Munich, 12/26.

Today we're running David D'Arcy's contribution to the ongoing debate over Steven Spielberg's Munich in which he considers both the film and critical reaction to it before expanding the discussion even further by turning to his interview with Avi Mograbi, whose documentary, Avenge But One of My Two Eyes, takes in both the ancient Jewish story of Masada and the recent Palestinian intifadas.

In Slate, Aaron J Klein, author of Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response, a book cited in several of the pieces I'm pointing to here, including David D'Arcy's, sorts through the many differences between what's known of the facts of that response and the film, which of course, Spielberg clearly notes is not intended as history, but rather, "inspired by real events."

Stuart Klawans in the Nation: "I want to emphasize that Munich has the internal coherence of a work of art. Its politics are inseparable from its narrative themes, its characterizations, even its performances. This is a point that the film's enemies - the usual gang of hacks, sophists and hirelings - have done their best to ignore."

Jordan Elgrably, artistic director of the Levantine Cultural Center, at Alternet: "And where are we? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no closer to a solution: The military occupation of Palestinian territories is in its 38th year; the settlement movement continues apace; and all the international peace initiatives have failed.... Perhaps the recently elected Amir Peretz, who now helms the Labor Party, can lead the way.... Well into his career, after having been lionized by Hollywood, with a litany of awards too long to list, Steven Spielberg has finally made his masterpiece."

Manohla Dargis in the New York Times: "An unsparingly brutal look at two peoples all but drowning in a sea of their own blood, Munich is by far the toughest film of the director's career and the most anguished. Mr Spielberg has been pummeling audiences with his virtuosity for nearly as long as he has been making movies; now, he tenders an invitation to a discussion." Today, Edward Rothstein scoffs at the "injustice theory" at the heart of the film, arguing that it's always applied as an explanation for the origins of left-wing terrorism, never right-wing terrorism, and what's more, counter-terrorism actually works. In other words, cycle, schmycle. Yikes.

Filmbrain: "It's a shame that the polarization is strictly political, for the film's faults have little to do with Spielberg's so-called liberal viewpoint. Munich is a dumbed-down, condescending, wishy-washy take on a serious subject that is more about Spielberg's moral egotism than anything else."

Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times: "It is that desperation [for peace], that palpable sense of urgency about the need for that message right now, that is simultaneously a strength of Munich and a source of drawbacks."

Rick Groen in the Globe and Mail: "Bouncing about from one flawed movie to another, Steven Spielberg has lost his way of late, and Munich finds him more disoriented than ever."

Mick LaSalle in the San Francisco Chronicle: "In the Spielberg filmography, "Munich" may go down as something along the order of Hitchcock's Topaz, another chilly, well-made, historically based suspense drama, made as a response to the madness of the world situation."

James Rocchi at Cinematical: "Spielberg doesn't attain greatness here, but the attempt is fascinating to watch."

Jim Tudor at Twitch: "[T]he film works not only as a realistic assassination tale and a political allegory for today's world, but also as perhaps the most definitively 'Spielberg' film in years."

Andy Klein in the LA CityBeat: "Even if all the parts are terrific, might the whole not have been better with fewer of them?"

Posted by dwhudson at December 26, 2005 5:30 AM