Munich's Missed Opportunity
Munich - Universal Picture - 164 minutes - 2005
by Mitchell Bard
If Steven Spielberg
had not made the film, Munich would
have been just another movie about terrorists.
His name attached to it, combined with his
Jewish background, of course, attracted
far more attention than it otherwise warranted,
as well as an undeserved nomination for the
Academy Award for Best Picture. After all,
what few reviewers noted was that the movie
was actually a remake of the 1986 TV movie, Sword
of Gideon, which was also based on
the now discredited book Vengeance by
George Jonas that purported to be the story
of a hit team sent by Golda
Meir to kill
13 Palestinian terrorists Israel held
responsible for the murder
of its athletes at the 1972
Summer Olympics in Germany.
What was disturbing about Munich was that,
given Spielberg’s resources, he apparently
made no effort to go beyond the Jonas book
and talk to people more directly involved
in the operation to track down the terrorists
responsible for the Munich
Massacre. He reportedly
received offers, but turned them down. He
also made the questionable decision to hire
Tony Kushner to write the screenplay despite
his well-known criticism of Israel, which
only invited opprobrium from those who disliked
the film.
In some ways Spielberg did
improve on the original film; it is far less
harsh in its portrayal of the Mossad and
leaves out the most embarrassing true part
of the story in which the Israeli agents
accidentally killed the wrong
man in Norway after mistaking him for one of their targets.
While some critics believe he created a moral
equivalence between the Israelis and the
terrorists, I didn’t
see it that way at all. As others have remarked,
the Israelis were clearly distinguished by
their displays of conscience, such as when
a bombing is aborted when they realize the
terrorist’s daughter is in the room
with him.
The scene that many critics
found the most disturbing was the ridiculous
one in which the Israelis and the terrorists
end up in the same safe house and then one
of the terrorists proceeds to give a speech
rationalizing his actions. Many people didn’t
like the idea of giving the terrorist a platform,
but I thought this was perhaps the most important
and honest moment in the film. The terrorist
says, in effect, that the Palestinians will
fight for the next hundred years to destroy
Israel and this is a message Americans need
to hear, particularly now that Hamas has
taken power in the Palestinian
Authority.
The character expresses the belief held by
many Palestinians that time is on
their side and that they will drive the Jews
into the sea.
Spielberg tries, but can’t
really have it both ways when he says
the movie is not a documentary, but it
is inspired by actual events, and then
loads it with factual inaccuracies that distort
those events. He keeps, for example, the
original film’s
absurd emphasis on the agents’ need
to turn in receipts for all their activities.
One wonders what their receipts would have
looked like: plastic
explosive - $3,500, silencer - $800, lunch
while surveilling - $47. Former agents in
subsequent newspaper interviews said that
Israel had no list of targets, but pursued
many terrorists using multiple teams. The
person Jonas said was his source and leader
of the Mossad team apparently never even
worked for the Mossad. The movie lacks historical
context and speciously links letter bombs
and other unrelated Palestinian atrocities
to the actions of the Israelis.
Still, the reaction to the
movie reflected the myopia that often afflicts
supporters of Israel. It is similar to perceptions
of more general media bias where they only
see the narrow elements that pertain to Israel
and miss the larger picture that viewers
who are not dissecting the content are more
likely to assimilate. In the case of Munich,
it is possible to pick apart scenes that
portray Israel unflatteringly, but the overall
feeling of the film is that the Arabs are
savage murderers who deserve to be assassinated.
An image, incidentally, which is reinforced
regularly by the “biased” media’s
daily news coverage of the latest atrocities
from Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.
It is hard to imagine many
people coming away from the film feeling
more sympathetic toward the Palestinians
and less so toward Israel. Coincidentally,
the most
recent poll shows support for Israel
near an all-time high. The controversial
final image of the Israeli team leader with
the Twin Towers in the background drew objections
from those who saw it as suggesting a link
between the Israeli actions and 9/11, but
it could also be seen quite accurately as
part of a continuum as terror has escalated
from the kidnapings and skyjackings of the
1970s to the suicide bombings of today.
Spielberg’s tantrum
in response to criticism was typical of artists
who believe they should have freedom of expression
to say whatever they want, but have no tolerance
for anyone using their right to challenge
the artist’s vision.
Ultimately, those who feared
the film was going to somehow have a negative
impact on Israel were about the only ones
who went to see it. The film did poorly in
the U.S. at the box office even with the
boost from the Oscar nomination. As of
March 2006, the $70 million film had brought
in approximately $47 million, though it was
doing better worldwide ($63 million).
What is most disappointing
is that Spielberg could have made a very
good film about an important historical event
if he had only invested the kind of time
and energy into researching the story that
he did for Schindler's
List.
Sources: Mitchell Bard is the Executive Director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise |