Individual Entry: Munich
« Trying to relax | Main | Rituals and Relationships »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

December 26, 2005

Movies : Munich

Score two for thought provoking films this season.

Munich is the latest film from Steven Spielberg (the side of Spielberg that made Amistad and Schindler, not the side that made ET and Indiana Jones). It, like Syriana, is a film that asks a lot of questions and only answers a few of them, and as such it is excellent fodder for both thought an conversation.

The basis of the story is that after the massacre of the 1972 Israeli Olympic team in Munich, the Mossad (Israel's secret service) formed a special covert team with the mission to find and kill eleven people who were identified as responsible for planning and organizing the kidnapping. To ensure that their actions could not be traced back to Israel, the team was not formed with regular trained agents; but rather non-field-agent specialists with the skills that would be needed. The film follows the team through the process of successful and unsuccessful attacks, showing the toll on the individuals and the repercussions of their actions.

The film was attacked, even before release, for showing an "equivalence" between the Israeli agents and the Palestinian terrorists. Having seen the film, I think that is an unfair attack. The film is in fact careful to acknowledge the differences between the terrorists and the Mossad agents – for instance showing the agent's effort to ensure that there is no collateral damage (an effort that is not always successful) vs. the news reports of whole airplanes bombed by terrorists. However, what the film dares to ask (and not answer) is – do those acknowledged differences in methodology make a difference from a moral perspective? I think people who already have strong opinions on the subject in either direction can find all of the ammunition they require in the film, and those who have a more open mind can find plenty to consider.

The other theme of the film is the price and value of revenge – regardless of whether vengeance is morally justified; does it actually provide enough benefit to justify the costs? On this question the film provides a clear opinion – vengeance leads only to more vengeance, and the personal cost of exacting revenge is too high given the non-existent benefits. Regardless of the politics of the film, at a personal level the message is that "an eye for an eye" is a policy that will tend to leave the whole world blind.

There's another aspect of the film to consider – its relevance to 9/11. There is certainly no doubt that the United States has teams of operatives working now to track down and "bring to justice" those who were responsible for that attack. Whether you assume that these teams have as their first goal the capture of the individuals involved so the individuals can stand trial may depend on your personal politics; but I would be surprised if anyone doubted that such teams are authorized to use "deadly force" if such capture is resisted (which it almost certainly will be). So film goers who find themselves with strong reactions to this film should also consider if their reactions are consistent with their reactions to how the United States is conducting its own war on terror.

As with my review of Syriana, I will withhold my own opinions on these questions and merely encourage others to see the film for themselves.

Posted by Steven at December 26, 2005 06:50 PM