You gotta hand it to Steven Spielberg. The man knows how to create "unexpected" controversy with his serious pictures.
Schindler's List offered a portrayl of the Holocaust that many had not seen outside of archival footage and pictures. It showed not only the naivety in the Jews in their belief that the Nazis could not wipe them completely out, but also how light can even exist in the darkest corners of human existance.
Saving Private Ryan showed not the glamours, but the hardships, gruesomeness, and painful realities of war that exist on the battlefields, the things that no one wants to talk about. One controversy was that it showed those kinds of images from what we have called our Greatest War.
Munich is going to do the same thing that Schindler and Ryan both did: garner controversy. How? By shedding a light on the one thing we do not want to see in the terrorists we have come to know today through our media: the human side. (warning: spoilers below)
Spielberg was wise to state at the beginning that this film was "inspired by real events," rather than "based." If the latter had been used, the controversy surrounding this movie would be a lot greater than it is now. At a time when all we are accustomed to are seeing terrorists with rags on their heads, scarves on their faces, and an Arabian accent, the film gives us a look at the terrorists that many seem to have refused to see. This film, while taking its cue from the Munich massacre of 1972 where 11 Israeli Olympic Athletes were murdered at the hands of a radical Islamic group called Black September, highlights the Israeli Five who were hired by their government to attack those responsible for Black September.
In other words, Spielberg, 12 years after defending the Jews in his exposure of the horrors of the Holocaust, puts the shoe on the other foot.
These five men, like it or not, based on their actions and orders, are hitmen for a government bent on revenge, much like how a lot of Palestinian terrorists are hitmen (or women) themselves in their thirst for revenge and justice. But, what Spielberg does is not make these people one-dimensional characters. He conveys images meant for us to interpret that these people, and even those they are assigned to kill, are just that: people. Human. Not the crazy monsters our governments and media personalities want us to always envision, but as human beings, who laugh, who cry, who talk about every-day things.
A lot of the same Jews that rose to Spielberg's defense and praised him for his work on Schindler's List are likely to condemn him for not only having his primary focus be on the Israelis who, let's be frank, murdered those their government said was behind the planning of Black September, but also showing a softer, more human, side to those Arabs that these Israelis are assigned to kill. Spielberg mentions over and over again reasons why the Five are ordered to kill these people. Yet, despite offering small rationalizations as to why they deserve what is coming to them, the dialogue and images we see make it hard for us to have this blinding hatred that so many on the Right would want us to have with these people.
The first person they kill, for example, is seen in a market square in Italy, offering a small seminar to students on the intrepretation of Arabian Nights. He's a teacher, and is duly thanked by the students as the Five spy on him and wait for their moment. Then, in a secluded hallway, as the lead character Avner and his partner pull their guns on him, the old man with groceries on one hand looks feeble, making his killing less glorifying than others would hope it to be. However, we do see the men celebrating their accomplishment, some more than others, further fueling on our feelings on the matter.
Another one is a Palestinian activist who is seen giving an interview, talking about the horrors inflicted upon his people, including a massacre that left more than 200 Palestinians dead and not a conciliatory word being given to them about it. Though he appears as a man trying to help give the best he can for his people, Spielberg again changes course slightly, where Avner is told that this man was a planner for Black September and also orchestrated a previous terrorist bombing. Still, you can't help but feel this human connection to this person the Five are about to off. But, not to leave the Five out, Spielberg also shows their human rather than monstrous side when two of them find out that the man's daughter is near their bomb, and race frantically (and successfully) to stop their comrades from detonating it. They, however, still detonate it and kill the man after the child leaves.
Avnar, the leader in this gang of five, goes through an array of emotions, and throughout the movie, you find it hard to not like this guy despite his heinous acts, and yet you cannot be totally taken in by the monstrousity he is leading to commit either. His tears for his child's first words are real, just as he is reliving the rampage he has created. But, you can also at times sense him losing his humanity bit by bit. The killing of the teenage guard in a failed assassination attempt of the Black September main planner is enough to make him want to stop this operation before he lost anymore of himself.
There are a couple great things about this movie that are likely to piss off the Right and their ongoing quest to eliminate the terrorists. One is how even in a justified response to the massacre at Munich, the government cannot be truthful to even those it sends into battle. It is later learned that some the government targeted for the Five to kill were not actually directly responsible for Black September. They were merely tactical killings for not only other things they did before, but what the government believed they were planning to do. It's the old "fight them there so we don't fight them here" argument. Avnar is, of course, less than pleased, but Ephraim (played outstandingly by Geoffrey Rush), the man responsible for the mission, gleefully informs Avnar that this is what needed to be done, to show the world and Israel that terrorism would not be permitted and will be attacked head on.
Another great point is that Spielberg shows how certain sources may end up helping you but could also be spelling certain doom behind your back. The French sources that Avnar relies on are strictly businessmen who work for the highest bidder, regardless of sides. The issue takes center stage when Avnar realizes that he has also become a marked man for the bombings he instigated, not just by the Arabs, but by even those outside parties that have an interest in those Avnar is out to kill. Actions do indeed have consequences that you may not be prepared to deal with.
The strongest point that the film conveys lends credence to the argument that has been made here and on many other blogs for so freakin' long: you cannot kill all the terrorists. More importantly, after you kill one, another one springs up to take their place, and so on and so on. It is a never-ending cycle of violence, and it shows the irrationality of those whose only explanation after being confronted with that fact is to never stop killing, ever! What a sad, evil way to live, and yet for many on the Right, that seems to be the only alternative to dealing with this threat. Another, even sadder, likely possibility is shown in the film: when Avnar confronts Ephraim with the belief that Ephraim and the government knew all along that new terrorists would keep on coming and filling in the spaces left by those Avnar and others have killed, Ephraim responds as if to say, "yeah, and if so, that's the way it shall be."
Munich is coming at a pivotal time in our nation's history, as we head into our fifth year in the War on Terror, with the knowledge that our government has knowingly circumvented laws to suit its own needs and a growing public apathy over the way this "war" is going. Spielberg's film portrays how a perpetual cycle of violence and death is spun day in and day out, and yet in the end, we are essentially killing human beings, people who act and dress in a manner that we can relate to. The one question that is left unanswered is: how can this cycle stop?
The answer, if it does exist, is not so easy to come by, and is purposefully left open for us to ponder - the by-product of a great film.