Munich: Spielberg Develops a Complex Complex

Amazing how so many critics and supporters have jumped on the bandwagon, marveling how Spielberg has gotten so DARK and COMPLEX in his late middle age. Oooooh, he's gone from cuddly aliens to evil ones. Ooooh, he's taking on mature subjects, like terrorism. See, this is what pisses me off. Munich is a case study in how easily we are bamboozled into mistaking a superficial darkness of theme and visuals for COMPLEXITY! Here's why the movie sucked so violently:

Guess what? Presenting the same exact number of scenes where Israelis kill people as ones where Palestinians kill people is not complex. It's the director trying in the most simple-minded way to show that he's being fair and balanced. Similarly, Spielberg shoots and cuts the scene in Beirut (where yet another evil plotter is carefully wiped out with minimal collateral damage) in precisely the same way as he does the opening of the film, which depicts the beginning of Black September's siege at Munich. Now I'm no Zionist, but to compare the relatively precise execution of terrorists to the murder of the Israeli athletes is addled and naive, to be generous. The critics go on to refer to the film as Hitchcockian -- I can only assume that they're comparing the scene when the young girl picks up a booby-trapped phone to the scene in Sabotage (1936) when the young boy is carrying a package that, unbeknownst to him, contains a bomb. Using dramatic irony does not automatically rate a comparison with Hitchcock. Ah, that fine line between homage and ripoff...

Which leads into what is perhaps the single worst sequence Spielberg has ever shot: the already-notorious bit where shots of Eric Bana's Avner making love to his wife are intercut with the bloody denouement of the Munich crisis. Let's leave the psychoanalysis behind, and let's put aside the fact that it makes no sense, since Avner wasn't even in Munich. (The sequence would have made more sense if we had seen Avner flashing back to scenes of the men he killed; then, at least he becomes Frodo-like, unable to return to the peaceful shire because the darkness is forever with him). From a cinematic point of view, this is Spielberg "doing" Coppola's dramatic intercutting of the baptism with the elimination of the Corleone family's enemies at the end of The Godfather. Whereas Coppola's scene still feels like an organic explication of the struggle for Michael Corleone's soul, the sequence in Munich is gratuitous, sickening and illogical.

Which brings us to the end of the film, and yet another instance of the director's loss of faith in his audience's intelligence. ("This ring could have saved 20 more Jews," or, even worse, the "Did I earn it? Did I lead a good life? Was I a good person?" crap from the end of Ryan). The conclusion shows Avner in New York, torn over the idea of returning to Israel, and in the background we see...the WTC. Get it? Get it? You know, we're talking about one of the best directors of kiddie films in history; is it any wonder that his one truly successful "grownup" film, Empire of the Sun, is told from a child's perspective? Sadly, Munich proves that Spielberg has still yet to figure out how to create a genuinely complex, thoughtful film for adults. Even worse, he's tried to make his kiddie films more mature by adding the most superficial elements of darkness; thus the failures of Minority Report and War of the Worlds. Let's hope that in the future, this man of immense talent uses it doing what he does best: making unashamedly entertaining, escapist films. As the great philosopher Clint Eastwood once said, "A man's got to know his limitations." Oh, and please tell me he's not directing the remake of Ikiru...