But if that’s what the director was doing, then–as space was made on-screen in Band of Brothers for the actual veterans to establish the meaning of the film–space should’ve been made for the eleven terribly-injured families of the murdered athletes (since the athletes themselves cannot) to come on-screen and establish context for the politics taking place there.

Instead it seems that the film–like liberalism itself in its incomprehensible position on the war against Judaism–simply refuses to regard some of the things that many, many people feel so strongly are the actual heart of the matter, that–like Ariel Sharon–they devote their lives to it.

The logic is that *everything* is a personal choice, and vice and virtue are just different items on a menu.

Convince enough of Israel’s warriors of this point of view, and Israel will disappear.

…and sinks like a stone.

The problems begin with the screenplay and end there if that is where the idea of dramatizing the later stages of that horrific day and night in Munich as if they’re playing out in Eric Bana (Avner’s) head while he’s doing other things took root. Everything else is up to Spielberg standards. While it’s not as bad a screenplay as that for War of the Worlds, it begs to be taken more seriously because of the subject matter and because of some of the comments of the man who directed both. So where to start?

It’s very likely that Sword of Gideon is a treatment of the suspect source material that could not really be improved upon and this might have been the reason that whatever Eric Roth (The Insider) produced was found wanting. At that point it might have made more sense to go for broke and turn this into a Red Harvest on an international scale. When you come down to it, what the film is suggesting is that the fight over a relatively small area of land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean has deteriorated into such a situation and that the massacre in Munich and the response to it had something to do with that having happened. That your argument? Fine. Shift the focus to Michael Lonsdale (Papa) and Mathieu Amalric (Louis) and let the dead bury the dead.

[Michael Lonsdale was so memorable as Anton Grigoriov in the BBC adaptation of Smiley's People back in 1982 and he's a welcome presence in this film.]

But no. Instead, Tony Kushner is brought in and clarity and motivation are no doubt sacrificed for, as far as I could tell, nothing of any great import. Whatever there was of a thriller and of a procedural survives a couple of cities and then collapses into an incoherence that might actually more closely mirror actual events, but is deadly in dramas of either type.

And with that I think I’ll stop.

1. The Herbert Lonsdale character, older Frenchman and source of the whereabouts of the Munich murderers has Israeli Agent come (blindfolded) to his country estate. And the Agent then sees all of the Frenchmans children, wives, etc. This would never happen.

2. The 5 Israeli Agents in the team stay together alot in the same hotel in different rooms or in the same room in a hotel. How could this be?

3. The infrequent, or nonexistent, presence of the local police before, during, and after the Agents kill a target. Not credible.

“I thought that the movie was pretty good,… but I think that his point is that we’re all standing in judgment for our actions, regardless of how we try to justify them. Our ethnic traditions and religious roots do not make us moral people: it’s what we do that makes us moral.” If you’re a pacifist, yes – but what about why we do what we do when we defend ourselves?

Which is why the HBO film “Sword of Gideon” (1986) is enormously better than Speilberg’s laughable “Munich” (which ryhmes with ‘eunich’). Truepeers alludes to this far superior film. It’s taught, illuminates spy/assassination tradecraft, and doesn’t insult the audience while thoughtfully developing JBlossom’s theme of the reciprocally corrosive effects of systematic killing.

In fact, “Munich” lifts at least three sequences from “Sword,” which is plausible since both are based on George Jonas much criticised book “Vengeance.” The latter is Spielberg’s film’s title in France, but implausibly (”grand guinol” indeed!) develops a far reaching indictment of “eye-for-an-eye” justice (which is not what the Mossad campaign was about – ie, preventing the murder of further innocents), implied by the novel.

It’s true to say that, technically and in its baroque pretense of ‘drama,’ this is in effect the “JFK” version of the 1972 Olympic Massacre. In both, reality is totally distorted. For instance, the fact that West Germany simply strove to capitulate to terrorism, but Israel resisted it and ultimately succeeded in vanqishing PLO terror in Europe is lied about in “Munich.” That’s just one thing makin it obscene.

Another is its claim that nationalism is bad, and its venom would abate if we only grant every aggreived terrorist land – all could be peacful in the world. We’re talking Left-Liberal La-La fanstasy land here. This too is offensive!

As moral equivalence, putting “Schindler’s List” together with “Munich,” we see that Spielberg believes this: Killing fascists in brown uniforms is good – but killing fascists in black hoods wielding AK-47s also against innocent people is bad. This is mindless hash, Speilberg substitues for “thought.”

Which leads us to where “JFK” succeeded and Munich” simply sucks. If you think about how to do counter-terrorism and the seriousness and passion and skill demanded by it, neither the flabby, boring character of Avi nor the thoughtless guilt-ridden dialog of his team members make any sense! It’s simply not believable and therefore boring and (for reasons explained above) morally outrageous! By contrast, “JFK” kept the focus on a lawyer-prosecuter turned crazed pursuer of the Truth, ultimately revealed to be a murky, albeit – in the shadow of the Watergate-generation’s experience – chillingly plausible government conspiracy. “Munich” lacks thrills if you’re thinking about dramatic plausibility; “JFK” simply sedeuces and overwhelms initial thinking!

Thus, the comparison is vitiated, and “Munich” had me walking out in the face of its predictable martinettes on display. It’s worth asking when Speilberg became an anti-semitic agit-prop “artiste”? Note the obsession with food throughout “Munich,” no doubt Marxist Kushner’s contribution. It implies that Israeli’s are rich because Pale’s are poor and unjustly dipossessed of their land! Again, simplistic reductionism is used to indict anti-terrorism instead of explaining and developing credible characters to drive a story forward.

Nevertheless, as someone says above, the film does faithfully correspond (cf, most mainstream reviews) to conventional Left-liberal, pacifist, Nation-reading, Hollywood, Michael Moore worshipping views. Their capacity for confusing fiction with reality, and “realism” for Truth is what elevates “Munich” into dangerous agit-prop – which “JFK” never approachs. Spielberg rides on the fantasy-ideology of the Left-loonies, squelching all reality testing. In this view, Bin Laden and Al Qa’ida supporters just want what we want out of life, instead of an anti-woman, anti-gay, totalitarian theocracy and the pursuit of eternal martyrdom. “Munich” is dangerous appeasment in the West’s time of trial by implacable Jihadist terrorism.