Munich (the new Spielberg)

[Alfred Okocha]

I think the movie was alright. Not SO special but very well-done as usual.. One thing threw me though..

The elevator scene. The guy is shot.. falls forward and lands on his belly with milk and blood mixed. A very(morbid) but beautiful scene. Next scene.. he's on his back?? Please tell me I'm wrong here..

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Originally Posted by Alfred Okocha

I think the movie was alright. Not SO special but very well-done as usual.. One thing threw me though..

The elevator scene. The guy is shot.. falls forward and lands on his belly with milk and blood mixed. A very(morbid) but beautiful scene. Next scene.. he's on his back?? Please tell me I'm wrong here..

You're right. It didn't botter me, and I really had the feeling he could have turned around, but it IS a mistake, but I didn't notice, only read it on IMDB on the goofs page...

[Keith Loh]

BTW, the blood and milk mixed can be seen in a classic film way before "Munich". Can anyone name the movie?

[Daniel Riser]

I considered "Munich" to be, possibly Spielberg's "new first film." We are studying a filmmaker that has been criticised, to no end, about his manipulative filmmaking tactics (tactics I personally enjoy and emmulate) His use of closed composition, camera motivation, blocking etc... forces the audience to become "observers" in his world. Personally, I consider this the most powerfully effective method of filmmaking out there.

Even "Schindler's List" ,which most claim as his most pure work (little Spielberg tricks) ,is actually quite a manipulative film... again I have nothing against that and do not understand the criticsm he receives for it.

I consider myself a Spielbergian filmmaker (i.e. treasure of the templars) and when I saw Munich I almost swore that Spielberg did not direct this film, of course there were "cool Spielberg moments" but for the most part it was so objective that it seemed impossible that Steven Spielberg had directed it.

and, because of its extremely objective approach, I believe we cannot categorize this as his 26th film... but rather his 1st "new" film. A very subjective filmmaker making his first objective film... and unfortunately I believe he failed.

I believe the writing was cliched, the characters lacked the strength that was needed for the film, the part James Bond part Schindler's List three hour flick was nothing short of frustrating and downright boring... that's not to say a boring film still can't be a great film... this was a boring film that lacked any strength, it relied on the strength of a script that was too weak to hold it up, and in that case I'd rather have a brainless Michael Bay action piece (who I consider the worst kind of filmmaker) than something as lifeless as "Munich."

*SPOILERS*

The script was very predictable as well, all the way to the sex scene! The moment I saw the first sex scene between Avner and his pregnant wife I knew they would revisit that situation post-mission.

I am fine with the film being objective in it's views politically but I still need something to hold on to. I still need to care. Throughout the film I could care less what happened to Eric Bana or his conscious. The message was great, the execution was poor.

The genius of the very last shot in the film definitely raised its level of importance in my mind, I was also very impressed how the "prostitute assassin" when faced with the knowledge that she was dying (after she was shot) did not grab her gun to "take the bastards down with her" but simply grabbed her cat and sat in her lawn chair, like an innocent girl, despite her exposure or her crimes, she simply knew that shedding blood was worthless and she'd rather hold her cat as she takes her last breath.

She was the only one in the film who had any... true moral arc... she was the only one that got it! Even Avner was still prepared to pay blood for blood with his own people if they touched his family... not even Avner got the message... just the whore assassin.

Ok that went off into a random tangent and I apologize...

I will end with Eric Roth's, the writer of "Munich" words that he penned into cinematic history with Forrest Gump.

"That's all I have to say... about that."

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Daniel, very nice post.
I enjoyed Munich very much, and I consider it to be one of his best films he made, although I too like the old 'spielbergian' way of filmmaking.
I too love his tactics, because that's the freedom a filmmaker has, and Spielberg controls them like no other.
But I loved Munich very much too, but still.
Nice post.

[Keith Loh]

Yes, very thoughtful post, Daniel.

However, I have to disagree on your interpretation of the prostitute scene. I believe she simply didn't have time to reach her pistol. To me the meaning of that scene was more literal. It was such a grey 'business' that even those who appear beautiful on the outside could bring themselves to be heartless killers and not expect to have their crimes visited back upon themselves in their own homes. I really did like that scene, especially when Craig reaches out almost gently to stop her from walking further after she is initially shot as if almost to steady her.

[Justin Morgan]

I thought Munich was an excellent film. However, one thing puzzles me which has not been written about anywhere I've seen (that I know of) and that is the fact that Munich is a direct remake of a film from the 1980s called 'Sword of Gideon' - it is almost identical in many ways.

It seems very odd that a) nobody has really mentioned it and b) that Spielberg would have bothered to do it - unless he did the whole thing to give him the opportnity for that final shot...

[Keith Loh]

Both "The Sword of Gideon" and "Munich" were based - at least in part - on the book "Vengeance" by George Jonas. "Sword of Gideon" was a TV movie, was it not? I remember it as a TV movie. (IMDB confirms my memory). I don't think it is correct to say that no one has mentioned "Sword of Gideon". I've read at least one review that mentions that the story was made into a TV movie before.

And since it is a true story (as much as is necessary to be true), anyone can cover the same ground without it being a remake of previous adaptations. "Titanic" is not a remake of "A Night to Remember". Nor is "Capote" a remake of "In Cold Blood".

I also recall reading something to the effect that "Munich" being an adaptation of the Jonas book is more to do with clearing the rights rather than a straight adaptation. I've never read the book.

I'm sorry to say that my memories of "Sword of Gideon" are pretty thin so I can't compare it with "Munich". I just remember enjoying it and thinking: why is Michael York in a supporting role?

I see no problem with remaking something already covered by a TV movie. How many times has TV land rushed out and made a cheap movie as soon as they learned that a major Hollywood production was approaching the same topic? It used to happen quite regularly.

Anyway, it has been 20 years since the TV movie. I wouldn't expect that many people to remember it. How may film critics or TV critics have lasted that long in their careers?

[Justin Morgan]

I know that they are both based on the same book - I was just amazed at how very similar these two film versions are - the same story told by two different film-makers usually results in quite different things.

I think Spielberg's version is much better than Gideon and in Spielberg's defence I would say that the subject matter of the film and the motives behind Black Septemebr's actions are something that needs to be repeated and repeated - to increase understanding of the problem - Munich actually does this better than Gideon. This alone is enough to justify the making of it and I think Spielberg should be highly praised for doing it.

I don't want to get too heavily into politics here as this is a film forum not a political one so, politics aside, all I was intending to say was that while I think Munich is an excellent and very important film - it and Gideon (purely as 'films') are very very similar.

[Karl Heiner]

well, i also saw both, and have to say, that i liked the The Sword of Gideon version better over munich. spielberg is spielberg, but in gideon the story was easier to follow.

greetings