Spielberg's "Munich" lacks focus
Michele Brittany
Issue date: 2/9/06 Section: Arts & Entertainment
- Page 1 of 1
The crisis unfolds in a montage of black and white images from the living room television, casting an ashen hue on the young Israeli couple. It is 1972 and Avner (Eric Bana), the husband, sits in disbelief as he watches with his pregnant wife and the rest of the world as the tragic event at the Munich Olympics unfolds. Known as Black September, eleven Israeli athletes, as well as their Palestinian captors, are killed when the efforts of the German counter-offensive is botched.
Thus begins a journey for Avner and four other men, hired assassins on a secret mission of vengeance, instigated by the Israeli government in retaliation for the Munich event. The targets are a list of Palestinian masterminds behind the Munich kidnapping and other terrorist activities prior to 1972 that led to spilt Israeli blood.
Spielberg based his latest consciousness-raising epic on Canadian journalist George Jonas' book entitled Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team. As with most literary novels cum feature films, liberties are taken and facts embellished to keep the moviegoer entertained. Munich is no exception, but these embellishments lead to its demise.
An eye for an eye, as the cliché goes, and so it goes with this film, too. Spielberg introduces a voice of concern via one of the assassins, Carl (Ciaran Hinds), who questions the validity of guilt assigned to the list of targets. Avner seems to shrug Carl's questions aside, but eventually he begins to doubt his part in the mission, too. It's a mission of personal sacrifice that has taken him away from his family and his homeland.
When the final scene fades, the viewer is left to sort out just what direction Spielberg was headed in with Munich. Is this about the cyclical effect of vigilante vengeance on a national scale that has been the Israeli-Palestinian story? A message of the need to break the cycle of war and conflict? Spielberg's intent is muddled by his focus on the assassination missions and international spy intrigue.
Munich opened to mixed reviews and has yet to make a profit (it cost $75 million to produce). It is not included on most critics' lists of top films of 2005. The production is a gallant effort, but does not stand up to comparison against his World War II films, Schindler's List (1993) and Saving Private Ryan (1998).
Thus begins a journey for Avner and four other men, hired assassins on a secret mission of vengeance, instigated by the Israeli government in retaliation for the Munich event. The targets are a list of Palestinian masterminds behind the Munich kidnapping and other terrorist activities prior to 1972 that led to spilt Israeli blood.
Spielberg based his latest consciousness-raising epic on Canadian journalist George Jonas' book entitled Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team. As with most literary novels cum feature films, liberties are taken and facts embellished to keep the moviegoer entertained. Munich is no exception, but these embellishments lead to its demise.
An eye for an eye, as the cliché goes, and so it goes with this film, too. Spielberg introduces a voice of concern via one of the assassins, Carl (Ciaran Hinds), who questions the validity of guilt assigned to the list of targets. Avner seems to shrug Carl's questions aside, but eventually he begins to doubt his part in the mission, too. It's a mission of personal sacrifice that has taken him away from his family and his homeland.
When the final scene fades, the viewer is left to sort out just what direction Spielberg was headed in with Munich. Is this about the cyclical effect of vigilante vengeance on a national scale that has been the Israeli-Palestinian story? A message of the need to break the cycle of war and conflict? Spielberg's intent is muddled by his focus on the assassination missions and international spy intrigue.
Munich opened to mixed reviews and has yet to make a profit (it cost $75 million to produce). It is not included on most critics' lists of top films of 2005. The production is a gallant effort, but does not stand up to comparison against his World War II films, Schindler's List (1993) and Saving Private Ryan (1998).