It basically comes down to the fact that she undresses in front of the agents and the audience, and that's the reason we're having this conversation basically. I can't really blame anyone else but Spielberg because the stereotypes aren't being expressed by the male characters of the film, they are being shown to us by Spielberg. And they aren't typical for this film, they're everywhere in all of his films.

There must be some feminist film theorist that reads this scene as a symbolic gang rape. It's more or less a penalty kick...

Btw, I thought of one more thing that's not very Spielbergian of the film, or less Spielbergian than usual. It's not as sentimental as most his films even if he of course wants us to feel terrible for everyone being killed. He actually seems to want us to feel worse about the killings of the terrorists than about the agents since we do not actually see the killings of the agents. That's kind of interesting as well, the fact that Spielberg doesn't show us the agony or fear that they as well must have felt facing death. Or perhaps he didn't want the agents to appear weak.

You've got me thinking about women in SS's other films and I can see exactly what you're saying. Again, it's something that has bothered me, but I never really could put my finger on it. With few exceptions, Speilberg's women are stereotypical and often shallow, both as people and as characters. I've always had a vague sense of being shut out of the emotional reward in his films, and I think that's why.

Not at all. I was talking about the scene being justified within the context of the script, not saying that revenge is justified.

Let me see if I can express myself more clearly.
The murder of the woman seemed more angry and vengeful than the other murders, to me. This was accomplished by showing her naked and vulnerable. This device is rather clumsy and transparent, as Pidzilla has said, and would simply be jarring in the context of the film, were it not for the fact that it is used by the writers to convey a salient point. That point is that when killings become personal, emotional, needlessly cruel, they cease to be merely revenge (which is not a good thing, but arguably useful in certain situations) and become more clearly deplorable - vindictive and thoughtless reaction. That point is conveyed later, in the scene where the older assassin expresses regret over having left the woman naked.

It's possible, in fact, that the point was to draw the comparison of that personal murder to the acts of revenge being carried out on a government level, and that the authors were saying "it's no different".

It's unfortunate that they chose to shorthand the personal nature of her killing by making her a nude woman, rather than making a non-sexualized personal connection, which would have accomplished the same comparison without turning the woman into a sex object.