The Movie Club Discussion - Munich

I am in complete agreement. I could not have said it better.

__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons.....for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Again, interpolation between sex and violence?

But, in the context of the story it made sense, she wasn't a bomb maker nor a thug. I mean, say what you want about being a sexual object, but if her body helped in her the past, what wouldn't possess her to use it in the time when she needed it most?

Sorry for misunderstanding you btw.

__________________

Here's the thing Samsonite, I do not believe her nudity was meant to illustrate a helplessness or vulnerability. Her body was her weapon. (This is, in own way, slightly sexist. It's also, neither here nor there.) Their need for revenge made her weapon useless.

When she was dead, Avner tried to dress her. Hans stopped her. The immediate consequence was her humilitation. The movie was a statement of the way these men were slowly losing in their humanity. They were believeing in their mission of death. Avner attempted to bring his humanity back in that moment, but Hans did not allow it. He wished to punish her as much as possible, at any cost. His move was representative of Israel's actions against these terrorists. Golda Meir said, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." Spielberg's point is that she was wrong. Hans was wrong, and so was Israel.

__________________
"What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present." - T.S. Eliot

Ok. So what do you think he was saying by interpolating those?

hey, it happens.

And you're right, she would. I'm talking about this from a step back, looking at the building blocks used to tell the story, and questioning the choice of making that character a sexual object. Like Piddy said, that's a typical trick from Speilberg's bag, and it's a little cheap.


gohansrage - that's an interesting take on it, and makes sense.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Yeah. I think it's struck me now and then but it was when I saw Catch Me If You Can that I really thought about the fact that the women in the film were almost like mannequins. Or in the case of the more important female characters, like the mother, the characters were really stereotypical. But, as with Munich, I really liked the film a lot!! It is really problematic and interesting.

__________________
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.

Sorry guys, I blew it on this one. I saw this, but didn;t get a chance to rewatch it recently, and sort of don't remember all of it. Maybe next film! I had to cancel netflix, so it's harder for me to get films going these days....

__________________

Bah! I wish I had more time to read through this thread and get myself up to speed so I can contribute. After seeing Munich with a good friend of mine, we ended up arguing for a few hours over the film, and what it was really saying. I'm dying to see what others have taken from the story.

Interesting discussion guys and gals.

In summation:

"Easily one of my favorite films" - ObiWanShinobi

"Interesting ... but very much overlong" - SamsoniteDelilah

"(Eric Bana) delivers the best performance of his career" - TheUsualSuspect

"Not very Spielbergian ... a symbolic gang rape" - Piddzilla

"Restrained and downbeat ... but overlong" - Tacitus

"I blew it on this one" - Sedai

The thread's still (barely) alive so feel free to chirp in at any time and remember - the next MoFo Movie Club will be along before you know it!

__________________
"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

Saw this about a week ago, but I'm terrible about finding time to post in threads ilke this, so it looks like I missed the party. Sorry for doing this freeflow, rather than directly answering each question in order (great questions, BTW, Tacitus). Anyway...

I really enjoyed Munich. It worked for me on just about every level; from illustrating the brutality of both sides of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, to the fascinating covert intrigue throughout the series of assassinations. I enjoyed it as a commentary on the situation, but also appreciated the raw entertainment value in the (pardon the phrase) execution of the executions. I thought it was interesting that, as the movie went on, it became harder and harder to distinguish between the initial attacks, and the attacks being carried out by the covert team. Both were frenzied and brutal at times. I am not suggesting equivalence (far from it), but I felt the increasing precision and efficiency with which Avner's team dispatched its targets underscored the film's conclusions about the endless trading of violence.

What really stands out for me, though, is the film's ability to impress its characters changing mental state on us. By the end of the film, I was drained, and found Avner's descent into paranoia completely convincing, and even understandable. After he got to so many people, many of them far more protected than he is, how could he himself ever feel safe again?

I also feel the controversy over the film is vastly overblown. Spielberg walks the line just fine; the fact that both "sides" have expressed anger over the film readily demonstrates this. Cinematic value aside, I feel he accurately sums up the problems of both side: Palestinian aggression and bruality, mixed with Israeli overreaction and brutality. I happen to think one of these is a bit more understandable than the other, but I have no complaints about the way the film summarized things. I think it works almost as well philosophically as it does cinematically.

Regarding the specific question of Jeanette, the female assassin; I don't know how accurate the film's depiction of her is, but it was one of the few elements in the film that felt less like reality, and more like a movie. It took me out of the film a bit. I do think the way it happened made sense, however; as others have said, she had made a habit of using her body as a tool, and it's only natural that she would try to do so again when cornered.

Hans' insistence that she be left naked, like Carl, is probably the most interesting thing in the entire film. It perfectly paralleled the problems that come with always replying to aggression in kind. Inevitably, someone raises the bar. Always responding with the same level of conduct allows those you're fighting to dictate the moral standard of conduct. And if your enemy is dictating your moral standards, doesn't that blur the differences between you?

There's a lot to think about here, and I think Spielberg recognized that. I don't really care for films that address controversial subjects but refuse to offer any conclusions, which is probably why (among other reasons) I admire Munich. It does come to a decision as to how the blame should probably be distributed, but realizes that there's a lot of history and more than a few mistakes to sift through.

I'd give it a

Actually, I took that scene as in since she left his buddy humiliated and naked after he got plugged in the skull by her, he likewise wanted her to suffer the same consequences of humility......being exposed like that at death. He later was remourseful for his actions as his own moral views finally started to resurface again.

Also, anybody know if that drunk dude on the street was an actual FBI agent? They suspected he was but didn't really let us know. And how on earth could that guy get the two rivals mixed up like that by giving them the same rooms......by mistake they say. Anyone think that was intentional?

Sorry, I could be a litte rusty on my facts here since I did last see it in theatre.

I have seen it, but not for quite a while. I remember being impressed with it. I agree on the "Not the usual Spielberg" comments..

I was less than impressed with bana until I saw this film, as well...

Sorry, a lot going on so I am sporadic with the films recently...

Like the recap post Tacy... Got a laugh out of me...

My guess is that no one really knows whether those guys were the CIA or not but Spielberg clearly tells the story as if there was no doubt about it.

Oh ok. I guess it's safe to say that this happened also in the real story........that the assassination attempt failed cause of the drunk I mean.

Just posted me thoughts in the tab, thought i'd stick em here too. Now to go back and read the thread

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Altho this thread be long dead, think i'll chip in on a few of these...

What were your thoughts on the casting?

Pretty damn solid throughout i thought, altho Craig kinda got left dangling with his role in some ways. He was just 'the hothead'.

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

I'm pretty ignorant on this stuff, but it did seem nicely pared down and used both 'hot' and 'damp' locations well, while keeping a consistent tone and slight building claustrophobia [without going all Tony Scott and having bellydancing tellytubbies form subtitles of Avner's distress or anything]. Any 'flourishes' employed [like shadowed moments in the train scene and on the bench etc] were stylish without being showy. Except maybe the accountant slamming his ledgers, and scattering paper which cut to street litter. It worked fine, but was illogical given his prolonged insistence on needing receipts neatly documented etc.

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?

It's hard to tell on some levels. Did the assassin's really rig telephones so as to target a father but not his child? If so, did the events portrayed happen, or was that just to ram home the 'discriminant' point?

He was happy enough to criticise complacency or loss of moral code, which seemed to be in some ways embodied by the mother, not wanting to know what her son had done on Israel's behalf. (Or what it had done to him).

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

Several revealing comments in the thread on this. Agree with the idea that it demonstrated their increasing 'dehumanisation' - and that Avner tried to recover some of his humanity by covering her but wasn't allowed by another, who wanted full punishment.

The idea that she was using her body as a 'weapon' makes sense too, if perhaps putting her too neatly into the wife/mother/whore triumvirate that Pidz mentioned.

One minor point that felt very false, or foolish, was that they all walked in while still pumping up their weapons, meaning she coulda just blown em away. Was that supposed to represent the emotional/anger side of the event? Amatuerishness? Was it another clumsy use of the 'sex as violence' motif??

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

Tricky. The final uses were beginning to feel excessive, but the whole story felt like it needed telling/showing too. Perhaps some overtly stylised directing might have worked better here, shading it as Avner's terrorised-dream recreations? Not sure. Might have detracted from the fact that it all happened tho.

Thanks for reviving this one, Golg. It reads like a thread by Great MoFos of the Past, though. Sammy and Pete really need to get their arses in gear and come home.

Must watch Munich again.

It's been 3 years, so you may've done so, but I'd have said it then so I'm going to say it now. Someone needs to see Chopper.