In order to balance loyalty to family, country and a land, the film shows different families, countries and places. Here is Avner's family of origin: a father who is in prison for fighting the British, a mother who takes great pride in her son's continued struggle for the people. With the family he and his wife built: a lovely haven from fear and hatred. There are families of Palestinian leaders who live in Paris: living in luxury while bemoaning the poverty of their people and the brutal Israeli looting of their land. There is Louis' family in France: dedicated to each other, but hating their family business, selling secret intelligence to killers. Family with Ali: A Palestinian longs for the olive grove of their ancestors. There are also makeshift families formed to avenge those behind the Munich massacre: Avner and four members. Through these family comparisons, the film shows what Avner's options are when confronted with terrorism, and what options Israel and the world have to confront terrorism. Avner's family of origin broke down, just like Israel's polity, which ended up losing out to internal conflict in the country. His parents are divorced and don't speak to each other. Louis' family went from staunch fighters against the Nazis to hired spies, who would sacrifice their lives for whoever offered the highest bid, without principle. Ali had already paid the price of blood for that olive grove, and there was no room for compromise between killing and being killed. Avner's only hope is, in the movie -- and the world's best wish -- that people can build community near their homes. This may be a very naive implication. Even if they don't retaliate, families are very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Against a government whose moral principles include protection of the weak and helpless, passive resistance strategies can be employed. Gandhi succeeded because he was against the British government, which saw them as the protector of the weak, and the fact that Britain had survived two terrible world wars, and the government had long since worn out its power. Martin Luther King succeeded because he faced a country that opposed racism, paid a heavy price in wars between states, and suffered heavy losses in World War II. Moreover, the British and American whites fought shoulder to shoulder with the people they now oppress. There is a reason why passive resistance worked in India against Britain and blacks against white Americans. However, the film "Munich" made it clear that these reasons did not solve the problem between Israel and Palestine. When Avner spoke to the Palestinians, they had a brief truce. This conversation makes clear why their conflict cannot be resolved. Finally, Barr Stan still sees Jews as thieves who stole their land, and Jews see Palestine as murderers who want to kill their people. Neither of them thinks that they are the party who should bear the responsibility, they all think that they are the weak who have been wronged, they all want to denounce the justice in their own eyes, and they all want to protect what they think is the legitimacy. The conflict in this film is all about politics. There is no conflict between husband and wife, no conflict between parents and children, and no conflict between rivals. When I think about why such an important, beautifully shot film doesn't have many people enjoying it, two opposing viewpoints come to mind: a propaganda film and a tragic film. If the film is to be considered propaganda, then it needs to give an end to the vendettas of Arabs and Jews in Israel and Palestine. Maybe because it doesn't have a single message, it's not a promo. Maybe because the action in the movie ultimately failed and no one celebrated, it wasn't a promo. The psychoanalytic point of view would be that the film might mirror the idea that if there is a split here and one side is seen as all bad, the other will see himself as all good. In order to have a God, one needs a demon; in order to have a self, one needs another; in order to have a self-defense force, one needs an enemy. Maybe the movie believes in itself, because it has no rivals, it presents both the good and the bad at the same time. If the division doesn't work, then the movie is a tragedy. Maybe artistically it's a failure because love and hate are so cut apart, and love and aggression are so far apart that it's a failure story. The people Avner loves are good people, and the people he is ordered to kill are bad people. He never tragically loved the wrong person or had sex with any bad person. Euripides described the tragedy of legitimate revenge and the possibility of redemption in Orestes, the creators of the Munich massacre did not believe that the order of the world could give some hope for the future. All they can give is the riverside roads of desolate New York, a disaster for the World Trade Center. The film presents empathy and fear without emotional catharsis. So, it's not a tragedy either. Neither numb enough to be a promo, nor brilliant enough to be a great tragedy, the film was a failure. Perhaps we can only hope that the theme of this film, the call for peace between Israel and Palestine, has only failed temporarily, but will finally come at some point in the future. The weak, want to denounce what they see as justice, and want to protect what they see as legitimacy. The conflict in this film is all about politics. There is no conflict between husband and wife, no conflict between parents and children, and no conflict between rivals. When I think about why such an important, beautifully shot film doesn't have many people enjoying it, two opposing viewpoints come to mind: a propaganda film and a tragic film. If the film is to be considered propaganda, then it needs to give an end to the vendettas of Arabs and Jews in Israel and Palestine. Maybe because it doesn't have a single message, it's not a promo. Maybe because the action in the movie ultimately failed and no one celebrated, it wasn't a promo. The psychoanalytic point of view would be that the film might mirror the idea that if there is a split here and one side is seen as all bad, the other will see himself as all good. In order to have a God, one needs a demon; in order to have a self, one needs another; in order to have a self-defense force, one needs an enemy. Maybe the movie believes in itself, because it has no rivals, it presents both the good and the bad at the same time. If the division doesn't work, then the movie is a tragedy. Maybe artistically it's a failure because love and hate are so cut apart, and love and aggression are so far apart that it's a failure story. The people Avner loves are good people, and the people he is ordered to kill are bad people. He never tragically loved the wrong person or had sex with any bad person. Euripides described the tragedy of legitimate revenge and the possibility of redemption in Orestes, the creators of the Munich massacre did not believe that the order of the world could give some hope for the future. All they can give is the riverside roads of desolate New York, a disaster for the World Trade Center. The film presents empathy and fear without emotional catharsis. So, it's not a tragedy either. Neither numb enough to be a promo, nor brilliant enough to be a great tragedy, the film was a failure. Perhaps we can only hope that the theme of this film, the call for peace between Israel and Palestine, has only failed temporarily, but will finally come at some point in the future. The weak, want to denounce what they see as justice, and want to protect what they see as legitimacy. The conflict in this film is all about politics. There is no conflict between husband and wife, no conflict between parents and children, and no conflict between rivals. When I think about why such an important, beautifully shot film doesn't have many people enjoying it, two opposing viewpoints come to mind: a propaganda film and a tragic film. If the film is to be considered propaganda, then it needs to give an end to the vendettas of Arabs and Jews in Israel and Palestine. Maybe because it doesn't have a single message, it's not a promo. Maybe because the action in the movie ultimately failed and no one celebrated, it wasn't a promo. The psychoanalytic point of view would be that the film might mirror the idea that if there is a split here and one side is seen as all bad, the other will see himself as all good. In order to have a God, one needs a demon; in order to have a self, one needs another; in order to have a self-defense force, one needs an enemy. Maybe the movie believes in itself, because it has no rivals, it presents both the good and the bad at the same time. If the division doesn't work, then the movie is a tragedy. Maybe artistically it's a failure because love and hate are so cut apart, and love and aggression are so far apart that it's a failure story. The people Avner loves are good people, and the people he is ordered to kill are bad people. He never tragically loved the wrong person or had sex with any bad person. Euripides described the tragedy of legitimate revenge and the possibility of redemption in Orestes, the creators of the Munich massacre did not believe that the order of the world could give some hope for the future. All they can give is the riverside roads of desolate New York, a disaster for the World Trade Center. The film presents empathy and fear without emotional catharsis. So, it's not a tragedy either. Neither numb enough to be a promo, nor brilliant enough to be a great tragedy, the film was a failure. Perhaps we can only hope that the theme of this film, the call for peace between Israel and Palestine, has only failed temporarily, but will finally come at some point in the future. Then it needs to give an end to the vendettas of Arabs and Jews in Israel and Palestine. Maybe because it doesn't have a single message, it's not a promo. Maybe because the action in the movie ultimately failed and no one celebrated, it wasn't a promo. The psychoanalytic point of view would be that the film might mirror the idea that if there is a split here and one side is seen as all bad, the other will see himself as all good. In order to have a God, one needs a demon; in order to have a self, one needs another; in order to have a self-defense force, one needs an enemy. Maybe the movie believes in itself, because it has no rivals, it presents both the good and the bad at the same time. If the division doesn't work, then the movie is a tragedy. Maybe artistically it's a failure because love and hate are so cut apart, and love and aggression are so far apart that it's a failure story. The people Avner loves are good people, and the people he is ordered to kill are bad people. He never tragically loved the wrong person or had sex with any bad person. Euripides described the tragedy of legitimate revenge and the possibility of redemption in Orestes, the creators of the Munich massacre did not believe that the order of the world could give some hope for the future. All they can give is the riverside roads of desolate New York, a disaster for the World Trade Center. The film presents empathy and fear without emotional catharsis. So, it's not a tragedy either. Neither numb enough to be a promo, nor brilliant enough to be a great tragedy, the film was a failure. Perhaps we can only hope that the theme of this film, the call for peace between Israel and Palestine, has only failed temporarily, but will finally come at some point in the future. Then it needs to give an end to the vendettas of Arabs and Jews in Israel and Palestine. Maybe because it doesn't have a single message, it's not a promo. Maybe because the action in the movie ultimately failed and no one celebrated, it wasn't a promo. The psychoanalytic point of view would be that the film might mirror the idea that if there is a split here and one side is seen as all bad, the other will see himself as all good. In order to have a God, one needs a demon; in order to have a self, one needs another; in order to have a self-defense force, one needs an enemy. Maybe the movie believes in itself, because it has no rivals, it presents both the good and the bad at the same time. If the division doesn't work, then the movie is a tragedy. Maybe artistically it's a failure because love and hate are so cut apart, and love and aggression are so far apart that it's a failure story. The people Avner loves are good people, and the people he is ordered to kill are bad people. He never tragically loved the wrong person or had sex with any bad person. Euripides described the tragedy of legitimate revenge and the possibility of redemption in Orestes, the creators of the Munich massacre did not believe that the order of the world could give some hope for the future. All they can give is the riverside roads of desolate New York, a disaster for the World Trade Center. The film presents empathy and fear without emotional catharsis. So, it's not a tragedy either. Neither numb enough to be a promo, nor brilliant enough to be a great tragedy, the film was a failure. Perhaps we can only hope that the theme of this film, the call for peace between Israel and Palestine, has only failed temporarily, but will finally come at some point in the future. So far apart that it's a failure story. The people Avner loves are good people, and the people he is ordered to kill are bad people. He never tragically loved the wrong person or had sex with any bad person. Euripides described the tragedy of legitimate revenge and the possibility of redemption in Orestes, the creators of the Munich massacre did not believe that the order of the world could give some hope for the future. All they can give is the riverside roads of desolate New York, a disaster for the World Trade Center. The film presents empathy and fear without emotional catharsis. So, it's not a tragedy either. Neither numb enough to be a promo, nor brilliant enough to be a great tragedy, the film was a failure. Perhaps we can only hope that the theme of this film, the call for peace between Israel and Palestine, has only failed temporarily, but will finally come at some point in the future. So far apart that it's a failure story. The people Avner loves are good people, and the people he is ordered to kill are bad people. He never tragically loved the wrong person or had sex with any bad person. Euripides described the tragedy of legitimate revenge and the possibility of redemption in Orestes, the creators of the Munich massacre did not believe that the order of the world could give some hope for the future. All they can give is the riverside roads of desolate New York, a disaster for the World Trade Center. The film presents empathy and fear without emotional catharsis. So, it's not a tragedy either. Neither numb enough to be a promo, nor brilliant enough to be a great tragedy, the film was a failure. Perhaps we can only hope that the theme of this film, the call for peace between Israel and Palestine, has only failed temporarily, but will finally come at some point in the future.
(From Arlene Kramer Richards, The Power of Women: A Psychoanalytic Approach)
View more about Munich reviews
