Munich
—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Eric Bana)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads
We live in a world filled with violence. It ranges from violence within homes and in our streets to global violence in the form of terrorism and war. It would be naïve to think that violence will end easily if at all. It may be that we should come to grips with the idea that violence is a part of our world. On the other hand, violence is often senseless and, it could be argued, inherently sinful, even if justifiable. How then should we respond to the violence in the world? Steven Spielberg’s film Munich is an examination of some of the issues involved in violence and our response.
enlargeIn 1972, a Palestinian terrorist group, Black September, took Israeli athletes hostage in the Olympic Village in Munich. The twenty-one hour ordeal was watched around the world. In the end, nearly all the terrorists and all the athletes were killed.
It has been rumored, but never officially acknowledged, that Israel sent assassination squads to kill those involved in the planning of the Munich attack. The decision (at least in the film) is made by Prime Minister Meir to show the world that Israel will not allow such terrorism. She says in the film, “Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.� This is a very true statement. We do that negotiation day by day as to which of our values we will compromise. Often we will be able to stand by those values, but are there times when we do need to set our values aside for other values?
Avner is the leader of an assassin squad. To do this, he must leave Israel and his pregnant wife until his job is finished. For him this is a great sacrifice, not only because of his wife and coming child, but because he sees himself as a child of Israel. He is a Sabra (native Israeli) raised on a kibbutz. He is deeply committed to the nation, which is why he accepts this assignment. Along with four others, they seek eleven men identified by their superiors with involvement in the Munich attack. They don’t ask for evidence. There have been no trials. They trust their country.
All in the group believe in what they are doing. But even with that belief, there are times when their consciences ask questions. Karl is the one who usually asks hard questions – not so much because he has doubts, but because the questions need to be asked. The others would just as soon put the questions out of their minds; it is hard to do such work with doubts about its legitimacy.
They begin killing their targets, but in response, more terrorism is aimed at Israel. In time the assassins become targets as well. Israel, perhaps justifiably, chose to respond to Munich with violence. It is no surprise that when important Palestinians were killed, that Palestinian groups responded with violence as well. That is one of the dangers of violence and revenge – it begets itself. Mohandas Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.� Once we commit to revenge as the response to violence, it continues a cycle that can go on ad infinitum.
But a more important issue is not just what is right or wrong (or even if right and wrong are categories that can be considered), but what does taking part in violence do to those involved? At one point, as all the violence begins to wear on the agents, one of them, Robert, a bomb maker, begins to question if this is appropriate for Israel on the basis of righteousness. Through all the suffering that Jews had endured through the centuries, the one thing they were able to hold onto was being righteous. Was what they were doing now righteous, or did it destroy their righteousness? Were these assassins becoming what they were trying to destroy? Were they, because they had a possibly justifiable cause, better than those they killed?
Spielberg (along with writers Tony Kushner and Eric Roth) have crafted an historical fiction that not only sheds light on the events of that time, but also allow us to see the way these issues continue to be important in our world. Some will criticize this film because it calls into question Israel’s response to violence and also America’s response to violence in the post-9/11 world. To be sure, the issues of the film encourage us to ask questions of ourselves. Like Karl’s questioning, it may be what keeps us from falling into the same errors that drive terrorist to do the evil they do.
One of my questions going into the film was how fair it was to the various nations or peoples involved. The Israeli justification for their (alleged) use of assassin squads is given a good hearing, first among Meir and her advisers, and later in the mouths of some in the squad and in their handler, Ephraim. Israel lives in a hostile environment. Since the nation came into existence in 1948, its neighbors have tried to destroy the nation. In recent years Israel has come to an uneasy peace with some of its neighbors, but there are many forces still arrayed against them. Israel sees itself as fighting for its very existence.
Through the use of violence in response to violence, Israel not only hopes to eliminate those who have acted against them, but also deter those who might act against them. The question of deterrence is always unanswerable. One never knows how many chose not to act because of possible consequences. It is also hard to balance the unknown number deterred and the unknown number that choose to acts in response to the violence.
The film doesn’t make a judgment on Israel’s justification for the decision to use violence in this way. But it does ask us to consider the validity of that justification.
As we think of Israel’s justification, it also leads us to consider our own nation’s justification for our responses to violence. Are we justified in the things we are doing in the name of a war on terror? If we are justified, is it still the right path to take, or will it only add to the cycle of violence in our world leading in time to our total blindness? Are we qualitatively different from those who use violence against us?
The voice that is given only a passing hearing in the film is that of the Palestinians. To be sure, there is not adequate justification for the killing of innocents as happened at Munich. That does not mean that the Palestinian people do not have legitimate grievances that need to be addressed. There is a brief encounter in the film with a group of PLO operatives that allows their perspective to be mentioned, but only serves to emphasize their dedication to their struggle with Israel.
Munich is both timely and timeless as it deals with issues of violence and revenge. It doesn’t attempt to give any easy answers. It does makes us ask questions though – not only in a theoretical sense, but also to apply those questions to the world and nation in which we live. Munich will certainly be toward the top of my favorites list this year.
— Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Eric Bana)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads
We live in a world filled with violence. It ranges from violence within homes and in our streets to global violence in the form of terrorism and war. It would be naïve to think that violence will end easily if at all. It may be that we should come to grips with the idea that violence is a part of our world. On the other hand, violence is often senseless and, it could be argued, inherently sinful, even if justifiable. How then should we respond to the violence in the world? Steven Spielberg’s film Munich is an examination of some of the issues involved in violence and our response.enlargeIn 1972, a Palestinian terrorist group, Black September, took Israeli athletes hostage in the Olympic Village in Munich. The twenty-one hour ordeal was watched around the world. In the end, nearly all the terrorists and all the athletes were killed.
It has been rumored, but never officially acknowledged, that Israel sent assassination squads to kill those involved in the planning of the Munich attack. The decision (at least in the film) is made by Prime Minister Meir to show the world that Israel will not allow such terrorism. She says in the film, “Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.� This is a very true statement. We do that negotiation day by day as to which of our values we will compromise. Often we will be able to stand by those values, but are there times when we do need to set our values aside for other values?
Avner is the leader of an assassin squad. To do this, he must leave Israel and his pregnant wife until his job is finished. For him this is a great sacrifice, not only because of his wife and coming child, but because he sees himself as a child of Israel. He is a Sabra (native Israeli) raised on a kibbutz. He is deeply committed to the nation, which is why he accepts this assignment. Along with four others, they seek eleven men identified by their superiors with involvement in the Munich attack. They don’t ask for evidence. There have been no trials. They trust their country.
All in the group believe in what they are doing. But even with that belief, there are times when their consciences ask questions. Karl is the one who usually asks hard questions – not so much because he has doubts, but because the questions need to be asked. The others would just as soon put the questions out of their minds; it is hard to do such work with doubts about its legitimacy.
They begin killing their targets, but in response, more terrorism is aimed at Israel. In time the assassins become targets as well. Israel, perhaps justifiably, chose to respond to Munich with violence. It is no surprise that when important Palestinians were killed, that Palestinian groups responded with violence as well. That is one of the dangers of violence and revenge – it begets itself. Mohandas Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.� Once we commit to revenge as the response to violence, it continues a cycle that can go on ad infinitum.
But a more important issue is not just what is right or wrong (or even if right and wrong are categories that can be considered), but what does taking part in violence do to those involved? At one point, as all the violence begins to wear on the agents, one of them, Robert, a bomb maker, begins to question if this is appropriate for Israel on the basis of righteousness. Through all the suffering that Jews had endured through the centuries, the one thing they were able to hold onto was being righteous. Was what they were doing now righteous, or did it destroy their righteousness? Were these assassins becoming what they were trying to destroy? Were they, because they had a possibly justifiable cause, better than those they killed?
Spielberg (along with writers Tony Kushner and Eric Roth) have crafted an historical fiction that not only sheds light on the events of that time, but also allow us to see the way these issues continue to be important in our world. Some will criticize this film because it calls into question Israel’s response to violence and also America’s response to violence in the post-9/11 world. To be sure, the issues of the film encourage us to ask questions of ourselves. Like Karl’s questioning, it may be what keeps us from falling into the same errors that drive terrorist to do the evil they do.
One of my questions going into the film was how fair it was to the various nations or peoples involved. The Israeli justification for their (alleged) use of assassin squads is given a good hearing, first among Meir and her advisers, and later in the mouths of some in the squad and in their handler, Ephraim. Israel lives in a hostile environment. Since the nation came into existence in 1948, its neighbors have tried to destroy the nation. In recent years Israel has come to an uneasy peace with some of its neighbors, but there are many forces still arrayed against them. Israel sees itself as fighting for its very existence.
Through the use of violence in response to violence, Israel not only hopes to eliminate those who have acted against them, but also deter those who might act against them. The question of deterrence is always unanswerable. One never knows how many chose not to act because of possible consequences. It is also hard to balance the unknown number deterred and the unknown number that choose to acts in response to the violence.
The film doesn’t make a judgment on Israel’s justification for the decision to use violence in this way. But it does ask us to consider the validity of that justification.
As we think of Israel’s justification, it also leads us to consider our own nation’s justification for our responses to violence. Are we justified in the things we are doing in the name of a war on terror? If we are justified, is it still the right path to take, or will it only add to the cycle of violence in our world leading in time to our total blindness? Are we qualitatively different from those who use violence against us?
The voice that is given only a passing hearing in the film is that of the Palestinians. To be sure, there is not adequate justification for the killing of innocents as happened at Munich. That does not mean that the Palestinian people do not have legitimate grievances that need to be addressed. There is a brief encounter in the film with a group of PLO operatives that allows their perspective to be mentioned, but only serves to emphasize their dedication to their struggle with Israel.
Munich is both timely and timeless as it deals with issues of violence and revenge. It doesn’t attempt to give any easy answers. It does makes us ask questions though – not only in a theoretical sense, but also to apply those questions to the world and nation in which we live. Munich will certainly be toward the top of my favorites list this year.
— Overview
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home