Munich Is Incredible- Page 2

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:27am

lol, touch, touche.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:30am

Well, papa, in this case I am not sure I agree. Facts, it would seem, are most likely changed to make a better story. Real-life figures are combined to make the storytelling easier, etc.

With an issue as volatile as the Israeli-Arab conflict, changing facts to make a better story might do a disservice to the issue itself. So, in this case, I think questioning the fact to filmmaking dynamic is valid.

Of course, that's just an opinion.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:37am

so then the subject matter of the film determines whether or not it must be exactly historically accurate? and incidentally, which "facts" that were changed in the film exacerbate the israeli/palestinian conflict?

[DBillyP]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 12:33pm

The point of the post, taken as a whole, was that questioning the film based on what it has changed historically is valid.

Friesgirl might be better suited to answer your second question. S/he made the original assertion about the historical accuracy.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 2:10pm

Excellent film. And as a moral thriller, completely unexpected. It's quite clear that the complicated and ambiguous (not to mention completely credible)international double-dealings behind the scenes suggested by Louie contribute to the hero's doubts about the morality of his actions as well as his paranoia. (The latter is dramatized effectively in the scene when Avner suspects bombs everywhere in his 'home' a la THE CONVERSATION.)

Of course, the death of the female agent is sadistic, exploitational and sensationalistic--it leaves the audience with the same discomfort it does Avner and company--THAT'S THE POINT. The sex/death connection also sets up the final lovemaking scene when Avner struggles between the impulses of death and life, hate and love.

To suggest the film has any less integrity because it uses its source material imaginatively (in a thriller, no less) is perfectly ludicrous. Tell that to Shakespeare, who uses the historical records as he sees fit in the creation of his plays.

Vivian Darkbloom
Ramsdale, New England

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 3:49pm

I must say, I was disappointed in both BBM and Munich (and on a more extremem note Syriana) not that any of these films were bad, They were far from it, but I don't feel any of were as good as they could have been. For me, The Constant Gardener is still the best film of the year.

My top Five would be (in particular order)
1 The Constant Gardener
2 Good Night and Good Luck
3 Munich
4 Syriana
5 Brokeback Mountain


All that being said, Michelle Williams would be my front runner for Supporting Actress and Eric Bana and Ralph Fiennes would be a tight race for Lead Actor. (also, Kate Mara and Anna Farris get honerable mentions.)

I still think Joan Allen deserves the Lead Actress award.

[friesgirl]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 8:32pm

For those interested in just some of the inaccuracies in the film, you could read this article:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22486417.htm

It's certainly not the only one that documents it. There is also evidence that the person interviewed for Vengeance, the book this film is based on, as being charged with fraud and never had any contact with the Mossad.

The fact that many of the changes I personally found unbelievable (even for a piece of fiction in order to tell a story) is the reason why I did not like this film. I could not believe the "Let's Stay Together" scene would ever play out in reality or even in the proposed reality of the film. The insertion of the female death seemed extremely contrived to me, and I could tell exactly why it was inserted into the story...I understood why it was done, but I don't think it was effectively done or that the insertion was a good choice. I felt I was being manipulated.

Personally, a much better executed thriller this year was "The Constant Gardener." It was much more believable to me and was more emotionally effective with far less manipulation that exists in Munich.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/28/05 at 12:17am

The sex/death connection also sets up the final lovemaking scene when Avner struggles between the impulses of death and life, hate and love.

Yikes. If THAT is what Spielberg is intending, then the scene goes down in film history as one of the most blatant and cheesy visual images used to get a theme across -- maybe second only to the use of red lighting to signify E V I L.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 3:28am

I saw it tonight and thought it was EXCELLENT. Definitely, one of the best movies of the year.

If I were voting for Best Picture, right now it's between BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, KING KONG, and MUNICH for me - and as of now, I couldn't possibly zoom in on one.

I thought Eric Bana was absolutely brilliant, and I will have my fingers crossed for him come Oscar time.

Admittedly, I am confused about several elements of the movie - mainly, the three flashbacks.

SPOILERS******

Can someone explain to me what the three flashbacks were showing? I have absolutely no idea if they were in chronological order, or what was going on. The first flashback was the terrorists shooting people in the hotel in the middle of the night - the second leading them to the airplane, and the third is the bloody scene at the airport. I'm confused, so any help is appreciated.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 7:08am

***more freakin' spoilers***





***spoilers, run!!!***





strappy, they were in chronological order and depicted the carnage that resulted (in the world of the movie) in avner's team being put together and sent on their deadly mission. at the start of the movie when they were watching the story on tv, the flashbacks depicted a more detailed view of those events.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 9:11am

"Yikes. If THAT is what Spielberg is intending, then the scene goes down in film history as one of the most blatant and cheesy visual images used to get a theme across -- maybe second only to the use of red lighting to signify E V I L."

Except it's not blatant and cheesy but rather skillfully handled and set up. The second lovemaking scene is not only in complete contrast to the loving, serene one that introduces Avner to the audience but, intercut in a montage with scenes of terror and carnage and lit by lightning, suggests his moral turmoil as well. It's a splendid dramatization and visualization of an abstraction and Kushner, Roth and Spielberg make their points in the manner necessary.


Milt C. Okedoke
Okefenokee, Florida


Updated On: 12/29/05 at 09:11 AM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 12:51pm

No papa, thats not right, they were showing what happened in Munich, before avner's team was put together.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 12:57pm

uh, that's what i said.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 1:00pm

No, this is what you said
"
strappy, they were in chronological order and depicted the carnage that resulted (in the world of the movie) in avner's team being put together and sent on their deadly mission. at the start of the movie when they were watching the story on tv, the flashbacks depicted a more detailed view of those events."


Munich did not happen as a result of the putting together of avner's team, it was the other way around. Avner was being tortured by the thoughts of his countrymen suffering.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 1:08pm

ok for those who are linguistically challenged:

strappy, they were in chronological order

the flashbacks themselves followed the chronological order of the events of the munich massacre: 1) terrorists show up and take hostages 2) a rescue is contemplated and cancelled 3) at the airport the hostages all die

and depicted the carnage that resulted (in the world of the movie) in avner's team being put together and sent on their deadly mission.

"resulted" being past tense implies that the flashbacks were the cause for avner's team being assembled

at the start of the movie when they were watching the story on tv, the flashbacks depicted a more detailed view of those events.

at the start of the movie before the team was assembled, avner & wife were watching the television footage of the hostage crisis

granted this last point could be tad clearer. but i think the first two explained it.

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 01:08 PM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 12:00pm

I've been on a high horse lately about "realism" expectations from audiences and critics.

Not every movie is there to be a slice-of-life drama.

Crash and Munich (two of the best films of the year) are fantasias. They are inspired by things that really happen/happened, but they are not re-telling the story -- because their point is to proclaim a message, not let you in on an experience.

So, to say this film was "manipulative" is to say it did the job it intended to do. To say it is "innacurate" is to hold it to a standard it did not set for itself. And to imply it is a bad film because of either of those two critiques is to be ignorant of the form.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 12:04pm

it sounds so much clearer and less confrontational when you make the point i wanted to, touch.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 1:05pm

Jesus is rolling in his grave!!!!

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 8:25am

Okay, I went to see this with my boyfriend last night. Let's all say it together, now - "NOT A GOOD DATE MOVIE!" Let it be said, after *spoilers!* the final lovemaking scene in the movie (eerie!), there was no romance in my home last night. Plenty of conversation fodder, though.

I found the movie fascinating. Fascinating as a movie, I could watch it without taking it word-for-word/scene-for-scene as fact. I know that it's not one I would normally choose to see; however, I'm very glad that my b/f talked me into it.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 7:34am

Sigh. I wanted to love this movie, really I did. But ultimately, I didn't. Astounding performances aside, the film just didn't grab hold of me. And it really should have. There was potential for a breathless thriller and a sobering treatise on terrorism here. Instead, all I got was 164 minutes of incoherence and confusion.

The film was not without its moments. The flashbacks to the Munich hostage situation and its demise were thrilling and distressing simultaneously. There were some beautifully rendered moments from Eric Bana when he started to break under the pressure of it all, crying on the phone when he hears his baby daughter, touching Matthieu Kassovitz's reflection after finding out he'd died. But that was kind of it really. There were some other nice moments here and there, but nothing truly memorable.

The script needs to take a lot of blame for that I think. None of the supporting characters really came into focus, certainly not enough to care about once they started dying. And none of the political dialogue felt organic, it all felt written and preachy and desperately unsubtle. Part of the blame also has to go to the marketing campaign which decided to spoil pretty much all of the high tension sequences in the film, especially the phone bomb sequence.

Spielberg has, over the years, become less of a director I feel. The last film of his I found enjoyable was Minority Report and even that isn't a particularly brilliant (or indeed coherent) film. Given the insanely truncated schedule Munich was filmed in, I am really surprised at how lacking in pace and urgency I found the direction. And the cross cutting of Avne having sex with his wife with the deaths of the Munich hostages is possibly the most misguided, ham fisted and sledgehammer unsubtle device to make an IMPORTANT POINT that I've seen in a long long time.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/5/06 at 12:44am

I just saw Munich -- about two hours after I saw Goodnight and Good Luck (doing my annual Oscar round-up -- still need to see Brokeback and Capote). Anyway, while I thought GNaGL was great, the memory of it is fairly obliterated by Munich. Maybe part of it is because I'm Jewish, but the movie really hit me emotionally. There's something about Spielberg's films (and this happened earlier this year for me with War of the Worlds too) that makes them STAY with me long after I leave the theater. The performances were incredible in Munich, and the plotting was extremely tense. I didn't really CARE that it might not be 100% true. The movie was made for the message, the emotion and the impact -- not to give a true account of what happened. I think it tremendously succeeded on that count.

In GNaGL -- do we really know that everything that happened there actually did? Yes, there was a lot that was actually broadcast, but I'm talking about the behind-the-scenes. And along those lines, (minor threadjack) what the heck was with the Robert Downey/Patricia Clarkson marraige story? What did that have to do with anything at all? At least Munich stayed on topic through the whole thing...

[kooky]

Posted: 2/5/06 at 9:54am

I thought MUNICH was very powerful, and Eric Bana was outstanding, not
to mention a TOTAL BABE !

[Pippin]

Posted: 2/17/06 at 5:55pm

finally saw it last night all by myself becuase no one wanted to see it with me. While I am not Jewish nor Arab, and knew nothing of the situation, I was very moved during the final moments of the film. It made me just want to sit there and not move until the credits were over and contemplate this very complex film I just saw.

that being said, it started out slow for me, and had it's shining moments, but at some points, I wanted to put my head down and close my eyes for five minutes. not becuase It was bad, but it was a lot of info to take in, and my brain was hurting. I knew nothing about the massacres until the previews for the film started to come out, and even then, I wasnt' sure what the film was really about until I saw it.

my thoughts are not really together, but all I have to say is that Eric Bana was robbed of a nomination, and I loved the points that Kushner brought up in his thoughtful script.

I saw Brokeback, and loved it, and think that it still will win best picture, but after seeing Munich, I realize that it is a much more important picture than Brokeback is, and I would love Munich to pull an upset victory.