The thing that impressed me the most was the ideologically free standpoint that Speilberg takes. Even though Speilberg is an open supporter of Israel he doesn't take sides, and that is no mean feat, especially considering all the protagonists are Israelis and need to have our sympathy to make the film work at all.

Spiegal: How would you describe your attitude to Israel?

Spielberg: From the day I started to think politically and to develop my own moral values, from my earliest youth, I have been an ardent defender of Israel. As a Jew I am aware of how important the existence of Israel is for the survival of us all. And because I am proud of being Jewish, I am worried by the growing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in the world. In my film I ask questions about America's war on terror and about Israel's responses to Palestinian attacks. If it became necessary, I would be prepared to die for the USA and for Israel.

"Most people who see the film, especially outside the US, will wonder what the fuss is all about,"
wrote The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland. "Far from viewing Munich as anti-Israel, they may well regard it as highly sympathetic."

The film shows that "Spielberg is on a journey mirroring that of the Jewish community which raised him. At first, he burned with the desire to be not a Jewish director, but an American one telling heartland stories of rogue sharks and cute extra-terrestrials," he writes.

"Then he came face to face with the Holocaust. In Schindler's List, Spielberg was enacting the same move US Jewry had made from the late 1960s onwards, placing the Nazi catastrophe close to the centre of American Jewish identity. That film closed on a note of classic Zionism: the monochrome of murderous Europe giving way to the colour of redemptive, rescuing Israel."

"In Munich, Spielberg has taken a further step. He still loves Israel, he still longs for its survival and well-being, but now he is paying attention to the moral costs. The impact is not so much on the Palestinians, but on the Jewish soul."

"Ilana Romano, whose weightlifter husband was the first athlete to be killed in Munich, defended the film. "For me, it was important that the film does no dishonour to the memory of the murdered athletes, nor to the image of the state of Israel. Both my criteria were satisfied," she said

The reprisal campaign against Black September included the 1973 killing in Norway of a Moroccan waiter who had been mistaken for Black September's leader. Six Israeli agents were prosecuted for the murder and Israel eventually paid compensation to the victim's family.

Mrs Romano pointed out that Spielberg did not mention Mossad's assassination of the wrong man in Lillehammer. "Had Spielberg wanted to harm Israel's image, he would have included the Lillehammer affair."

Originally Posted By dombrewer (27 JAN 2006 11:01pm)
I saw this film tonight, aware of the controversy it has generated, and having read several uncomplimentary reviews in the papers - however, the subject matter fascinated me, and I think enough of Speilberg as a film-maker to give most of his output some consideration.

I have to say the film effected me - I'm still reeling hours later from how powerful it was. In the first instance the acting is wonderful from all involved - a really interesting international cast with Eric Bana, Ciaran Hinds and Mattieu Kassovitz all impressive. The pacing is superb - it is genuinely suspenseful and fascinating throughout even though it has a relatively long running time. I felt I could watch for hours being lead with such skill. The events of the Munich Olympics are covered quickly in the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film, the remainder is taken up with the actions of the "Wrath of God" team who sought to avenge the athletes' murders, but the botched hostage situation is returned to in greater detail in various flashbacks at key moments in the film, and they are harrowing and brilliant.

The cinematography is wonderful - being set in the 70s the whole thing is given the colour saturated grit of the great 70s thrillers, and the multiple worldwide locations are all beautifully and individually filmed. (It made me laugh that London was shot in a rainstorm - Speilberg clearly knows England well.)

The thing that impressed me the most was the ideologically free standpoint that Speilberg takes. Even though Speilberg is an open supporter of Israel he doesn't take sides, and that is no mean feat, especially considering all the protagonists are Israelis and need to have our sympathy to make the film work at all. The Palestinian characters get their opportunity to put across their side of the arguement, and at no point is a religious choice equated to right or wrong, only the actions of individuals, regardless of their faith. The final message is one of the futility of violence, the sickening waste of life on both sides and ultimately promoting reconciliation and tolerance. The final shot of the film, where I made a slow realisation of what Speilberg was asking the audience to see and understand, moved me deeply.

I can't recommend this film enough - as a piece of cinema it is worth seeing alone, but its subject matter makes it more essential because of what finally it has to say about the conflict.

As a last thought - I am not interested in political discussions - that's why I've posted this thread here rather than the P&R section, the rights and wrongs of the Israel Palestine conflict are for other people and other places, I for one wouldn't presume to opine about something I have no contact with and relatively little understanding of... so i'm talking about cinema. Anyone else seen this film and want to comment? I'd love to hear other opinions on this film.

I don't think a single one of my Jewish friends has ever been near the place either

I f Steven Spielberg had made a fictional movie about the psychological disintegration of a revenge assassin, that would have been fine. Instead, he decided to call this fiction "Munich" and root it in a real historical event: the 1972 massacre by Palestinian terrorists of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Once you've done that, you have an obligation to get the story right.

The only true part of the story is the few minutes spent on the actual massacre. The rest is invention, as Spielberg delicately puts it in the opening credits, "inspired by real events."

By real events? Rubbish. Inspired by Tony Kushner's belief (he co-wrote the screenplay) that the founding of Israel was a "historical, moral, political calamity" for the Jewish people.

Munich victims glossed over

It is an axiom of filmmaking that you can only care about a character you know. In "Munich," the Israeli athletes are not only theatrical but historical extras, stick figures. Spielberg dutifully gives us their names -- Spielberg's List -- and nothing more: no history, no context, no relationships, nothing. They are there to die.

The Palestinians who plan the massacre and are hunted down by Israel are given -- with the concision of the gifted cinematic craftsman -- texture, humanity, depth, history. The first Palestinian we meet is the erudite poet giving a public reading, then acting kindly toward his Italian shopkeeper -- before he is brutally shot in cold blood by the Jews.

Then there is the elderly Palestine Liberation Organization man who dotes on his 7-year-old daughter before being blown to bits. Not one of these plotters is ever shown plotting Munich or any other atrocity for that matter.

But the most shocking Israeli brutality involves the Dutch prostitute -- apolitical, beautiful, pathetic -- shot to death, naked, of course, by the now half-crazed Israelis settling private business. The Israeli way, I suppose.

Even more egregious than the manipulation by character is the propaganda by dialogue. The Palestinian case is made forthrightly: The Jews stole our land and we're going to kill any Israeli we can to get it back.

Those who are supposedly making the Israeli case say ... the same thing. The hero's mother, the pitiless committed Zionist, says: We needed the refuge. We seized it. Whatever it takes to secure it. Then she ticks off members of their family lost in the Holocaust.

Director plays on Holocaust

Spielberg makes the Holocaust the engine of Zionism and its justification. Which, of course, is the Palestinian narrative. Indeed, it is the classic narrative for anti-Zionists, most recently the president of Iran, who says Israel should be wiped off the map. And why not? If Israel is nothing more than Europe's guilt trip for the Holocaust, why should Muslims have to suffer a Jewish state in their midst?

It takes a Hollywood ignoramus to give flesh to the argument of a radical anti-Semitic Iranian. Jewish history did not begin with Kristallnacht. The first Zionist Congress occurred in 1897. The Jews fought for and received recognition for the right to establish a "Jewish national home in Palestine" from Britain in 1917 and from the League of Nations in 1922, two decades before the Holocaust.

Ancient claim to homeland

But the Jewish claim is far more ancient. Israel was their ancestral home, site of the first two Jewish commonwealths for a thousand years -- long before Arabs, long before Islam, long before the Holocaust.

The Roman destructions of 70 A.D and 135 A.D. extinguished Jewish independence but never the Jewish claim and vow to return to their home. The Jews' miraculous return 2,000 years later was tragic because others had settled in the land and had a legitimate competing claim. Which is why the Jews have for three generations offered to partition the house. The Arab response in every generation has been rejection, war and terror.

And Munich. Munich, the massacre, had only modest success in launching the Palestinian cause with the blood of 11 Jews. "Munich," the movie, has now made that success complete 33 years later. "Munich" now enjoys high cinematic production values and the imprimatur of Steven Spielberg, no less, carrying the original terrorists' intended message to every theater in the world.

This is hardly surprising, considering that "Munich's" case for the moral bankruptcy of the Israeli cause -- not just the campaign to assassinate Munich's planners but the entire enterprise of Israel itself -- is so thorough that the movie concludes with the lead Mossad assassin, seared by his experience, abandoning Israel forever. Where does the hero resettle? In the only true home for the Jew of conscience, sensitivity and authenticity: Brooklyn.

Charles Krauthammer writes for the Washington Post. His column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th NW, Washington, DC 20071.

Originally Posted By dombrewer (27 JAN 2006 11:01pm)
As a last thought - I am not interested in political discussions - that's why I've posted this thread here rather than the P&R section, the rights and wrongs of the Israel Palestine conflict are for other people and other places, I for one wouldn't presume to opine about something I have no contact with and relatively little understanding of... so i'm talking about cinema. Anyone else seen this film and want to comment? I'd love to hear other opinions on this film.

Originally Posted By LenG (28 JAN 2006 7:44pm)
Sorry ... from the second hand PERSONAL knowledge I mentioned ...  I just don't believe Spielberg's remarks about Israel.

But Stephen Spielberg is NOT one of your Jewish friends.
He is a very high profile Jew who has made a small fortune out of "Schindler's List" despite the fact that many of those survivors have found sanctuary in Israel.
Almost all high flying celebs, non Jews let alone Jews, have visited Israel at some time or other in their careers ... except of course that other outstanding ultra-Jewish example Woody Allen!

He would like to make another mint (but I have my doubts that this will succeed) on the back of the Munich catastrophe & its aftermath.

Also Hannah Brown of the Jerusalem Post (normally an extremely 'mild' reviewer --- 1 star out of 5 ... "Muddled, Inept, Offensive, and Boring to boot"

{1} Firstly I don't think any of us have any right to say how someone else should or shouldn't behave, whether they are in the public eye or not.
{2} Secondly, Speilberg didn't make a penny from "Schindler's List" -  
At his insistence, all royalties and residuals from this film that would normally have gone to director Steven Spielberg instead are given to the Shoah Foundation, which records and preserves written and videotaped testimonies from survivors of genocide worldwide, including the Holocaust.
{3}Thirdly "Almost all high-flying celebs", including non-Jews have visited Israel? What are you talking about? That is a preposterous thing to claim.
{4} As an ardent film-goer I can tell you Hannah Brown, of the clearly unbiased Jerusalem Post, is proving what a limited critic she is by saying the film is inept, offensive and boring.

Spielberg makes the Holocaust the engine of Zionism and its justification. Which, of course, is the Palestinian narrative.

Aj: Good work in turning this into a political slanging match. I'm really pleased. Well done.

Originally Posted By dombrewer (31 JAN 2006 7:26pm)
"My level of intellect".  

I don't think we've even met on this forum before but you've made it pretty clear what kind of person you are.

Originally Posted By dombrewer (31 JAN 2006 7:26pm)
"My level of intellect".