Remembering Munich

This reflection also appears at www.theThoughtfulChristian.blogspot.com, the blog site for the new ecumenical online resource center, The Thoughtful Christian (www.theThoughtfulChristian.com). The Thoughtful Christian offers an innovative adult Christian education program that contains downloadable studies in Bible and theology, Christian living, spirituality, popular culture, and contemporary issues. The Thoughtful Christian also contains a study session on Munich. For more information, visit www.theThoughtfulChristian.com.

Munich, the Oscar-nominated film from director Steven Spielberg, created a wave of controversy upon its release at the end of 2005. Although the film received a few negative reviews, it still finished the year with a higher overall rating from the nation’s top critics than Crash, which ultimately took home the Oscar for Best Picture (from a survey of thirty of the nation’s top critics in Premiere magazine’s January 2006 issue).

Munich is Spielberg’s account of the aftermath of the 1972 shootings of eleven Israeli athletes during the Olympic games in Munich. (Two athletes were initially killed and nine were taken hostage. When German authorities seized the airport, where the Palestinian terrorists were holding the Israeli hostages, shots broke out and the hostages were all killed.) The acclaimed director and award-winning writers Tony Kushner and Eric Roth based their screenplay largely from the book, Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team by George Jonas and received Oscar nominations for their work. The film chronicles the Israeli government’s decision to hire an unofficial team of assassins to kill the Palestinians responsible for the deaths of the Olympic athletes and follows the exploits of the assassins as they travel the globe seeking vengeance. The opening sequences in the film include actual black and white footage from the original American newscast reported by Jim McKay, giving the film added authenticity.

The film is brilliant in the way that it succeeds as both a political thriller and an intelligent commentary on the uncompromising positions that serve as the catalysts for the endless cycle of violence that has persisted in the Middle East for many decades. Although there are several nicely constructed action sequences, the film is one of Spielberg’s most solemn pieces of work along with Schlinder’s List and Saving Private.

Munich suggests that the problems vexing the region are not as one-sided as either Israel or Palestine would have us believe. There are Israeli murderers, and there are Palestinian murderers. The history involving the Jewish and Palestinian occupation and entitlement to land and territories in the Middle East is long and complicated and includes numerous accounts of death and destruction. The United States government and many others believe that Israeli occupation of those territories is absolutely essential to that country’s protection from Palestinian terrorist groups. Others, however, believe that Palestinian resistance within the West Bank and Gaza Strip is justified as a result of a United Nations charter and stipulations in the Geneva conventions. The complexity of the conflict, which is the backdrop of Munich, is implied in conversations between Israeli government officials early in the film and again during a key conversation between an Israeli and Palestinian near the end of the film.

Spielberg, an American Jew, is now a paragon of commercial and critical success in Hollywood. The director is immensely respected throughout the industry, and his success has afforded him the opportunity to take the political and the commercial risks to produce and direct a project such as Munich. This film was particularly risky given the heavily Jewish Hollywood community, the changing political climate within the movie industry, and the influence and wrath of conservative commentators Michael Medved, Bill O’Reilly, and others, who were all-too eager to criticize the director. Medved and O’Reilly, in particular, devoted extensive time on their radio and television talk shows to discuss the liberalism in Hollywood immediately upon the release of the film. In one of the single-most ridiculous statements in film criticism in 2005, Michael Medved referred to Munich as one of the worst films of the year. The sociopolitical commentator and film critic was so proud of his claim that his quote indicating his disapproval of the film played repeatedly during his show’s commercials as recently as April 2006.

Munich prompts American Christians to consider the evolution of terrorism and its enormous consequences and challenges us to ponder appropriate responses to it. In addition, it is that rare film today that explores serious issues by presenting us with the black and white and the gray while moving us to experience a wide range of emotions. This is an achievement in itself, for we live in an age in which the discourse on the most important issues of the day is conducted on the simplest of levels. One of the more impressive aspects of the film is the way it depicts the transformation of Avner, the leader of the team of assassins. He contemplates the merits of his mission and questions his own Jewish faith tradition. Spielberg uses the plot point to ask the audience to consider the sins that people commit, the actions they commit in the name of religion, or how faith can move us to a new understanding. The dialogue in a memorable scene involving a Palestinian and an Israeli talking about the continuing conflict in their land is insightful. When both men finish speaking, viewers are compelled to at least seriously reflect upon Spielberg’s contention that “killing and counterkillings as a response to a response doesn’t really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual motion machine. There’s been a quagmire of blood for blood for many decades in that region. Where will it end?”

The director’s assertion became the launching point for neo-conservative commentator David Brooks’s widely-read op-ed piece in the December 11, 2005 edition of The New York Times. Brooks took Spielberg to task for creating a false world in his film, a world in which there is no evil. In true neo-conservative fashion, Brooks writes, “But in the real Middle East the only way to achieve peace is through military victory over the fanatics, accompanied by compromise between the reasonable elements on each side.” In the world of David Brooks, evil exists within all those who rise in opposition to entrenched imperialistic forces and the U.S. and the only way to rid the world of evil is to resort to violence. In a sense he tells us that he knows the Palestinians who plant bombs are evil and fanatical, pure and simple. Underlying his argument is a deep bias against the Palestinian cause and unflinching allegiance to U.S. policy, which includes supplying Israel with weapons and military. To watch the cautiously balanced Munich and to conclude that Spielberg doesn’t recognize the existence of evil is to place the term squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinians and to fail to recognize the different types of evil and the theological distinctions between them. Where are the Christian principles in this notion? As Christians we must categorically reject the notion by Mr. Brooks, for we are called to love God and our neighbors and to understand the differences between natural and intrinsic evil and physical and moral evil. Unfortunately, thousands of people may have read the column by Mr. Brooks and consciously or unconsciously accepted his view as the truth without ever exploring the theological distinctions between the types of evil. Readers of the column may have missed what I think may be one of Spielberg’s message to us, that the term “evil” can be used to describe the actions of both Palestinians and Israelis.

In the film’s final scene, Avner, the lead assassin, meets face to face with Ephraim, an Israeli government official, in a park in New York City. Avner tells Ephraim that he cannot return to work for the Israeli government after his experience but then asks Ephraim to have dinner with him and his family. “Won’t you break bread with me?” he asks. Ephraim declines his invitation. Spielberg then brilliantly draws our eyes to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center that appear in the background, conjuring up images of 9/11 and the heinous attack on American soil. Munich is as much a retelling of the vengeance and counter-terrorism tactics sought by Golda Meier and the Israeli government as it is an anti-war and terrorism statement that presents in full view the powerful parallel that exists between the events that transpired after the Munich games and the U.S. government’s response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. In the final moments of the film, the two men walk their separate ways, choosing not to “break bread with one another,” reminding us of the pain and isolation associated with conflict and our own refusal to break down the walls that divide us so that we can “break bread” with all whom the one God has created.

More Balanced Storytelling Needed for Promising Superman Returns

Superman Returns arrives in theaters nearly twenty years after Superman IV, the flat fourth installment of the Christopher Reeve capers. Superman, the first movie in the series, featured the relative newcomer Reeves and an all-star cast that included screen legends such as Marlon Brando, Jackie Cooper, and Glenn Ford and one in the making in Hackman. Superman Returns is more similar in its tone to the first film than the three subsequent films, which were progressively worse. At nearly two hours and forty-five minutes, Superman Returns is long and somewhat ambitious for a film of this genre, but it is not quite the rousing success this viewer anticipated.

Superman Returns was directed by Bryan Singer, a seasoned and talented albeit young filmmaker. The thirty-seven-year-old, who directed Usual Suspects and the first two X-Men movies, jettisoned his directorial duties on the third mutant film in order to preside over this project. His passion for the story is evident, but there is a lack of clarity and exactness in the storytelling and editing that prevent this film from being the summer spectacle it should have been. In the opening moments of the film viewers have the opportunity to hear words from Marlon Brando’s Jor-El character, but his words are garbled here. Only the most ardent Superman fans will understand his character’s words and their significance. Shortly thereafter, Superman literally returns to his grandmother’s backyard, but the explanation given for his return is murky at best. In addition, there’s a general lack of attention to the details surrounding Lex Luther’s escape from his predicament in the earlier films and his maniacal plots to use kryptonite to kill Superman and to destroy most of the world’s population.

The production of Superman Returns has a storied history that dates back at least one decade and involves multiple tales of cast changes and a revolving door of directors, screenwriters, and producers. (Alias creator and Mission Impossible director J.J. Abrams and Nicolas Cage were once attached to the project.) When the carousel of top directors in the running finally stopped, Singer, fresh off rave reviews from his X-Men pictures, was the last one standing.

Singer’s film is both a revision of the 1978 and 1980 movies and a continuation of the story that unfolded during the course of the earlier movies. And this might be the problem. A major plot point in Superman Returns is the relationship between Lois Lane, an investigative reporter, and Superman, which has supposedly cooled since the events of the earlier films. When we see Lois Lane here, she is engaged to an associate editor at the newspaper and she has a young son, whose paternity is in question. He may or may not be the product of an encounter between Superman and Lois Lane. This sudsy component to the Superman Returns story takes center stage, and while the performances are entertaining and engaging, the length of time devoted to that portion of the story prevents the audience from understanding other crucial elements of the saga.

Superman Returns boasts a solid cast that includes newcomers and veterans. Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth, both emerging from near anonymity, deliver satisfying and engaging performances. They are as fresh and likable as Reeves and Margot Kidder were in their star-turning roles and arguably have as much on-camera chemistry as the two previous actors. Kevin Spacey is reliable and competent as the loud and diabolical Lex Luther. The slick and over-the-top villain is accompanied by a comedic and slightly dim-witted sidekick, nicely played by Parker Posey. Spacey and Posey are two tremendously talented performers who unfortunately need much more to do than this screenplay allows. Frank Langella, James Marsden, and Eva Marie Saint round out the cast.

Superman Returns is far less clear in the way it addresses themes of justice for the marginalized, call, and vocation than a movie like X-Men. Like the original X-Men movie by Singer, Superman Returns is most concerned with establishing its characters and their motivations for future films that promise more substantive storytelling. Singer benefited from a tightly written screenplay in the original X-Men movie and could have used that same precision and narrative clarity and focus in the screenplay for Superman Returns, which he has written with Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris. These weaknesses prevent Superman Returns from joining X-Men 2, Spider-man 2, and Batman Begins as the superior films in this rapidly expanding genre. Nevertheless, Superman Returns is above-average entertainment that impresses and enthralls us more often than not. Its director’s vision and passion may well be enough for this broad movie for the masses to best most of the competition in what has so far been a lackluster and disappointing summer at the movies.

Grade: B-

NEWS AND NOTES

Weekly Box Office Report

Below are gross ticket sales of the five highest grossing movies as of Friday, June 30. Year-to-date grosses have also been included.

Superman Returns $52.5 million $108.1million
The Devil Wears Prada $27.5 million $40.1 million
Click $19.9 million $87.6 million
Cars $14.6 million $190 million
Nacho Libre $6.6 million $68.5 million

Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman have agreed to star in The Bucket List. They will play two terminally ill men who set out to complete a wish list of activities before they die.

The much anticipated sequel, Pirates of the Carribean will open on Friday, July 7. The film will star Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, and Keira Knightley. It was directed by Gore Verbinski.

Katie Cassidy, daughter of former teen idol David Cassidy, has reportedly won the part of Lucy Ewing in the motion picture adaptation of Dallas. Rumors are circulating that Cassidy won the part over Jessica Simpson and several other actresses. John Travolta has already signed on to star in the film.

Leonardo DiCaprio is pursuing the possibility of playing Tim Leary in a film that Craig Lucas (The Dying Gaul) is slated to direct.

Chow Yun-Fat and Gong Li are set to star in Curse of the Golden Flower. Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon and The House of Flying Daggers were huge worldwide hits, and studio insiders predict the same sort of success for this upcoming film.