Movie Review: Syriana and Munich: Fuel for "Thought"
Published February 27, 2006
Spielberg isn't enough of a mind to innovate in the service of a political topic. He wanted to make an entertaining movie about the Israeli response to Munich that would also challenge the audience, but doesn't understand that his way of working poses structural impediments to the second prong of that intention. His way of working would be far more suited to a plot involving a personal act of revenge, which, unlike the issue of political reprisal, is entirely suited to the personal scope, and non-discursive approach, of action movies.
Action movies tend to be romances built around the heroes' determined, successful acts of retributive violence, which are always morally justified or he wouldn't be the hero. (Even where the action heroes are criminals, as in John Boorman's Point Blank (1967) and Quentin Tarantino's two Kill Bill movies (2003/04), they are justified to the extent they have been betrayed.) Spielberg appears to think that if a character says he has conflicting feelings about what he's doing then a second layer has been laid down and the work is as a result naturalistically complex. The visual-kinetic excitement he generates when filming the assassinations, however, ensures that the movie remains in the realm of romance, though it lacks fully developed allegorical differences among the characters which might at least have expanded the discussion symbolically in a way fitting for romance.
Spielberg wants credit for the kind of complexity that could come only from a naturalistic approach to Avner's mission and consequent breakdown, and seems to believe further that this one man's reactions can lay open the significance of the entire mission. What he's made instead is simply the tale of a knight who begins to question whether the wizard at whose behest he acts (i.e., Ephraim) is an emissary of light or of darkness. This narrative trope has spectacular impact in Brian DePalma's Mission: Impossible (1996), in the sequence in which Tom Cruise figures out that his leader is, in fact, the bad guy. DePalma has Cruise saying one thing to Jon Voight while picturing another to himself, and the technique is revelatory and dizzying at the same time. It's nonsense, of course, but I'm not sure my brain has ever whirred faster at the movies. Christopher Nolan's Batman Returns (2005) uses the same trope, though with leaden heavy-handedness. (It begins with the superhero's spiritual trek into a mountain sanctuary as if in homage to Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge.) All the same, Nolan understands that this trope is, in essence, as artificial and exclamatory as a movie-poster tagline ("His mentor was the Enemy!").
- Movie Review: Syriana and Munich: Fuel for "Thought"
- Published: February 27, 2006
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Action, Video: Drama, Video: Suspense and Mystery
- Writer: Alan Dale
- Alan Dale's BC Writer page
- Alan Dale's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Hey Michael,
Thanks for the comment. There has been extraordinary unanimity among critics this year, which isolates an outlier like me even more than usual. To my mind, the critics, and the awards-givers, have been praising and honoring well-intentioned but mediocre movies on the basis of their subject matter rather than their artistry. Having seen the reputations of similar movies, such as The Life of Emile Zola (Best Picture 1937), Gentleman's Agreement (Best Picture 1947), Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (Best Picture Nominee 1967), and Gandhi (Best Picture 1982), slip into deserved eclipse, I expect the same for the current bumper crop, with the possible exception of Capote.
I realize this can make it seem as if I hate everything, or at least everything that other people like. To dispel that idea, I've posted below a list of my favorite movies and performances that appeared on U.S. screens in 2005, in descending order of preference. In addition, I've put an asterisk before the ones for which I published reviews. (Click here to find the individual reviews.) Note that these five categories comprise 15 different movie titles; the same five categories of Oscar nominations comprise 16 different titles. (I sometimes have more than five nominees, sometimes fewer, but the count is still 15 if you limit me to five in each category. Four titles (roughly 25%) appear on both my list and the Academy's.)
Picture
*Downfall Germany, d: Oliver Hirschbiegel
*Grizzly Man US, d: Werner Herzog
*Separate Lies UK, d: Julian Fellowes
*Pride & Prejudice UK, d: Joe Wright
Last Days US, d: Gus Van Sant
*Nobody Knows Japan, d: Hirokazu Kore-eda
Actor
*Tom Wilkinson Separate Lies
*Romain Duris The Beat That My Heart Skipped
Steve Carell The 40-Year-Old Virgin
*Joaquin Phoenix Walk the Line
Actress
*Joan Allen The Upside of Anger
*Sarah Silverman Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic
Felicity Huffman Transamerica
*Emily Watson Separate Lies
*Lisa Kudrow Happy Endings
*Keira Knightley Pride & Prejudice
Supporting Actor
Vince Vaughn Be Cool
*Mickey Rourke Sin City
*Frank Langella Good Night, and Good Luck.
*Bruno Ganz Downfall
*Matthew MacFadyen Pride & Prejudice
*Rupert Everett Separate Lies
Supporting Actress
*Maggie Gyllenhaal Happy Endings
*Linda Bassett Separate Lies
*Reese Witherspoon Walk the Line
*You Nobody Knows
*Juliane Köhler Downfall
Alan!
Only an irreverent Hoosier could write such witty reviews. I'm really pleased to have discovered your blog.
Also, I was sorry to hear the sad news about Spike-- my parents spoke with your mother recently. Your Dad was among my favorite people. I"ve fond memories of him and was always impressed with his hip sense of humor.
Meanwhile, hope all's going well with you and your career as a critic/corporate tax attorney.
All the best,
Hugh Fink
Dear Alan Dale:
I had to stop reading your commentary when you asked the following questions:
"Nor does he explain why oil companies wouldn't prefer democratic ownership of the oil in Arab hands."
Sorry but the answers to these questions are obvious to anyone with an ounce of education in geography. Did you not learn any of the metaphors the movie was telling you? If the US military/oil industrial complex had any interest whatsoever in democracy why are they perpetually attempting to destabilize democracies in favor of military dictatorships that support their oil interests. Sorry Alan but one has to say wake the f up already and smell what's going on. Now I use lower case "us" in quotes because the us government, military and corporations they are tied to are operating in the least interest of the American people. Why is the "us" trying to destabilize the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Hint: it isn't because he helps his poor and indigenous people. Why does the "us" support the military dictatorships of Myanmar, Qatar and others? Why did the "us" harbor the dictator of the philippines in Honolulu until his death where his wife Imelda still lives a lavish life with all her shoes? Why did the "us" help the taliban rise to power, install the Shah in Iran over a formerly democratically elected government?
The reason is because freedom, democracy and justice is the LEAST thing these crooks are interested in. They are interested solely on who would be most "friendly" to their oil and profitable interests. I mean my wake up. This movie shows most viewers just how serious the situtation has gotten, how the military acts on behalf of the oil companies and how screwed the American people and the rest of the world are unless we wake up and do something about it.
Don't you remember Dalton in the movie screaming , "Corruption, corruption, corruption!"?
How is "geography" relevant? How does one "learn" from a "metaphor"?
My problem with the movie, which is the same as my problem with your comment, is that it's full of assumptions, slogans, and beliefs presented as information. The movie, at least, is suave enough to be insinuating. Your use of lower case "us," by contrast, is just silly. Present your evidence in an orderly and cogent manner--and make sure it's representative--and it will speak for itself.
By the way, the U.S. short-sightedly helped the Taliban to rise to power in order to combat the anti-democratic forces of the Stalinist Soviet government.
PS. If you had continued reading (as one pretty much has an intellectual obligation to do when one disagrees with an article), you would have read in the next sentence, "This 18 March 2003 Cato Institute article does offer such an explanation, but the point isn't what makes sense outside the movie's framework, but what makes sense inside it." Not only does this subsequent sentence provide a context (i.e., I'm talking primarily about narrative not geopolitics), but it provides a link to an article you might well agree with.
Why has political debate in this country turned into hysterical venting?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/44186)
Forgive me if this sounds flippant, Alan, but...what movies/performances did you LIKE this year?