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

In the closing scene of Munich, Director Stephen Spielberg’s new film about Israel’s purported counter-terrorist response to the massacre at the 1972 Olympics, we see a shot of a 1974 Manhattan skyline from the shores of Brooklyn. Two gleaming new towers of the World Trade Center, finished in 1973, sparkle in the distance.

Reaction to this scene, and the film as a whole, underscore the controversy that rages in our world today about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, terrorist actions and the “war on terrorism� as well as what it means to be a person of faith in a world of violence.

Conservatives have accused Spielberg, and screenwriters Tony Kushner (Angels in America) and Eric Roth (Forrest Gump), of suggesting that Americans have brought the World Trade Center bombings upon themselves through their policies in the Middle East. Liberals have countered that the scene reveals the filmmakers’ deep-seated anti-Palestinian bias, because Palestinians had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. Some of the harshest criticism has come from those who praised Spielberg the most for his last Oscar-winning best picture, Schindler’s List.

Although Munich is not without its flaws, this 2-hour and 44-minute film ranks among the year’s best. It is an engaging, if not historically accurate, political thriller that is provoking discussion of the most-talked about moral questions of our day.

The film begins with archival TV footage intermixed with reactions to the events in Israeli and Palestinian homes. Yet, Munich seeks to tell what happened after the massacre at the1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany. Members of Black September, a Palestinian terrorist organization, killed 11 Israeli athletes they had taken hostage in the Olympic village. The film is “inspired by real events� based on the 1984 book by George Jonas: “Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team.� Written on testimony by a reputed former Israeli intelligence agent, the book has been discredited in some circles. But that doesn’t diminish the power of Munich to immerse viewers into the compelling story of Avner Kauffman (Eric Bana), an Israeli Sabra (native-born Israeli), son of a Zionist hero and former bodyguard to the prime minister.

“Munich changed everything,� one Israeli intelligence official tells Avner, voicing a conclusion eerily similar to what Americans have said about the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed, much as Spielberg has said he would not have made his earlier film this year, War of the Worlds, apart from the changed worldview since 2001, it is impossible to view Munich other than through the experiences of a generation to follow.

Avner is asked to lead a secret effort, disassociated from Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, to hunt down and kill 11 Palestinians known to be in Europe who were involved in planning the Munich terrorist attacks. Grieving once more over “Jews dead in Germany� while the world watches, seemingly immobilized, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier (Lynn Cohen) is portrayed as approving the secret effort. “Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values,� she says.

As leader of a team of five men who are not known to be paramilitaries, Avner and the others frequently debate the morality of their actions – something that was unquestionably viewed as morally correct by those purported to have been involved. “Strange, isn’t it, to think of oneself as an assassin?� one says. “Think of yourself as something else then – a soldier in a war,� comes the response.

After the first targeted killing, the counter-terrorists debate biblical interpretation of the parting of the Red Sea, in which God expresses compassion for the drowned Egyptians. Do they “celebrate� their first success? Or “rejoice� in the death of one who planned the deaths of others?

Despite criticism from both sides, the film seeks to be even-handed in its depiction of Palestinians and Israelis. Yet, at least one criticism is fair: the unending sequences of violence begetting more violence tend to unfairly create a moral equivalency among all the actions by the Israelis and Palestinians. But I don’t think that is the filmmakers’ point.

Although Spielberg is tackling the most public of issues, his viewpoint ultimately is focused on the personal.

“When we learn to act like them, we will defeat them,� says Steve (Daniel Craig), the most mercenary-like of the team. “The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood.�

“Jews don’t do wrong because our enemies do. … A Jew is supposed to be righteous. All this violence hurts my soul,� says Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), a Belgian toymaker turned bomb-maker. “If I lose that, I lose everything.�

Avner chooses to undertake the assignment when his wife is 7 months pregnant; he breaks down not simply because of being a witness to mounting violence but in listening by telephone to his child who is growing up apart from him and into a world situation that seems hopelessly out of control.

So when we come to the closing scene, Avner has relocated to Brooklyn with his wife and daughter. He fears that the same Israelis who hired him as a counter-terrorist want him dead. Despite assertions to the contrary by the Mossad chief, Avner has lost his innocence in the pursuit of revenge. He refuses to return to Israel, and questions whether his actions have simply perpetuated more violence and created more terrorists.

“Why cut your fingernails? They just grow back,� counters the Mossad chief, seeking to persuade Avner to continue his counter-terrorist efforts. The chief nevertheless refuses an invitation to “break bread� with Avner.

Like all films, Munich ultimately is best when raising questions rather than seeking to answer them. Many filmgoers will perceive Spielberg as advocating something other than a violent U.S. response to violent terrorist actions. Instead, I think he’s offering a warning that’s much more personal: Be wary of a response that causes you, as a person or a nation, to lose your soul in the process.

—1. Overview

The Producers

—1. Overview
—2. Reviews and Blogs
—3. Cast and Crew
—4. Photo Pages
—5. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—6. Posters (Matthew Broderick)
—7. Production Notes (pdf)
—8. Spiritual Connections
—9. Presentation Downloads

If you’ve never seen any previous version of The Producers, stop reading here and go at once to see this new film by Tony Award-winning director/choreographer Susan Stroman. You’ll enjoy it immensely.

If you’ve seen either the 2001 Broadway musical or the 1968 film on which this is based, you may want to continue reading.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me make something clear at the outset: I think the original 1968 version of The Producers is one of the three funniest films ever made. Mel Brooks won an Oscar for the best original screenplay; despite many other hits that would follow for him, this remains his best film. Even after dozens of viewings, I still laugh uproariously during the presentation of the play “Springtime for Hitler,� in which the attempts of failed Broadway producer Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel) and neurotic accountant Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder) to find riches by raising millions to produce a flop go hysterically astray. In choosing the wrong play, the wrong director and the wrong actors they end up with a hit Broadway comedy.

In addition, I have never seen the Broadway musical version of the producers with songs by Brooks and starring Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane as well as most of the cast in this 2005 film. So that background will color how I view this new film, which I commend for seeking to take a different approach than the 1968 hit. In doing so, there are some places where it even improves upon the first film.

The most notable difference is the excellent songs and dances. Each wonderfully complements the story and does an excellent job of helping us understand what motivates the characters. While Lane and Broderick are marvelous in the song-and-dance numbers that made them Tony Award winners in the Broadway musical, on film their acting seems too undifferentiated from the original performances by Mostel and Wilder.

For me, many performances are too close to the original film. But two actors who were not in the Broadway musical – Will Ferrell as Nazi playwright Franz Liebkind and Uma Thurman as the secretary Ulla – are wonderful improvements over the original roles, in fairness because their parts are vastly expanded. Ferrell’s character is much expanded over the more-limited character Kenneth Mars played to perfection in the original. Ferrell is at his best leading the producers through “Der Guten Tag Hop Clop,� accompanied by his homing pigeons. And it would be a shame not to see him audition for the part of Hitler in the play. Thurman makes Ulla more than simply a vapid sex object Lee Meredith showed us, or was allowed to show us, in 1968. The 6-foot actress towers over her much-shorter leading men in a way that probably would not have been done a generation ago.

The strength of the new film lies in several choreographed dance numbers, including “I Wanna Be a Producer,� in which Broderick, blending in with a few dozen accountants in green eye shades, dreams of glory with showgirls in costumes laden with 20 pounds of pearls. And Lane’s appearance with dozens of little old ladies dancing in formation with walkers in “Along Came Bialy� is memorable.

Both comedies ultimately are about the relationship between Bialystock and Bloom, how the failed producer befriends Bloom and helps him discover his hopes and dreams. This film strengthens that message by having Bloom, after fleeing to Rio with Ulla, return to defend Bialystock in court at risk of his own imprisonment.

Yet, there are some places where The Producers (2005) makes what I regard to be some critical errors. The play, “Springtime for Hitler,� which was the highlight of the original, falls seriously flat. The audience is supposed to be outraged by the play and then gradually believe it’s a farce. In this version, the turning point in the play is not convincing. The song “Heil Myself,� performed by director Roger DeBris (Gary Beach) who fills in for the lead role when Franz Liebkind literally breaks a leg before curtain, is a low point in the film and would not convince a shocked and outraged audience to remain after starting to walk out of the play.

Also, in the original film, the producers are arrested for blowing up the theater and their scam remains undiscovered. That’s why they again try to raise more money for the new musical, “Prisoners of Love,� they are producing while in prison. In this version, the books are discovered by police so the scam is public. Yet, once again, they try to over-sell their new show.

My bottom line: See the original 1968 film, which I still prefer. I acknowledge there are some who may prefer this new, musical version, particularly those who haven’t seen the original or who enjoy Broadway musicals. But the original will remain a classic, while this is merely an evening’s pleasant diversion.

— Overview
— Reviews and Blogs

The Ringer

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVD
—5. Posters Johnny Knoxville
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

Steve Barker, played by Johnny Knoxville in the new film The Ringer, is a loser.

It’s not because he turns to motivational tapes to help him advance in a dead-end job he really doesn’t want. It’s not because, rather than follow orders to fire a friend, he hires him as a personal groundskeeper and doesn’t make arrangements for adequate healthcare when his friend has an accident. And it’s especially not because he lets his uncle con him into paying off his debts by fixing the Special Olympics as a contestant.

Steve Barker is a loser because he never pursues his dreams. And he’s a loser because he believes it when others say he will never achieve them. The Ringer is a winner of a film because it shows that we all have our dreams and obstacles, but we can only succeed if we give it our best shot.

With the film’s producers including Bobby and Peter Farrelly (There’s Something About Mary), The Ringer has the over-the-top slapstick one might expect. One of the best examples comes from the film’s trailer, when Barker, who has been masquerading as a high-functioning developmentally disabled Special Olympian, confesses his scam to a priest. The priest’s fist crashes through the confessional screen into Barker’s face, and he physically throws Barker from the church. There also are multiple running gags involving a subplot with Stavi (Luis Avalos), an aging janitor and widowed father of five who cuts off several fingers while working with Steve’s lawn mower. Steve’s low-life uncle Gary (Brian Cox) uses the incident, and Steve’s financial obligations to Stavi, as the motivation for Steve to persist in the scam.

Renamed by his uncle as “Jeffy Dahmor,� Steve, a former high-school track star, begins to discover winning isn’t quite the cake walk his uncle anticipated. The scam fools everyone – except a number of Steve’s fellow competitors. But rather than turn Steve in, they share in his concern for Stavi and become his teachers and friends – in part to help defeat a five-time Special Olympic gold medalist who has begun to annoy them all. They wake Steve up in the wee hours each morning, put him through a grueling training regimen and teach him how to be a true Special Olympian – in every sense of the word.

When Steve confesses at one point that he dreamed of being an actor, they ask him where his dream ended. Hollywood? Broadway? Summer stock theater? Steve admits he never gave it a real effort.

“People tell us all the time what we will never do,� one of the Special Olympians tells Steve, citing several routine physical functions he was able to achieve despite others’ doubtful prognostications. “I would never have done all these things [if I had listened to them].�

The 94-minute film is rated PG-13 for crude humor, some of it sexual. One of the characters, Uncle Gary, makes repeated offensive references to people with developmental disabilities who compete in the Special Olympics. But the film actually has the blessing of Special Olympics and several cast members, including Barker’s roommate, are Special Olympics veterans. In addition, The Ringer does an excellent job showing the range of ways others interact with people with developmental disabilities. As a reporter who covered the 1987 International Special Olympic games, I particularly appreciated the accurate depiction of the range of competitors – from the highly skilled whose motivation is no different from any other athlete’s to the more prevalent participant whose greatest reward is simply the trademark hug at the end of any feat attempted.

The funniest parts in this film won’t produce belly-aching laughs as moments in other Farrelly brothers films have. Ultimately, the strength of this film is not the comedy its makers intended, but the delightful and enchanting moments that occur as Steve interacts with his fellow Special Olympians and learns how to be a better person – the kind he dreamed of being.

—Overview
—Cast and Crew
—Photo Pages