Munich

[laleo]

The reviews talked about how Important and Timely this movie is, so I decided to see it. And now I'm undecided.

This movie is "inspired by a true story" (I think it's based on a novel, rather than an historical record) so my guess is that the parts that are "true" are the larger, obvious facts: Israeli athletes are taken hostage at the 1972 Olympics by a group of Palestinian gunmen (unintentionally aided by a group of loud, boisterous, doofus American athletes -- is this fact or fiction?), and ultimately killed in a bloody battle at the airport. In retaliation, Israeli intelligence organizes a "hit squad" to travel the world to assassinate the major thinkers behind the terror attack. (I forget my history, so I'm taking Spielberg's word for it.) I'm guessing that the part that is "inspired" is the day-to-day operations of the "hit squad" that travels the globe. It is comprised of five men with various talents, and specific tasks, meaning that one identifies the targets, another makes bombs, another cleans up the evidence afterwards, etc.

If you like thrillers (I usually don't), the killings are graphic enough to hold your interest, and also make the central point of the movie, which is that violence begets violence, and when a cycle of retaliation is begun, there is no end in sight. In this movie, competing interests collide, especially those of various governments, represented by the Mossad, KGB, CIA, and PLO, who often have the same targets, and also target each other. Interestingly, the character who acts as a sort of kindly mafia boss (he is the one who juggles all the agencies and feeds the tips in exchange for money to these competing governments, meanwhile denigrating nationalism) is a disillusioned former fighter for the French resistance. His dilemma seems central to the movie's conflict, although it defies believability that someone so enmeshed in world intrigue, and who profits so much by it, would wrestle over the ethics of how far governments should go in compromising their values in order to defend and preserve their values.

Anyway, from what I can gather, the reason this is "timely and important" is that this movie offers a commentary on Iraq and America's response to terrorism by using the futility of Israel's fight with the Palestinians as a guiding symbol.

[laleo]

Okay, I saw the documentary on the Discovery channel, so the facts are a little clearer now. The movie did much more to humanize both the targets and the assassins than the documentary did, but both ask the same (ancient) question: Do two wrongs make a right?

If anyone has a relatively dependable crystal ball to let me know what the outcomes would be if Israel were more passive, I'm interested in knowing what it is. I'm inclined to think that Israel would be defeated, but both the movie and the documentary disagree.

Didn't anyone else see this movie?

Edited January 23, 2006 by laleo

[Kit Sober]

Just saw this movie. I knew Fred would like it, and I was surprised at how much it blessed my life to see it.

Not just for the art and expert craftsmanship of the thing, but for the awesome depth of the Jewish heart and struggles it shows.

(In 1972 at the Olympics in Munich, the world did watch and do nothing while Jews were being killed in Germany once again.)

Movie also shows the cruel brutality of the Arab world view.

The question of fighting back in the face of overwhelming brutal retaliation (they assassinated one man, and the arabs killed 230 people "in response") begs consideration, but also the question of man's right to fight for his freedom, which is also addressed in the movie.

I, for one person only, agree with Avner's mother and say that the right of man to fight for his freedom, even in the face of certain death, is for the others who have already died as well as for those who will come, in hope that future generations may live in freedom.

Glad I saw it.

[Javajivey]

I saw it soon after it came out last winter with a Jew who explained a few points to me...For example, in the end, the two men did not eat together, for one was orthodox and the other was not.

The point about violence begetting violence was the main point of the movie. I had a more negative view of it than you did, though, in that I don't think any of it was justified, even if it was for the sake of one's country. Why? Because violence begets violence.

Overall it was definitely worth watching. Very memorable scenes, and it's been a year since I saw it, so that says something. The graphic killings made a point.