Bang us Feedback: bang isaac
bang seth

the daily bang | movies that bang | music that bangs |forwards that bang | kosher top 10 | apartments that bang | home

Movies that bang
By Jordan Hiller

Munich (2006)

I saw Munich about three weeks ago and began writing some ideas for an article the next day, and then the next day it changed, and so on. What follows is not a review of the movie, but what hopefully can turn into a dialogue for BIO readers about some of the themes running through the film. If I were to review the film I would say it is a fine piece of exciting, involving filmmaking, but it is not on par with Spielberg’s best – likely because it is many times cold and unfeeling, and also because it runs into overtime.

My most powerful reaction to Munich was not as a Jew, as I had expected, but as a citizen of a planet where chaos and anarchy are shuttered from the façade of order only by the thinnest of veils. Munich is essentially then about the fabric societies use to create this protective curtain. What struck me so stunningly by Steven Spielberg’s latest, beyond its pure thrill ride appeal, is that so much goes on beyond the surface of our routine, monotonous lives to afford us the luxury of routine, monotonous lives. Although the film was excellent in many ways including Eric Bana’s astounding performance as Avner, the dedicated leader of a clandestine task force sent to wipe out those responsible for the assassination of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, this article concentrates on the subject matter of the film, not necessarily the film itself.

There is a price we pay for living in a civilized society. We forget that sometimes, feeling so secure in our innate right to be free, speak freely, think freely. So comfortable in the societies created for us, protected by under paid cops, fought for by the sons of the lower classes – so comfortable that we sometimes criticize thoughtlessly the methods that provide that security and comfort. The reality of course is that we share the planet with bad people, crazed and deranged people; spiteful and dangerous people, and these individuals have no place in our concept of a free society. The remainder question becomes…what is to be done with this unreasonable element?

Munich does nothing more than force one to think about issues they should be thinking about anyway, and as Jews, it creates a context for us to consider what must be considered. Although there were only minor rumblings in Judea regarding the possible inconsistencies in or ungraciousness of Munich, a suggested reason enough by some to boycott the film, the opposite really should have been our reaction – we should be encouraged to support this film. The greatest, most bitter fear of orthodoxy since the destruction of the Second Temple, has been to allow the common mind to expand outside the four amot of “Torah” (the debate then becomes who is common – i.e. impressionable - and who are the exceptions). This very principal is why we have lost to secularism some of our greatest minds. I admit, the dilemma our sages face is a daunting one: How to keep Jews interested in orthodox Judaism when there are so many alternatives? Obviously the right-wing orthodox will ban the film simply because it is a forbidden form of entertainment and education, but for the movie-going orthodox to resent Munich is undeserved and a gross injustice to Mr. Spielberg, who will go down as one of Judaism’s great voices of the 21 st century. His contributions to world culture are as resounding perhaps as the works of Freud or Kafka, but Munich and surely Schindler’s List (among other significant projects Holocaust related) can be equated with the contributions to Jewish “liturgy” as the works of Buber and even Scholem.

It is not rebellious to feel pity or confusion over the tragic results of our struggle to maintain a Jewish homeland, which clearly has devastated innocent lives on both sides. We claim to serve a merciful G-d and a G-d of truth. What is surely rebellious then is to blindly criticize, thoughtlessly accept, irrationally judge, and fail to recognize truths (about Israel and in general). Some Jewish thinkers preach an avoidance of secular education and restrictions for our intellectual capacity. Without an open mind could Avraham have ever recognized greater truths? Can you imagine if Avraham was in the Avodah Zarah version of a Yeshiva…would G-d have been found? My point essentially is, and I can relate it to Munich or to any challenging intellectual endeavor, rigorously seek truth and you are serving our G-d. Once we allow this search to begin, a film like Munich becomes more than just a movie, but a pursuit. Is its representation truthful? This pursuit will likely require much more than seeing the movie and/or reading George Jonas’ book, Vengeance, on which it is based, but it is a start.

Let’s simply deal with one fact and present it in a most unbiased way: Since 1948 there has been a state of Israel, a country in Jewish hands. There are arguments to be made about the means with which Israel (then Palestine) was given to the Zionist Party. There are arguments to question the expulsion of a people from their homes, an occupation, an expansion following an inconceivable military victory, and a land for peace movement that has seen land go but no arrival of peace. As a Jew who can understand why Israel is necessary to Jewish growth and survival as well as the significance historically of a Jewish power I feel very comfortable with listening to those arguments, realizing that some of them are correct…and saying “so what?”. I believe in a G-d who calls himself “Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh”, which essentially can be interpreted as a Popeyeian “I am what I am”, which translates more loosely into “ I am the G-d of So What.” What are chukim if not G-d’s way of telling us “yes, I blessed you with reason and intellect…and so what?”. In Munich, a Palestinian freedom fighter brings up the classic rhetoric describing how Jews feels that because of the Holocaust they are entitled to a free pass with all subsequent injustice perpetrated by them. To that argument I also say, I hear you, I understand you, we must try to limit our own offenses as much as possible, and so what? Why can’t Jews have the right like every other group in the world to say it. Well, throughout history we couldn’t because we were always beholden to someone who was more than happy to cry inquisition…but now? Israel has taught us to say “so what?” with pride and an army to back it up. And it is a lesson that Jews outside of Israel, especially in utopian Jewish enclaves like New York, can afford to learn. The obsession with pleasing every group and limitless political correctness is a Western invention, and a new one at that. While I am not prepared to dismiss suffering in the world as deserved and intend to respect anyone I meet who does the same, I also can be realistic and comprehend that the world is imperfect. America, a country no one would seriously argue is illegitimate, was British occupied, then following a massacre of a native people, the colonists revolted and created this bastion of freedom we celebrate today as the only true dominating world power. What is an Indian Reservation if not a physical manifestation of “I’m sorry….but so what?”. The point is every country, state and empire was born of something and more often than not that something was not pretty or delicate; but this cannot mean that the world can refuse to evolve and accept the fact that these countries, like Israel, do exist and must be dealt with going forward.

Munich does not try to justify a side but the portrayal of the slaying of the Jewish athletes is the most enraging, sadistic act perpetrated in the film. These were not army officers or representatives of governments – these were cute little Jewish athletes. The response by the Israelis to their execution is not judged to be harsh or unfair or extreme – it is simply shown as being exactly what it is - murder. Murder, whether prompted by vengeance or security, is ugly, messy, disturbing, and sickeningly unnatural. Any soldier will tell you that whether they believed in their cause or not. Another truth reflected in the film and we know it all too well – by now it doesn’t matter really who “started it” or who is “the aggressor”. Both sides use words like “terrorist” or differentiate between martyr and suicide bomber to play the game of moral relativism. There isn’t a right or wrong side anymore if there ever was one. If you are Jewish the right side is Jewish and vice versa for Palestinian/Arab. If you are neither, you likely choose the side of your bias. I truly don’t know what a completely unbiased mediator from Mars would think. I am Jewish and I know exactly why I personally need Israel and why we as a people need to keep it secure and Jewish...and so do you. We know what our situation would be in the world today without it (those who know better, should hit the books), but at the same time I recognize that there is a heavy, bloody price paid to keep Israel, and it forces men to commit questionable “unJewish” acts…and these acts become even more questionable when they outwardly change nothing.

As Avner says, the replacements who take over for the assassinated Arab leaders are worse than their predecessors. Spielberg shows how the two sides are retaliating through the media and neither really is accomplishing anything outside of maintaining a strange dignity. The simplistic lesson that can possibly be extracted for those searching for simplicity and/or something to become offended by is that Israel commits necessary atrocities that merely perpetuate our obligation to commit further necessary atrocities. What I found to be interesting from the standpoint of someone who never fought for Israel or America is that my ability to criticize governments and live in virtual security is the direct result of the very acts commonly criticized by the public – the very acts shown in Munich to be ambiguous in their effectiveness. This doe not justify injustice, but it is absurd to think that there are “rules” when those bad people we spoke about before play dirty in a way that is beyond comprehension to the average sensitive person.

Munich also, from a more universal perspective, gives some insight into the cavernous world of espionage – a game that goes on within governments while we lead our “complicated” lives. How between countries there are only murky loyalties where money buys information and no one really is ever safe or secure – citizens and operatives alike. Sure, there are ideals floating somewhere, but they get lost in the details. Doing the right thing is not the focus it seems of our government, but merely plays a tangential, undecipherable role…because (I guess) even organizations like the C.I.A. can always be broken down eventually to human beings with souls and born from wombs.

I was born in 1978, and although I feel and sense the fumes of Jewish victimization and weakness and frailty based on my knowledge of history and something even more innate, I have always lived with Israel as a reality…and we can only exist in the world we inherit. I always like to quote Genesis here – the band of course – this is the world we live in, and this is the hand we’re given.

Let us then look for truths: We, the Jewish people, have Israel. We, the Jewish people, will not relinquish it. Yes, that second statement is more likely an emotional decision as opposed to a rational one but the feeling is so strong within the Jewish nation that no amount of rhetoric could topple its truth. This is why Munich is important. Let a film show that Israel has to deal with terrorism in a possibly unethical (if there is such a notion in war) way. That should not bother us. Such is life and there is more value in recognizing the truth of the situation and then saying a well earned “so what?” than to pretend our methods in protecting ourselves are inherently righteous and absolute.