This being a Spielberg movie, the most effective talking point is considered a statement by a terrorist that all the Palestinians want is a home. Well, for goodness' sake, everybody wants a home. No reasonable person thinks that even the most unregenerate of terrorists is subhuman by nature. The debate is over moral decisions: the question is not, Why did he act? but, Why did he act violently without warning against civilians? (And any explanation of this particular situation that leaves out anti-Semitism, as Munich does, is going to be short of the mark.) In addition, part of what disconcerts the assassins is having to kill one man who translates poetry and another who has a beautiful, mannerly daughter. These points are similarly irrelevant, however, because when a terrorist murders civilians without warning, he is not acting as a poet or as a father. It's not a revelation that there are other aspects of his life that contrast jarringly with his actions as a terrorist, but it's solely his actions as a terrorist that have brought the Israeli death-squad to his door. The terrorists might have chosen other means but did not, and their deaths are the consequences of that choice.
Because 90-odd years of feature filmmaking have produced no precedents, it seems safe to say that an analysis of whether violent political reprisal for political violence is morally justified is not something a fictional movie can handle well. But even if this were a promising subject for a movie, nothing in Spielberg's résumé suggests he's the man for the job—the subject is too inherently wordy. As Spielberg has shot the script by Eric Roth and Tony Kushner the action and the subsequent discussions are in completely different modes and cancel each other out. This wouldn't be the case if he had shot the assassinations more objectively, in the problem-solving manner, say, of Robert Bresson's A Man Escaped (1956), the most cerebral, least fakey of all World War II POW escape movies. This would also be appropriate for the movie's non-epic emphasis on personal reactions to political actions.
Spielberg doesn't even seem to be searching for a new way of addressing the large-scale subject of political violence, either by following an individual character, as in Jean-Luc Godard's Le Petit soldat (1960), or by following mass action, as in Gillo Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers (1966). Pontecorvo does romanticize the epic upsurge that the Algerian terrorists hope to ignite but he doesn't sentimentalize the individual actors as Spielberg does. And Pontecorvo, even more passionately than Godard, feels the subject merits a new approach (though a different one from Godard's). Spielberg goes out on a limb stylistically in one sequence, showing Avner deliriously fucking his wife in sweaty slow motion while ruminating about the murder of the athletes, but what the director accomplishes by that is merely to fatten the annals of camp.
![Mortal Storm [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21P89WGMHJL._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
1 - Michael J. West
Forgive me if this sounds flippant, Alan, but...what movies/performances did you LIKE this year?
2 - Alan Dale
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
3 - Hugh Fink
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
4 - Wakeup Man
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!"?
5 - Alan Dale
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.
6 - Alan Dale
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?