Talk:Munich (2005 film)

message: I see that mention of the Lillehammer affair has been previously removed, but frankly I am shocked and amazed that this article contains no mention of the fact that Spielberg completely glossed over this event. User:Wodan seems to think that this incident is "irrelevant" but it is hardly so. The murder of Ahmed Bouchiki was part of Operation Wrath of God and for Spielberg to gloss over the fact that his oh-so-complex Mossad killers happened to shoot an innocent man in cold blood, having misidentified their target, is a very politically loaded action. The Lillehammer affair was an enormous embarrassment for Israel, and including it in the movie would have ruined the sense of "balance" he was trying to achieve and result in even more condemnation from the far-right Zionists who hated this movie for daring to suggest that Palestinians bleed the same color as Israelis.  However that doesn't mean that it isn't relevant for the article. I think people coming to Wikipedia to learn about this movie should know that Spielberg left out a very important part of it. The hunt for Ali Hassan Salameh, whom they were trying to kill when they murdered this waiter, is a huge part of the movie, so I'm kind of confused as to how people think that it isn't worth mentioning that Spielberg glossed over the fact that they shot a waiter they thought was him. Unless anyone can give me a really convincing reason why not, I'm adding to the Criticism section a mention in the Guardian of a BBC documentary that criticizes the movie for not mentioning Lillehammer.Iamblessed (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely ridiculous

message: This afternoon I edited this article for NPOV.  Among other things, I amalgamated the controversy surrounding the movie and the book into a paragraph in the 'Film' section, so that everybody's aware that these are debated and contentious issues.  I also collated information about whether Bana's character actually portrays Avner (ie, Aviv): neither IMDB nor the official site refer to his character as Avner.  If there are definitive sources, I'd be keen to see them.  Otherwise, I guess we'll all have to wait until the movie comes out. Caroline Sanford 08:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Time Magazine's cover story EXCLUSIVE: TIME Magazine FIRST to See ‘Munich’ dated Dec. 4, 2005. He's Avner.68.231.217.37 12:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jolly good; this wasn't availablein the Antipodes when I wrote my comments. It's nice to see there are some facts around. Caroline Sanford 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And now there are more facts around.  The Time article, here in full does not say that Avner is Aviv.  It says that Bana's character is named Avner Kauffman and that the movie is based on true events and a book by George Jonas. So, as per below, I have removed references to the Time article saying that Avner is Aviv. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 22:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I have made some amendments to this paragraph:
::Munich is a 2005 film directed by Steven Spielberg about the events following the 1972 Munich Massacre. It follows an alleged Mossad squad, led by "Avner" Eric Bana, that is ordered to track down and kill the Black September terrorists thought to be responsible for the Israeli athletes' murders. The movie examines the actions of the purported Mossad group, and the alleged psychological toll that it took on the agents.
If you didn't know anything about this film, here's how the paragraph reads:
::Munich is a film about some people who really existed, who tracked down the Black September terrorists. Possibly, they were Mossad agents. The movie examines the actions of the people who claimed to be a Mossad group, and the toll that this apparently took on them.
Whereas, what I think you're trying to say is this:
::Munich is a film about Mossad agents tracking down Black September terrorists; they hunt down the terrorists, which takes a psychological toll on the agents.  Whether this movie is based in fact or fiction is a matter of some debate.
I have made amendments as appropriate. Caroline Sanford 21:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Alleged'

message: The intro states that Jonas' book was based on Juval Aviv's account. This a matter of debate. Jonas has never identified who Avner is and it is factually wrong to state Aviv is the source for Avner. The introduction is misleading as is and should be altered so that Aviv is not mentioned, but instead perhaps a mention to Jonas' controversial sources.--Mr. Cool 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since writing this, I have actually read reports in both NY Times and LA Times confirming Aviv as Jonas' source.--Mr. Cool 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the information in the parentheses, while factually correct, interrupt the flow of the introduction and serve no purpose in explaining the film.--Mr. Cool 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: After extensive searching, I have found suggestions that this episode is copied from "Agents Secrets" movie with Monica Bellucci. I am not sure whether this is the movie, can anyone confirm?--Faustus 14:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vengeance" was made into the HBO movie "Sword of Gideon" , perhaps that's what you saw?--Lord of the Ping 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the similarity to "Sword of Gideon" is a controversy that should be mentioned in the article. Consider this Wall Street Journal article, or this blog post for the specific reference to the bike pumps. --Faustus 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: ... can be read here. It does not say that Avner Kauffman is based on Juval Aviv.  Aviv's name is never mentioned in the Time article.  The article only confirms that Munich is based on Vengeance; it also says that "The moviemakers would not reveal the identity of the real Avner".
Thus, I have edited the sentence:
:In a Time Magazine cover story about the film on December 4, 2005, Spielberg confirmed that Aviv is the source of the film and that the latter had had second thoughts about his actions.
Since it isn't true. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 21:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Time Magazine article 

message: Interview on Fresh Air
Pulitzer prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner co-wrote the screenplay for the new Stephen Spielberg film Munich. Kushner won a Pulitzer for his 1993-1994 play Angels in America, which was performed in two parts and set in New York in the mid-1980s in the midst of the AIDS epidemic.
Holon67 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPR Fresh Air interview of writer

message: Removed section titled "Historical inaccuracies" (a POV title) that discussed the events of the Lillehammer affair. While it has been documented that the Lillehammer incident was a mossad debacle, it is not directly relevant to the events of the movie, since the team the movie portrays was completely not related to the event, which was run by a different team. It is extremely biased to say the movie is historically inaccurate by leaving out the event, since none of the characters in the movie were involved in the event. Otherwise, the movie would have to include every single Israeli counter-terror actions in 1972 and 1973, as well as depict a comprehensive list of all terrorism around the globe in those years. Obviously not within the scope of the movie. Wodan
:I think this objection is disingenuous. Different team to what? In reality, the assassinations were carried out my many different teams of Israelis. In the film, though, Spielberg explicitly says that the team he shows is in charge of all European assassinations. Which includes Norway. Artistic license (a film portraying the deeds of lots of different teams wouldn't work dramatically - too many characters, too many different scenes, no chance for character development, etc.)
:That being so, I think it's fair criticism to say that ignoring the murder of a waiter in Lillehammer by Israeli assassins is a historical inaccuracy. And not one you can explain away via artistic license, but only through bias. Or fear (perhaps Spielberg was too afraid to show Israel in a bad light, because it might blacken his public reputation?) I don't know. I do know that it's a notable omission, especially for a film full of such pretentious moralising (again, Spielberg chickens out - he can show us Israelis justifying assassinating Palestinian terrorists, but balks from "justifying" the murder of a Moroccan waiter. It could have been done - collateral damage and all that - but I have a feeling that Spielberg found the "justifications" repulsive. And rather than examine THAT, he ignored the whole thing.)Steve3742 (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, the "waiter" in the scene you mention was armed and at a party attended by Ali Hassan Salameh, which changes it considerably from the murder of an unarmed waiter who'd never even heard of Ali Hassan Salameh.Steve3742 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lillehammer affair

message: Is this really necessary? I don't think it adds very much to the article, nor is it particularly useful. I think these could be derived from a short sentence or two earlier in the article like, "It deals with/Its themes include _, _, and _." But most could probably get the idea from the plot description (which is choppy in itself). Brutannica 18:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's completely unsourced and strikes me as original research. It should absolutely be removed. An encyclopedia article should not be trying to interpret the film. -- MisterHand 05:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear supergeniuses, you have a lot of censoring to do if you are going to think of wikipedia as your momma's encyclopedia, i mean, the encyc your mother purchased, eg, just one example: Themes_and_discussion. WHAT! Discussion?! Holon67 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Themes" section

message: If you haven't watched Sword of Gideon, do so. It's the same story, but better told.
:But lacks Spielberg flare and storytelling ;P 40oz 2 Freedom 02:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hardly. While Sword of Gideon is not exactly great filmmaking, Munich is excrutiatingly bland, boring, and colorless. I just screened it last night; a terrific disappointment. Where is the psychological tension? Where is the moral conflict? Where can we find a fine performance? Where is Hitchcock when we need him?  66.108.4.183 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sword Of Gideon

message: :Should a note be added to the DVD release section about the unexpected demand for the 2-disc DVD? It's only been out for about a week and already it is essentially out of print. R.E. Freak 06:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD availability

message: Evidence for suicide: Robert is a toy maker: immediately before his house blows up, a toy ferris wheel rotates and completes an obvious electrical contact. 
:I will double check the scene.  It didn't look that clear, but maybe I'm wrong.  MilesVorkosigan 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since it was said that bombmakers are often killed by their own devices, I don't think it was a suicide.  We saw him lay his equipment everywhere, and doing all his stuff.  Then the little character on the whell touch the explosives, I'm thinking "pulling the pin" or whatever had to be done (hence the delayed reaction of the explosion). 40oz 2 Freedom 00:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just went and watched it a couple of times in slow-mo.  It doesn't look like the silly thing actually touches the contact, but that might just be a filming glitch.  With the movie paused it sure looks like the little figure on the wheel was meant to touch the contact and the blurry cylinder it's attached to might be the grenade he took out of another bomb.  MilesVorkosigan 05:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rented the movie from Mickey D's (RedBox), and I recall that that version distinctly showed a rotating thingy attached to the ferris wheel striking another object not on the wheel.  I suggest that this, if not evidence, is inference (of premeditated suicide), a literary device critical to properly appreciating an author's intent.  If you don't agree, you may wish to fix that grammatical error, "many bomb-makers are die in accidents."--24.8.231.234 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bomb Maker Suicide?

message: Louis and Papa "French contacts". Fact or Fiction?
They hated the Nazi's the Vichy, Stalin and the Americans. Their invaders and liberators!
Who were they?
French aristocratic Communists? Opus Dei?
They remain elusive after all these years?
Dean1970 12 June 2006
I don't know who they are, but I would like to know. I believe they may have been simple black marketeers, willing to work for the highest bidder.
::The article itself states that this part of the film plot (the use of outside sources to aid in locating the Arab terrorists) was not taken from Jonas's book. It was dramatic license by Spielberg (i.e. fictional). The Israelis used only their own sources. 66.108.4.183 19:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether they were real or not is a different question, but the characters of Louis and Papa are in Jonas' book. The presentation of these characters isn't identical between Spielberg's film and Jonas's book but they are in both and they are outside sources of info. in both. If they are fictional, the fiction is of Jonas' creation, not Spielberg's. Nuclare 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the movie made it clear that they were 'mercs' like Avner.  However, "Papa" respected Avner because he  (thought) he did what he did because it was his job, not out of idealogy or nationalism.  I'd say they were Anarchists if anything ...
To the original question, Andreas (the junior contact) said "My family sacrificed so much to rid us of Vichy scums. That was for making way for the Gallist scums.....Rid of Hitler, replaced by Stalin and the Americans. We don't like getting involved with Governments". Not aqn exact quote, but he refers the new regime (Charles de Gaulle) as scums.83.108.30.208 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  French contact 

message: Does anyone else feel that the template at the top of this article is uncalled for?  The plot summary seems perfectly reasonable to me, as the other sections of the article are similarly thorough.  If there is consensus, I will remove it. --Mus Musculus 04:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of plot section 

message: Killing should never be glorified. Assassins shouldn't be shown as heroes. Very disappointed with Spielberg to go ahead with this film after making films such as Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan that have a brush with similar themes in relation to Judiasm and death, I feel that the film has put Israel in a far worse light, even if actions were never fully acknowledged. Londo06 05:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Glorification of Murderers

message: :Image:Munich 1 Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Munich 1 Poster.jpg

message: :Image:Mossadteam483.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mossadteam483.jpg

message: :Image:Banamunich.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Banamunich.jpg

message: : In the end of the film , where its some guy is having sex with some woman, is there a flashback with it. Its the Munich Massacrae , and its jumps back and forth . Rio de oro (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a question? VenomousConcept (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  flashback in the end 

message: i just read the article, and i am wondering if the sentence: "The group go to Rome to track down and shoot their first target..." is correct English language? Isnt it supposed to be "The group goes to Rome to track down and shoot their first target..."
::It all comes down to whether you treat 'group' as a singular or a plural. 'The group goes' singular or 'The group go' as in 'they go' as a plural. Personally I think 'the group' is a singular, but I think either are acceptable. Apparently the Americans are more likely to treat a word like 'group' as a singular, wheareas the British are more likely to treat it as a plural. 
::VenomousConcept (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar 

message: I've semi-protected this article for one week due to apparent sock-related edit warring without discussion. The talk page is the appropriate place to work out these differences. Will extend semi-protection if the problem continues. Cool Hand Luke 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotected

message: It is wrong to describe the Palestinian in that movie as terrorists because terrorists, by definition, attack random people to achieve something while in that movie the Palestinians attack specific targets. The phrase "Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents" is obviously a propaganda. Spielberg wants to show that both sides killed people but they had different ways to do that. Trying to make the Israeli side moral by saying "agents" and the Palestinian side immoral by saying "terrorists" has becoming a sort of an old trick and a sick one to exist in a public place like wikipedia. Lets make Wikipedia a place for more sophisticated articles clean of this kind of things. 
: The phrase "Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents" only appears once in the article, and it is used directly prior to describing the two as morally equivalent in the opinion of the filmmakers. "Palestinian terrorists" does not appear anywhere else in the article. So I am not sure what the problem is. Can you point to a specific place where you think the article is biased? –CWenger (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents!! 

message: Was the dutch assassin real or was she just invented for this movie?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.153.66 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch assassin real? 

message: Seeking clarification on this line: "Unlike an earlier film, 21 Hours at Munich, Spielberg's film depicts the shooting of all the Israeli athletes, which according to the autopsies was accurate."
It's written in a vague way that might suggest:
1. It's universally accepted that all hostages were killed by gunfire only. The Wikipedia article on the real-life events are a bit vague themselves, but seem to note that the exact cause of death for some hostages is unclear--they may have survived the gunfire and died instead during the hand grenade detonation or ensuing fire.
2. 21 Hours at Munich depicted some Israeli athletes as surviving or escaping, which is untrue. 21 Hours at Munich shows hostages in helicopter suffering the hand grenade, and the others being raked by gunfire. While it doesn't show the first set of hostages also being shot before blown up, it doesn't necessarily show anything inaccurate taking place. 
I haven't seen Munich, and don't know if it skips the hand grenade entirely in favor of hostages only being shot. Either way, this line should probably be written with a little more clarity in terms of how the scene compares in both films, and have sources supporting its autopsy claims. 
207.237.144.220 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  21 Hours At Munich 

message: In the Controversies section, the article states that Lillehammer is one of a montage of cities (in the opening title sequence).  In fact, the cities are all Olympic Games venues (Lillehammer staged the Winter Olympics).
86.4.253.180 (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies: Lillehammer and the title montage 

message: "The targets were not all directly involved in Munich, which Spielberg only acknowledges in the last 5 minutes."
Can we rephrase that? I'm not sure how though. It makes it sound like it was an error of the film to not point that out earlier, like Spielberg was concealing it from the audience, or that it was a mistake about the facts (an implication carried by including it in the Historical authenticity section) when actually that was kind of an important fact in the movie, it was kind of a big reveal to the protagonist at the end. Saying "Spielberg only acknowledges this in the last 5 minutes" makes it sound like it was just tossed in near the end there where the audience wouldn't notice it, when it was actually more like a significant reveal, almost a twist. This should be re-phrased and possibly removed from that section. --VolatileChemical (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical authenticity section, direct involvement in Munich 

message: Oughtn't Wael Zwaiter, the man who was assassinated in Rome and portrayed by actor Makram Khoury, be included there? After all, he is mentionend twice in the article.
--93.196.146.105 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Munich (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106113836/http://www.scorenotes.com/reviewArchive/munich.html to http://www.scorenotes.com/reviewArchive/munich.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Munich (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/spielberg-s--munich--10025
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805123450/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060223%2FSCANNERS%2F60223002 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060223%2FSCANNERS%2F60223002
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928044216/http://www.zoa.org/2005/12/zoa_dont_see_sp.htm to http://www.zoa.org/2005/12/zoa_dont_see_sp.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928043957/http://www.zoa.org/2006/05/playwright_tony.htm to http://www.zoa.org/2006/05/playwright_tony.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120724143913/http://www.copi.com/articles/guyatt/harari.html to http://www.copi.com/articles/guyatt/harari.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Munich (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009000948/http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11809 to http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11809
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Munich (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817140400/http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-0501223-movies-review-munich,0,1683492.story to http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-0501223-movies-review-munich,0,1683492.story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: It is at best misleading that information comes from Louis when it comes at a price since they have to pay for it.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of information of targets