View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Chris Reed |
January 27th, 2006
Munich’s box office so far is closer to Fat Albert than Forrest Gump.
It was inevitable: the growing evidence that Munich is a box-office bomb is being characterized as a triumph for reactionary, duplicitous pundits who trashed the film’s message and claims to historical accuracy from the first screening.
“We live in a time where there is a very loud and strong right-wing constituency that is hellbent on suppressing any of this kind of dialogue,” whined Munich producer Kathleen Kennedy in Monday’s Los Angeles Times.
If Munich’s poor public reception didn’t stem from the “vitriol” and “virulent attacks” of the vast right-wing conspiracy, wrote L.A. Times reporter Rachel Abramowitz, then perhaps it was because of a principled decision to market the film as a lofty intellectual discourse instead of a “pulse-pounding thriller.”
But here’s a novel idea: Maybe the reason Munich’s box office so far is closer to Fat Albert than Forrest Gump isn’t because of bile or marketing blunders. It’s because no matter what most critics insist, Munich isn’t a good movie.
Far from being a “pulse-pounding thriller,” it is ponderous and bloated at two hours, 44 minutes. Beyond its sluggishness, Munich has basic problems with storytelling. Here are two obvious examples of why Munich isn’t getting the positive word of mouth that would turn it into a hit:
– A central element of the plot — the relationship between Israeli commando Avner Kauffman (Eric Bana) and “Papa” (Michael Lonsdale), the French underworld figure who supplies information on the Palestinian terrorists marked for death by the Mossad — is nonsensical. Spielberg and lead screenwriter Tony Kushner hint at a father-son dynamic between the two, suggesting Kauffman somehow sees Papa as following an admirable ethical code, reflected in Papa’s assertion that he only sells secret data to individuals, never governments.
Huh? So we’re supposed to believe that in the 1970s, there were lots of free-agent operatives throwing around hundreds of thousands of dollars to get black-market dirt on spies and terrorists they wanted dead? Yet instead of seeing this as a convenient fiction that allows Papa to sell information to all sides –- to whichever government has the cash — Kauffman takes it so seriously that he looks up to Papa. He does so even as he hands him hundreds of thousands of dollars in Israeli cash. So Kauffman deeply admires the principled Papa even as he dupes him? So Spielberg somehow offers up a French snitch as the moral center of his film? This is laughable.
– A crucial final scene — in which Kauffman has frenzied sex with his wife while flashing back to Black September’s slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the Munich airport in 1972 — is baffling. What is this juxtaposition of sweaty intercourse and remorseless carnage supposed to mean? That only lovemaking can set Kauffman free of his demons? That he is procreating to replace dead Israelis? That Spielberg didn’t care if the sequence was both lurid and goofy, it sure was eye-catching?
Whatever the scene’s point, it was awfully derivative of the conclusion of Altered States, screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky’s 1980 ode to hallucinogenic experimentation. William Hurt’s mad-scientist character has delirious visions during sex with Blair Brown’s loving-wife character, only to be brought back to reality through her patient ministrations. This is the sort of drivel Spielberg is cribbing from?
Despite these obvious flaws, Anthony Lane of The New Yorker and Todd McCarthy of Variety were pretty much alone among the nation’s influential critics in questioning Munich’s aesthetic merits. Instead, gushing was the norm — led, as always, by Roger Ebert, the popular and powerful critic who has emerged in recent years as one of most reliably left-wing voices in the American media. Not only was making the film an “act of courage and conscience” on Spielberg’s part, Ebert informed us, Munich is such an exciting, effective thriller that it can fairly be called “heart-stopping.”
Sorry, Roger. No sale. Instead, just as McCarthy predicted in Variety six weeks ago, “members of the general public [watching Munich] will be glancing at their watches rather than having epiphanies about world peace.”
That’s not the fault of David Brooks or Charles Krauthammer. That’s all on Steven Spielberg.
chris.reed@uniontrib.com
Visit their website at: http://www.uniontrib.com
Responses to "Maybe “Munich” is a Bomb Because … It’s a Bad Movie"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Good review. Wow, what a concept. The movie was formulaic drivel w/ gratuitous sex. Typical. For some reason the (intolerant) left/Hollywood crowd can't look in the mirror so they blame those evil right-wingers for failures in the arena of ideas. I was a bit miffed about your assessment of Altered States. I remember that movie. Of course back in 1980 (year?) when it was in theaters, I was on a drug-induced haze and thought Blair Brown was hot. So, maybe you’ve got a point.
Comment by Mike Carlson | January 27, 2006
Munich like Alter States was drivel . Why not show something closer to reality. A nation is enraged by mindless violence and demands justice when the rest of the world does not have enough backbone to stand up. Show all of the cowardly terrorists brought to final justice.
Just as these movies bombed so will Hollywood latest piece of trash Brokeback Mountain.
No one in their right mind want to see it.
Comment by gboettner | January 29, 2006
It's kind of weird: all of a sudden, our political leanings are determined by what movies we see. If we don't spend our money to see Munich, we're right wing reactionaries afraid of the truth. And if we don't see Brokeback Mountain, we're homophobes.
I went to the movies about three times all of last year, and none of the movies I saw were of the genre of either Munich or BM. Yet some would assume that there is something to be said about me (other, perhaps, than my taste in movies), because I haven't seen Munich or BM.
Comment by Dana Pico | January 29, 2006
i enjoyed both munich and brokeback mountain quite a bit. i enjoyed munich more for the setting than anything else though, i love spy movies and this one reminded me very much of ronin. what i took from the sex scene is that avner is unable to escape from the munich killings, even in something as personal and removed from them as sex. i agree that this scene was not particularly tasteful though.
as for brokeback mountain, to say that no one in their right mind would want to see it is ignorant and foolish. i thought the moviemakers and actors, especially heath ledger, did an amazing job. i wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone who doesn't want to see it is homophobic, but to assume that it will be garbage based on the central theme of the film, a homosexual relationship, is close-minded.
Comment by tom gabel | February 1, 2006
I don't think that Steven Spielberg really cares if Munich is as "popular" a movie as Forrest Gump.
Who says the "popular" movies are good anyways? The crux of your argument that the
relationship between Kauffman and Papa and the sex scene with his wife are essential pieces of
the movie misses Speilberg's overarching themes of the moral dilemna Kauffman faces and how
violence only brings about more violence. You ask questions at the end of your paragraphs trying
to understand what these parts mean and that is exactly the point of the film. Plus, if you didn't
think the movie was "good", it provoked you enough to write about it.
Comment by Rafael Martinez | February 14, 2006
"Munich" wasn in my opinion, not the best movie that
Steven Spielberg was capable of making. The interplay
between the characters was good, and I am a fan of
Ciaran Hinds; but the tone of the movie–that the retaliation
against terrorists was morally equivalent to terrorism itself–
was simply not a legitimate argument. Were that the case,
self defense is not morally defensible, and unprovoked
aggression is not morally reprehensible. I would like to
think that Mr. Spielberg is too intelligent to advocate
such a self-destructive position, but my faith in Hollywood
types has been severely tested and found wanting.
Regarding the sex scene (I hesitate to call it a love scene)
at the end, where it appears that Kauffman cannot exorcise
his personal demons even in the midst of intimate congress
with his wife, perhaps Mr. Spielberg could take a lesson from
director Edward Zwick, where, in his movie "The Last Samurai,"
Zwick shows uncommon and very welcome taste, discretion,
and class when Tom Cruise's Captain Algren is being dressed
for battle by Taka (played by Japanese actress Koyuki), the
widow of a samurai he has killed in battle. In a scene both
touching and poignant, Taka pauses, and she and Algren share
a passionate kiss–and then she resumes helping Algren into
her dead husband's armor. I found that this scene better
illustrated the intimacy, respect, and love between two
people than any sex I have ever seen on film. Clearly, Spielberg
is out of his league.
Comment by Lane Russell | June 11, 2006