“Inspired by real events” opens this movie. And it troubles me. Do we owe the 11 Israeli athletes murdered at Munich anything less than the truth? Not the absolute truth, that may not be known to anyone. But if we are to put their story at the heart of a profit-making product, essentially entertainment, should we not ask for more confidence in the accuracy of the events portrayed than that they are merely “inspired” by what really happened? Anything less it seems to me gets perilously close to what we might call ‘factionalising’ their tragedy and the suffering of their relatives, for dramatic effect. If so, I don’t know about you but I find it a bit uncomfortable. After all it is surely a greater journalistic and no less artistic challenge to adopt the documentary form and to stand by your film as having been made as accurate, as ‘true’ as you can possibly make it. And the risk of legal action focuses the mind here.

This is becoming a recurrent theme, found recently for example, in Jarhead, Lord of War, The New World and it seems the upcoming Flight 93. Isn’t suggesting that a film has some relationship to real events however tenuous, a lazy, even dubious way of trying to add to its credibility or its dramatic value? Or are even movies changing their character to become part of the systematic media blurring of the distinction between fact and fiction, virtual and real? In what sense for example is 'Big Brother’ reality TV? Are films-as-product becoming a commodity like everything else, and mere artistic imagination too inefficient, or worse, too commercially risky, to meet market demand?

We have no way of telling to what extent the in some ways implausible conspiracy theory underlying Munich, is close to the truth, heavily factionalised or even, beyond the bare known facts, almost totally fictional. True respect for the victims of the Munich massacre it seems to me, does not rest in the mere fact of re-publicising their tragic deaths through a multi-million dollar movie. Rather we should recount the events in which their lives were destroyed with as rigorous attention to truth as one can muster. ‘Hollywoodising’ history is a disturbing phenomenon. And a pretty dubious way of making a profit. If you want to make a cinematic, artistic assessment of this issue compare Munich or any of the others above with The Last Days of Sophie Scholl, or even Spielberg’s own Schindler’s List.

There is much in Munich to render it implausible. With the extraordinarily professional reputation of the Mossad, what do we make of a nationally critical ‘black-ops’ assassination mission entrusted to a leader and colleague hesitant and uncertain before their first kill? Or a bomb-maker who has only ever defused bombs, never made one? This hit team also wanders the streets all together as a group looking about as innocuous and unnoticeable as Raymond Chandler once put it, “as a tarantula on a slice of angel cake”. Each hit seems less like a meticulously planned, risk minimised, military operation, than an opportunistic one-off with no credible security protection to circumvent. As portrayed, Avnar’s (Eric Bana) hit team look more like something out of the BBC’s fun scam series Hustle than top of the line clandestine Mossad hit men. And given the appalling cock-ups they make with bombs we are never given anything remotely plausible as an explanation of why the in-close certainty of knives or guns are not used exclusively. We are told that the final target is so well protected it will be impossible to get at him. Yet 2 guys with guns and black faces hop over a couple of fences, line up the shot and when interrupted run through unlocked gates and hop another so low even I could vault it in one.

For me, the performances are seldom more than adequate though not helped much by a highly variable emotional and moral tone to the movie – the actors must have had lots of questions. Geoffrey Rush looks miscast and Daniel Craig’s Steve seems stereotyped. Only Ciaran Hinds’ Carl settles into a really solid, credible character. Bana’s performance has been much praised but try as I might, and I really wanted to like this movie, I just can’t see it.

Surprisingly for Spielberg the editing lacks pace and tension much of the time despite one or two excellent nail-baiting scenes. Cutting about 30 minutes would have improved the film enormously. The placing of the flashbacks to the Munich massacre look more designed to remind us that the hits are justified, than to maintain an effective dramatic tension. The moral ambivalence within the team is too sketchy and undeveloped to convince. In fact, the main problem with Munich may be that Spielberg never quite makes up his mind what his own moral perspective is – and it shows.

Avnar we are shown, is the son of an Israeli hero, personally know to Gold Meir (an uncanny cameo by Lynn Cohen); and he is entrusted with one of the most sensitive, critical missions in the history of the Jewish state. This makes the way the film portrays his subsequent treatment by the Israeli authorities simply incredible. It just makes no sense, especially as Anvar and his mission have not even hit the headlines. I am sure Geoffrey Rush’s refusal to break bread with him in New York at the end is meant to be deeply significant of something but as played, it just seems bad manners. I’m afraid it takes more than a worthy subject and an evocative end-shot of the still-standing two towers to justify claims of “a prayer for peace” or “relevant to our times”.

I’m having a bad time with renowned directors, Allen, Malik and now Spielberg. Yet I am a great admirer of each (not that that will worry them much I suppose). But though Munich is easily the best of the bunch and at least worth seeing, Oscar nominations ahead of say Shane Black and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is to mistake worthiness of topic with quality of film.

Hi Zettel,

I haven't seen this movie but it seems to me that you raise some very interesting and pertinent questions about the use of 'fact' or 'real' events in all forms of fiction, not just movies. You talk about the moral/ethical issues but I also found it interesting that you question if it is a lazy or risk-free way of creating drama. All very thought-provoking. Thank you. The only thing that I questioned was your implication that Spielberg should have taken a moral stance and stuck to it. I wonder if it isn't better to allow for the possibility that there isn't a 'right' answer in complex matters of the conscience?

Ashlinn

Ashlinn

You too raise a very important and interesting question. I certainly don't think Spielberg should have taken a judgemental line. Indeed how could he, given his own personal background? To get at a very difficult point: compare Schindler's List - here Spielberg impressively avoided any temptation to be didactic or tell us how to feel or think - but everything about the way the film was shot had a clear, unambiguous perspective. What troubles me about Munich is that treats the eye-for-eye, irreconcilable essentially racial conflict too simplistically. That Israeli policy and behaviour over the years is open to serious moral and political criticism is clear - one only need to read say Arthur Miller on the subject to realise that. But the objection to the Israeli position is not based upon what looks like a fairly crass denigration of their treatment of one of their own on a mission of cynically misdirected vengeance.

Spielberg in Munich leaves us with a 'plague on both their houses' passive helplessness before an issue that, whatever its intractability must be resolved to end the killing. If you want to get some of these deep issues over in a movie (not the best medium for complex ideas) then it seems to me you may have to spend less time on the crowd-pleasing huntin' shootin' killin' action story and more on the moral conflicts of those involved.

I don't for one second doubt Spielberg's sincerity. And I believe he probably did agonise about how to do justice to the Munich athletes. But I think the film reflects the fact that he never quite resolved in his own mind how to do this and in makes its tone uneven and at times confusing.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment
Regards
Zettel

PS: I saw an extraordinary film earlier this year by an Italian director about a Palestinian family living in a house in Israeli occupied territory, Gaza I think. The whole family was held hostage by the Israeli army as they used the house as a forward base for attacking Palestinian 'terrorist' groups. If you or anyone can remind me of the title or the director I'd be most grateful. That film dealt brilliantly with the issues above.

Z

Zettel,

I understand now what you mean; if he wanted to show that one cannot attribute 'right' or 'wrong' to either side then he should have made a clear decision to show the ambiguity of the situation and to define the best way of protraying that.

I get your point about his ultimate helplessness but I can't help but sympathise with him in his 'it's their problem; let them sort it out' attitude. When hatred runs that deeply it's hard to eradicate it. If Spielberg had the answer, he should stop making movies and get into politics.

I don't know the Italian movie you referred to but if you do manage to find out the name could you post it here? I'd like to see it.

Ashlinn

Ashlinn - will do.

A marvellous film that addresses the way one might have to approach such problems as the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts is Godard's latest Notre Musique. I have review of this on WW. It may be hard to get ot see on the cinema now but it is out on DVD and well worth buying.

regards

Z

I am feeling befuddled just now by the Shanghai Film festival in London. Almost no Chinese films for ages and then nine in a week - no wonder I can't follow your argument.

I am not quite sure what point - or several - that you are making about 'Munich'. It was one of the options available when I chose 'Underworld' last weekend,not only because I'm getting fed up with these long films that don't merit the footage. Do filmmakers really think their audiences have a 'buy one get a third of a one free' mentality to the extent that they'll risk the kind of thrombosis previously associated with longhaul flights?

The real reason I decided against it is I really don't like these films, of which we've also had a spate, which delibrately obfuscate the line between reality and fiction.I came out of 'Constant Gardener' wondering which particular company was using African babies as guinea pigs for drug trials so I could boycott the products, but of course there could be many, or none. It's the sort of claim that gets you worked up at injustice and then when you look round there's nothing there.

Having said that, it's what I have against 'documentaries' as such - OK if you realise at the start they are selective and made with an axe to grind half the time, but annoying all the same if the stageed interviews and events are so stagey they strain credibility. Is there 'pure truth'? I don't think so, so why pretend otherwise?

For the same reason, I avoided 'Schindler's List', although I didn't mind, for instance, a film like 'The Pianist' which sticks closely to one man's account of is own experience.

On the other hand, if films like 'Pearl Harbour' and 'Saving Private Ryan' aren't enough to persuade people that American filmmakers are rewriting history, maybe nothing will.

Sheila

Having seen the film after all, I think it works well enough in parts fine if viewed as an action film in which the 'excuse' or catalyst for the action, what Hitchcock called 'The McGuffin' takes a backseat, as it should, to the scenes of nail-bting tension, narrow escapes, shoot-outs. and even humourous episodes, such as the double-booked 'safe' house. I don't see that it is any more offensive to the hostages to invent a revenge story than all the 'inspired by' WW11 films I sat through with my father in the fifties, was offensive to him or the men who fought with him. The hostage shootings are seen mainly through the imaginings of the hero, in part a narrative device to justify his acts of destruction and reinforced by the 'home' reminder secenes such as the meals and the telephone call to his wife, his presence at the birth, etc.

Last week I was discussing 'Brokeback Mountain' with someone who said she couldn't take the film seriously because 'Wyoming is nothing like that'. I think it is important to remember that film is representation, not reality. You might just as well say The Wizard of Oz is a bad film because there's no such as thing as a talking scarecrow. Spielberg isn't making a documentary. Of course, he tries to get the audience on his side by claiming the film is 'inspired' by recent events, but hey, this is Hollywood. Unfortunately this film muddies the issue by both justifying the killings, drawing out with camera-gloating detail the acts of terrorism perpetrated by the 'good' Jewish hero and then wants us to feel sorry for his disillusionment. It's all too much, and as you say, the acting isn't up to the task. The telephone call in which the hero burst into tears when he hears his daughters voice was so poorly done you could feel the audience cringe.

I agree the 'easy' escape after the house party mess-up was incredible, just as the overly drawn-out scene with the woman staggering about half-naked on the houseboat and finally seen full-frontal with blood puring from her wounds was gratuitous. The film bore, for me, all the trademarks of Spielbergs's blatantly manipulative style ( and misogynism) together with an admix of misguided special pleading. When I saw he final shot with the twin towers it crossed my mind for the first time that it wasn't America the terrorsts were attacking on September 11th, but Jews. Now, that surely couldn't have been the director's intention? Or could it?

Sheila

Sheila

<Added>

Sorry about all the typos in this.

Sheila

Sorry, missed your comments until now. Thanks.

The pure/absolute truth argument is treacherous and philosophically complex.

First I would have thought the claimed 'absolute' truths of religion i.e. based upon transcendent revelation, have caused enough misery past and present to be rejected on the grounds of being a priori, beyond falsification or verification - beliefs, not truths at all. This prevents no one adhering to such beliefs but does deny them any right to impose them on others. Truth belongs to no one - religious or secular and we neglect this truth (sic) at peril to civilised behaviour.

But the absence of absolute truth is often cited as an argument to reject the idea of truths at all. This is the danger. There is no doubt that there are truths within science, maths, art, politics (pretty rare nowadays - that's the problem) etc. Its just that what it is for something to be true varies according to the context in question. The absence of absolute truth begins the process of analysis, judgement, investigation, proof etc etc it doesn't end it. This is the bedrock value our culture. It fosters the precious value of dissent. This leads into the murky philosophical territory of relativism so I'll stop there.

But to relate it to my points about Munich. I take your point about the impossibilty of a totally objective view in say a documentary. But there are standards of verification and judgement that matter in the picture of an actual event offered in a real documentary. Just as there are rigorous standards of evidence and relevance adhered to in our legal system. It is important I think to keep clear about this e.g. Michael Moore for me makes great movies - but they are polemics not documentaries - they just choose to adopt the documentary form and that troubles me. A political documentary should have no less standards of rigour than say one of David Attenborough's nature programmes should observe high standards of scientific accuracy.

Like you, I am troubled by the blurring of the line between fact and fiction in our culture, especially as found in movies. My objection to movies like Munich and The New World is not that they are not absolutely true but that they intentionally distort verifiable historical facts in the interest of entertainment and seek to deceive us by adopting either a documentary form or weasling out with remarks like "inspired by real events." And as we might expect, the hype and publicity goes further - for Munich the ads say "this is what happened next"

Sorry to go on but this is such an important issue. No one has done more than our beloved leader to blur the line between truth and falsity, reducing everything to semantics. We really cannot oppose this strenuously enough. And we cannot do so if we cede the argument that because there is no pure truth there is none at all. And that nothing can be 'proved'. (Cf: Blair/Bush on Iraq). This is why Good Night and Good Luck is such an important and timely movie.

Regards

Zettel

Sorry - don't seem to be able to write well enough to purge philsophical remarks of a kind of preachy tone. That is not the intention even if it sometimes comes out that way.

Z

Zettel, you provoked me into seeing 'Munich' and I think you are doing the same, now, for 'Good Night and Good Luck'. From the reviews I've read it is very what the Chinese would call 'hao kan', ie good to look at, but George Clooney is only presenting one side, black and white in both sense, which could make it 'Mei you yisi', ie 'not very sensible'. So long as it has one or another of these qualities I don't mind. I remember lectures and filmed extracts of the HUAC trials when I studied media and it didn't mean much to me.

I joined that Cineworld monthly-pay scheme this afternoon, as they do seem to get all the decent mainstream stuff and quite a few foreign films. It's £13.99 to go as often as you like to cineworld all over the country. It's £10.99 if you don't include the West End. Unfortunately, in the Haymarket branch where I joined I'd seen two of the three films on offer - 'Brokeback Mountain' and 'Hidden', and I' have had to wait around until 4.15pm to see 'Good Night and Good Luck', so I didn't. Maybe I'll brave the rain to go and see it at the West India Quay branch later.

Sheila

<Added>

£13.99 per month, that is, and you have to sign up for a year.

Sheila

I thought I might be the only film nut willing to contemplate 3 movies in a a day (even if you didn't go). Thanks for the heads up on the season ticket. When I come to town it is mostly to take advantage of the great programmes available at the Curzons. But the Cineworld deal is worth a look. Ta.

You're right of course. Perhaps like you, if I see a film I admire I do try to provoke rather than persuade someone to see it. Go see it.... it's good - shouldn't be enough. It wouldn't be enough for me. But if reading a review one is intrigued enough to want to see a film otherwise you wouldn't go to, that seems to me to be good. My son is doing film studies and the one way I can guarantee he'll go to see a movie is if I slate it. So it's not a 'go and agree with me, prove I'm right thing.' I don't relish bad films but some films with much talent in them are bad in an interesting way (e.g. The New World)

On GNAGL. I suspect it proves both our points: yours that there is no such thing as pure truth - it has a clear 'perspective on events' - and mine (and Murrow's by the way) that nothing ever can be 100% 'right' (NB Sir Michael Grade). But the spirit of Murrow, Friendly and other great journalists of a time when to speak out was literally, commercial and personal suicide, are properly celebrated. The key thing for me as I indicate in my review, is that integrity and honour while predominatly an issue of actions and behaviour, also have much to do with an individual's relationship and respect for language. Language as commitment as we might say philosophically. McCarthy had no respect for liberalism, the right of the individual to dissent, or truthfulness in pursuit of what he saw as a morally imperative crusade. But he said what he said and in a sense stood by it. He did not reinvent the concept of a lie (the 'Blie' perhaps) to escape. Such a key philosophical issue - liars can be nailed only when language has not been so corrupted that truth and truthfulness collapses into semantics and concealed intentions.

Murrow himself in the film gives the response to the claim that Clooney has been one-sided - that you get it as right as you can and then publish and be damned. You respect the truth and trust the audience.

Hollywood, rightly has a burden of guilt, about McCarthy and many films have been made to expiate that. However I do think Clooney is only too aware of the modern resonance and relevance of his film. And in a culture racing down the blind alley of insularity and denying many of its finest moral and cultural sensibilities, it is extremely welcome. It does what the real news media have conspicuously failed to do. It shows the importance of dissent to true democracy. Why the First Amendment rights enjoyed by the media in the US are so important. But like muscles - if you wanna keep 'em...use 'em.

GNAGL also happens to be a damn good movie in its own right anyway.

I'm a tap - turn me on and I run (on). As ever - good discussion.

Regards

Z

Z, I have posted my review of GNGL, and you'll see there's plenty to get your teeth into.

I didn't see the other two films on the same day - I meant I had seen them on previous occasions - have posted a review of 'Hidden', I think.

My own equivalent of your film-studying son is my husband, in the sense that he is keen on film and had differnt tastes. In fact, I was able to have a chat with him this morning about the film before writng the review. He didn't see the film and was mildly surprised to meet me on the doorstep when he returned from his Bridge evening last night.

Sheila