I have to admit that I quite enjoyed Munich the first time around, and didn’t understand why so many Jews and Israel-sympathizers found it troubling. Granted, it had a very confused and confusing climactic scene. To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention to the political commentary being advanced by Tony Kushner through Spielberg’s handicraft. Even though the movie explored how political assassinations blur the difference between right and wrong, I approached the movie with a moral clarity and exited the theater with the same clarity unwavered. No human being can deny that killing, whether of innocent or criminals, shakes one’s foundations. It’s not a deed to be taken lightly. And Spielberg is known for portraying characters exploding with emotion. So for me, I sympathize with Avner when he is questioning his actions. Not on a global political scale but rather on a personal level. After all, he could have easily been portrayed by Jean-Claude Van Damme, instead of Eric Bana, if he were to simply be a mean killing machine.
My good friend Dan, who probably thinks I’ve been metamorphosed into a bleeding-heart leftist and who refuses to see Munich, is almost shocked that I enjoyed it. I tried to explain that it’s a well-made action thriller.
But then this changed my mind entirely. Understanding Kushner’s perspective truly casts the entire movie in another light, and also explains the climactic scene, essentially rendering it even more disturbing than it already is. Curiously, situating his radical views between the recent Hamas victory and the Palestinian reaction to the Danish cartoons makes the underlying thesis of the movie even more myopic. I think I owe Dan an explanation.
