Munich was a very well-made and historically informative film fairly presenting both sides of the conflict'

Rating: 10/10 (26 December 2005)

I recently read in a publication (not sure if I'm allowed to say which it was without getting censored) that the film "Munich" would attempt to equally present both sides of the struggle related to the terrorist attacks at the 1972 Olympics. In other words, the article stated that the movie would not be pro-Israel. My brother, with whom I saw the movie, said he believed that the movie favored the Israeli side of the story. I am quite sure that a great many other people would feel that to be the case. This critique is my effort in showing that there was no favoritism in the presentation of this story.
Obviously, it could be expected that Spielberg would favor the Israeli side of the argument in the case of this movie. For example, the majority of the story and plot-line from the movie comes from the Israeli perspective; one could say that there were a great deal of phrases or sayings in Hebrew or Yiddish and that therefore "Munich" is pre-disposed to someone who is Jewish. There is clearly some truth in this, much in the sense that if you don't speak Spanish - you will obviously lose some of the meaning from a Spanish language film in subtitles that one who speaks the language would have understood. BUT the reality of that being the circumstance is that it would be historically inaccurate and unrealistic to have Israeli characters from that time, and in those circumstances NOT using that sort of phraseology. If Spielberg had not included this sort of language (for example the phrase, "Mazel Tov" in a few instances), it would have not only hurt the character development, but it also would have compromised what he knew to be the reality of the moment. From a film-making standpoint, it would have been irresponsible to make a story about an Israeli group and not have a pre-disposition to SOME degree to the Israeli customs and euphemisms.
Furthermore, there were multiple cases in the film where it presented not only the Palestinian mindset of the current conflict in the Middle East, but also where the terrorists who committed the crimes in Munich did not intend for it to be as violent as it was. In other words, we were not urged to see them as monsters or terrible human beings, as a less politically-sensitive director may have done. Transversely, in certain sequences, it was clearly presented that the main characters struggled with the ethics of their tasks and felt wrong about their actions.
There was also no apparent attempt to make enemies of Palestinians or to show the terrorists as horrible people, but rather to present that they are on one side of a war and that people on either side of a war do what they have to do to fight for that in which they believe. The goal of a terrorist is obviously to create terror, but it was clearly demonstrated that even terrorists, while they commit murder and do horrible things - have families, and are real people. I felt this was an extremely important facet to this film.
Finally, if there wasn't the desire to present both sides, many scenes in which both parties were made wrong or right for their actions could easily have been omitted. Multiple sequences of the movie were presented specifically so that the viewer could be left to devise his or her own feelings and opinions, instead of being led in one direction. I feel that "Munich" very well performed its stated purpose of saying that 'terrorism helps no one and hurts everyone', without getting politically one-sided. In addition, it achieved part of its purpose - to put viewers in a position to never forget what happened to the athletes in the events in Munich.