Film Crit Hulk Smash: MUNICH, Spielberg And The Delicate Art Of Lacking Subtlety

STEVEN SPIELBERG: THERE IS NO DIRECTOR BETTER AT SHOWING YOU HIS EXACT INTENTION.

THE SCARY PARTS ARE SCARY. THE LOVING PARTS ARE LOVING. HE CAN IMBUE ANY GIVEN SCENE WITH A SENSE WONDER, AWE OR DESPAIR. AND THERE IS NO WORRY OF OVERPLAYING HIS HAND. SPIELBERG OFTEN ATTACKS HIS SCENES WITH A SENSE OF GOOFY CHUTZPAH. WHICH IS WHY HIS INTENTIONS COME THROUGH THE SCREEN WITH THE KIND OF SHEER FORCE THAT TURNS SUCH EMOTIONS INTO COMPLETE EXPERIENCES. BECAUSE OF THIS, IT WOULD BE EASY TO ARGUE THAT THE ONE THING SPIELBERG HAS NEVER DONE IN HIS CAREER IS SHY AWAY FROM A LACK OF SUBTLETY.

WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY HULK'S ALWAYS BEEN FASCINATED WITH THE ARC OF PEOPLE'S RELATIONSHIP TO SPIELBERG'S WORK. WITH CHILDREN, HIS MOVIES TEND TO STRIKE THEM IN PROFOUND AND MOVING WAYS. BUT BY ADOLESCENCE, MANY CINEMA FANS DEVELOP AN INSTINCT TO REJECT HIS WORK, OFTEN BECAUSE THEY ARE DISCOVERING THE MORE SUBTLE WORK OF ARTISTS WHOSE STRENGTHS LIE WITH AMBIGUITY. THEY FEEL THOSE FILMS AREN'T TELLING THEM WHAT TO THINK. AND SO IN THEIR EYES THEY ARE REJECTING THE APPARENT "SIMPLICITY" OF SPIELBERG'S WORK AND WHAT THEY SEE TO BE ITS MANIPULATIVE QUALITIES. AND WHAT TENDS TO HAPPEN (OR AT LEAST WHAT HULK ALWAYS HOPES WILL HAPPEN) IS THAT THESE FANS NOT ONLY COME BACK AROUND TO REALIZE THAT SPIELBERG IS A GREAT FILMMAKER, BUT REALIZE THAT HIS BRAND OF POPULAR FILMMAKING IS PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT THING TO DO ON THE PLANET. AND SO IF THERE IS NO DIRECTOR BETTER AT SHOWING YOU HIS EXACT INTENTION, WELL, TO HULK THAT JUST CONFIRMS A SIMPLE FACT:

THAT STEVEN SPIELBERG IS THE BEST DIRECTOR IN THE WORLD.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT HIS "GOD MODE" RUN FROM 1975-1998, IT ALMOST FEELS UNFAIR (WHICH ISN'T TO SAY IT'S FLAWLESS, BUT HEY, NEITHER IS "GOD"). THERE ARE MORE MASTERPIECES THAN MOST DIRECTORS HAVE TOTAL FILMS. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT '90S ERA IN PARTICULAR AND VIEW IT THROUGH THE LENS OF SPIELBERG'S "LACK OF SUBTLETY" THERE'S A CLEAR A WAY THAT FILMS LIKE JURASSIC PARK AND SCHINDLER'S LIST MAKE PERFECT SENSE. THESE ARE STORIES ABOUT ABSOLUTES. THEY ARE ABOUT WILL AND GRAND CIRCUMSTANCE, FORCES CLASHING WITH HUMANS CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE. HE MAKES FILMS THAT HAVE THE AUDACITY TO MAKE US FEEL LIKE CHILDREN, WHETHER STARING UPON A DINOSAUR, OR STARING AT THE HORRORS OF MAN'S INHUMANITY TO MAN.

BUT BY 2005 SPIELBERG WAS IN A MORE INTERESTING PLACE WITH HIS CAREER. FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM BORE WITNESS TO A SERIES OF FANTASTIC BUT "MINOR" ENTRIES IN HIS CANON, INCLUDING A TONAL-JUMPING EXERCISE OF LONGING AND DESPAIR INHERITED FROM KUBRICK IN A.I., A MIC-DROPPING SCI-FI FILM THRILLER FALSELY ACCUSED OF BAD-ENDING-ITIS IN MINORITY REPORT, A LIGHT-HEARTED AND ENTERTAINING AS HELL ROMP IN CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, AND A VISCERAL YET LARGELY MISUNDERSTOOD RENDITION OF WAR OF THE WORLDS, WHICH HULK WOULD ARGUE IS SECRETLY THE DARKEST FILM OF HIS CAREER (SO MUCH SO THAT MANY FELT THE ENDING WAS A TONAL BETRAYAL). AND THE TRUTH IS THAT AUDIENCES DIDN'T REALLY KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO REACT TO THIS SPIELBERG. THEY WERE DEEPLY ENGAGING FILMS, BUT THERE WERE ELEMENTS THAT FELT "OFF" FROM THE DIRECT 1:1 HUMANISTIC PLEAS THAT POPULATED HIS '90S WORK. FOR INSTANCE, THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH A LAST ACT OF MINORITY REPORT TURNING INTO THE OVERT GOTCHA-NESS OF AN OLD NOIR STYLE REVEAL. THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH A WAR OF THE WORLDS THAT HAD A HAPPY ENDING RIGHT AFTER A SCENE WHERE TOM CRUISE OUTRIGHT MURDERS ANOTHER MAN IN THE DESPERATION OF SURVIVAL. HERE, SUDDENLY WE HAD A STRING OF MOODY ATMOSPHERIC PIECES WITH PUNCH-BUTTON INTENSITY THAT CLASHED AGAINST THE SAME ACHINGLY SINCERE SCENES OF HIS PREVIOUS WORK. WE HAD CONTRADICTION. AND WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH A SPIELBERG TRYING TO TELL US MORE THAN ONE THING. WE JUST SENSED IT FELT "WRONG." AND SAY WHAT YOU WILL ABOUT THIS PERIOD, BUT HULK CONSIDERS THOSE FIVE YEARS TO BE MOST INTERESTING WORK OF HIS CAREER.

AND IT REACHED A ZENITH WITH HIS NEXT FILM, MUNICH.

A LOT OF PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF THE FILM AT THE TIME. TO BE HONEST, A LOT OF PEOPLE STILL DON'T. IT WAS CENTERED AROUND THE VIOLENT FALLOUT OF THE MUNICH MASSACRE AT THE 1972 SUMMER OLYMPICS AND PEOPLE FOUND THE FILM TO BE A JARRING, DARK AND PUZZLING JOURNEY INTO THE SUBJECT MATTER. SURE, MOST PEOPLE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND IT AND WHAT IT'S TRYING TO SAY ABOUT THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE AND THE COST OF REVENGE (IT'S PRETTY DAMN CLEAR TO THAT POINT), BUT THEY FELT THAT A KIND OF LARGER PICTURE COMMENTARY WAS SEEMINGLY MISSING. WHILE THERE IS CLEAR FATIGUE, THE FILM IS MOST OFTEN CRITICIZED FOR NOT FINDING THE HUMANE SUBTLETY OR OVERRIDING GRACE TO THE CONFLICT ITSELF. INSTEAD, IT STANDS MORE AS THE EARNEST DEPICTION OF TWO SIDES SIMPLY BARRELING AT EACH OTHER WITH ALL THE GRACE OF A BULL IN A CHINA SHOP. AND SPIELBERG'S OVERT CINEMATIC EXPRESSION ONLY SERVES TO EMPHASIZE THAT, AND THUS IN TURN IT UNDERMINES THE AUDIENCE'S ABILITY TO TRANSCEND THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT, LOCKING US INTO THE CYCLE AS WELL. AS A RESULT, THE NUMBER ONE THING HULK WOULD HEAR AS A CRITICISM IS:

"MUNICH CAN'T WORK AS A SPIELBERG MOVIE."

BUT IN OUR DESPERATE WANT FOR DISTANCE, FOR SOME GREENGRASS-IAN EVEN-HANDEDNESS, FOR THE REMOVED PERSONAL GRIP IN FAVOR OF THE EYE OF GOD, WE MIGHT BE MISSING EXACTLY WHAT MAKES THE FILM SO DAMN CRITICAL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

* * *

IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT MUNICH IS BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT ISRAEL.

FOR THERE IS NO POLITICAL QUAGMIRE ON THE PLANET THAT SO DIRECTLY TAPS INTO THE NEXUS OF HOT-BUTTON TOPICALITY WITH THE UNCEREMONIOUS NATURE OF OUR RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL IDS; ANTI-ARAB SENTIMENT. ANTI-SEMIITISM. AMERICAN IMPERIALISM. NUANCED MIDDLE EASTERN POLITICS. GIVE ANY ONE OPINION ON THE MATTER AND IT WILL LIKELY TIP THE SCALES IN A DIRECTION OF OFFENSE TO SOMEONE AND PERHAPS RIGHTFULLY SO. TO THE POINT THAT HULK FEELS THE NEED TO CLARIFY HULK'S OWN RELATIONSHIP TO JUDIASM IN EVEN TRYING TO TALK ABOUT IT. AS HULK'S ALLUDED TO IN THE PAST, HULK GREW UP A "PROPER" NON-BELIEVING BOSTON CATHOLIC, BUT HULK'S STEP-FAMILY WAS JEWISH, AS WERE SO MANY EXTENDED FAMILY FRIENDS (IT'S SAFE TO SAY HULK GOT ENTIRELY COMFORTABLE GOING TO SEDERS). LATER IN COLLEGE, HULK WATCHED THE BACK-AND-FORTH CAMPUS STRIFE OF A DIVERSE STUDENT BODY HEAVILY COMPRISED OF BOTH JEWISH AND ARAB STUDENTS. BUT ALSO COUNTLESS DINNERS WITH FRIENDS AT HILLEL HOUSES (HINT FOR COLLEGE KIDS: THEY HAVE HIGHER QUALITY FOOD). AND NOW THROUGH MARRIAGE TO BETTY, JUDAISM WILL BE SOMETHING GOING THROUGH THE REST OF OUR LIVES. BUT THE POINT OF THIS MINI-NARRATIVE IS TO EXPLAIN THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A PART OF HULK'S LIFE. AND IN THAT BREADTH OF EXPERIENCE, YOU SEE PEOPLE'S RELATIONSHIPS TO ISRAEL RUN THE ENTIRE FOUR-QUADRANT GAMUT: VEHEMENT HATRED AS AN OUTSIDER. VEHEMENT SUPPORT AS AN OUTSIDER. HATRED AS AN INSIDER. SUPPORT AS AN INSIDER. YOU SEE AN ENTIRE WORLD OF CLASHING EXPERIENCES AND DEEP PASSIONATE FEELINGS IN EVERY WAY (WITH OFTEN THE MOST NORMALIZED OPINIONS COMING FROM THOSE WHO ACTUALLY HAVE TO LIVE IN THE CONFLICT). AND IN THE END, WHAT HULK HAS TO SAY ON THE MATTER IS PRETTY MUCH NOTHING. IT IS THE GRAND AND HONEST INCLINATION TO REMAIN SPEECHLESS. THE MORE HULK UNDERSTANDS ABOUT THE CONFLICT IN ISRAEL, THE LESS HULK HAS A SOLUTION TO IT. WHICH IN THE END, JUST SPEAKS TO ANOTHER AGE OLD IDIOM:

SOMETIMES YOU LEARN ENOUGH TO LEARN YOU KNOW NOTHING.

BUT WHAT THEN? HULK WORRIES THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE TAKE THIS "KNOW NOTHING" ENNUI AND USE IT CALL THE WHOLE ISRAELI SITUATION "INSANE" AND CHASTISE EVERYONE INVOLVED AS BEING A PETULANT CHILD. WHICH IS FAIR IN THE SENSE THAT ALL UNENDING WARFARE IS TRULY INSANE, BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IT JUST ENDS UP BEING A EQUALLY LIMITED AND INHUMANE WAY TO ENGAGE THE SUBJECT.

HONESTLY, HULK WORRIES ABOUT HOW MUCH WE TEND TO APPROACH SOCIETAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS KIND OF THINKING. TO WIT, HULK HAPPENED TO CATCH THE PREMIERE OF THE LATEST SEASON OF SOUTH PARK AND IT TYPIFIED THE VERY WORST THE SHOW HAS TO OFFER. SURE, THEY'LL PROBABLY HAVE A CLASSIC IN A FEW WEEKS TIME, BUT THAT SHOW IS AT ITS WORST WHEN IT SHIES AWAY FROM CHILD-LIKE UNDERPINNINGS OF SELFISHNESS AND INSTEAD OPTS TO CRITICIZE EVERYONE'S BEHAVIOR / MORALS IN ITS NAKEDLY OBVIOUS QUEST TO REMAIN SMARTER AND "ABOVE EVERYONE." WHICH IS NO SURPRISE WHY THEY ARE SO QUICK TO POINT OUT ANY BEHAVIOR WHERE SOMEONE BEHAVES "ABOVE EVERYONE." IT'S BASIC REFLEXIVE DEFENSIVENESS COUPLED WITH THE JUVENILE INCLINATION TOWARD NON-PARTICIPATION, WRIT LARGE (PUT IT THIS WAY, MOST OF THE TIME SOUTH PARK IS THE GOTH KID - ALSO WHY THEIR ASSHOLE EPISODE WAS THE CLOSEST THING THEY'VE COME TO INTROSPECTION - ALSO WHY THEIR BEST EPISODES ARE JUST ABOUT THEM BEING KIDS AND CARTMAN'S MEGALOMANIA - SORRY THIS IS TURNING INTO AN ESSAY ABOUT SOUTH PARK). THE POINT IS THE SHOW IS SO DAMN CONCERNED WITH POLICING JUDGMENTAL, ASSHOLE-ISH BEHAVIOR, THAT IT OFTEN ENDS UP BECOMING THE JUDGMENTAL ASSHOLE. AND THE REAL EPIPHANY TO BE MADE IS WHEN WE CAN RECONCILE THAT HYPOCRISY.

WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MUNICH? WELL, HULK WOULD ARGUE THIS IS TRUE OF ISRAEL AND MOST MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICTS IN GENERAL. IT IS SO EASY FOR US TO SEE THE CYCLING VIOLENCE FROM A DISTANCE AND FEEL REMOVED FROM THE AGENCY AND WOUNDS CREATED FROM IT. WHICH IS WHY IT WOULD BE SO FUCKING EASY FOR ONE OF US TO GO AND MAKE A DETACHED FILM ABOUT THE CONFLICT, TO REMOVE OURSELVES FROM THE CYCLE, TO FIND ALL OF THEIR BEHAVIOR JUVENILE AND INHUMANE. AND SADLY, IN THAT PROCESS OF DETACHING OURSELVES AND SHAKING OUR HEAD WITH DISBELIEF, WE PROBABLY ALLOW IT TO PROPAGATE IN A WAY WE WOULDN'T OTHERWISE. IF IT FEELS HELPLESS, REMOVED AND INSANE, THEN THERE'S NO POINT IN EVEN ENGAGING IT.

BUT SPIELBERG DOESN'T DO THAT, DOES IT?

SURE, IT'S A FILM ABOUT THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE, BUT ONE FILLED WITH GREAT EMPATHY. TO THE POINT THAT ITS EMPATHY FOR EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER ONLY SERVES TO MAKE US DEEPLY UNCOMFORTABLE. THE VIOLENCE IS JARRING. CRUEL. SPECIFIC. PEOPLE COMMIT MURDER WITH STUNNING AWARENESS. PEOPLE CONSTANTLY DIE WITH BLOOD TRICKLING OUT OF THEM, THE LIFE DRAINING OUT OF THEIR EYES, TERRIFIED BEYOND BELIEF. THE COST OF LIFE IS NEVER A MERE TALLY, MEANT TO SHOCK US IN ITS AMOUNT, BUT INSTEAD PORTRAYED AS DEEPLY HUMAN. THEIR BODIES ARE NOT MERE WASTE OR FODDER FOR AN ONGOING WAR. THE DEATHS ARE PERSONAL, FULL OF SHAME AND CRUELTY. THERE IS NO WONDER AND AWE TO BE FOUND. THIS IS SPIELBERG EXPLORING CHARACTERS AT THEIR MOST ANGRY, PETTY AND VICIOUS. THIS IS THE KIND OF FILM WHERE A BEAUTIFUL DUTCH ASSASSIN IS KILLED AND STRIPPED AS A FINAL MEASURE OF INDIGNITY. IT'S NOT THE WHAT. IT'S THE HOW. AND THESE HOWS PILE UP INTO A CONSTANT UNFORGIVABLE STATE. THE MOSSAD OF MUNICH ARE PEOPLE NOT COLD, THEY ARE DRIVEN BY PAIN, AND THUS THROWN HEADLONG INTO REGRET. AND THE MORE AND MORE THEY KILL, THE MORE EMPTY THEY BECOME, AND THE MORE CERTAIN THEY ARE THAT THEY CAN NEVER TURN BACK. THE HIGH COST OF VIOLENCE IS NOT JUST THE LOSS OF SOUL, BUT THE EVEN HIGHER COST OF REALIZING YOU CANNOT STOP.

THESE REVELATIONS HELP US REALIZE MUNICH IS NOT SO MUCH THE SIMPLE SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY OF "BLOOD WILL HAVE BLOOD" BUT A FAR SCARIER ADMITTANCE THAT THE MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICT HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI THAN PERHAPS WE REALIZE OR ARE COMFORTABLE ADMITTING. FOR UNLIKE THE EASE OF THE SOUTH PARK SOLUTION WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO REMAIN ABOVE IT ALL, IT DARES TO REVEAL THE CORE PROBLEM IS NOT THAT EVERYONE IS WRONG...

THE CORE PROBLEM MIGHT BE THAT EVERYONE IS RIGHT.

THE MUNICH MASSACRE IS UNFORGIVABLE. THE CRIMES IN RETURN ARE UNFORGIVABLE. BUT IT JUST SHOWS THAT WE DON'T PARTICIPATE IN CYCLES OF VIOLENCE BECAUSE WE ARE INSANE IDIOTS, WE DO SO BECAUSE OUR ANGER AND RESENTMENT IS ALWAYS EARNED. SO WHAT CAN WE DO WHEN A RESPONSE IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIED? AND AS AN AUDIENCE MEMBER WATCHING THIS FILM, WHEN YOU ARE PING-PONGING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SUCH MOMENTS OF INTENSITY YOU IN EFFECT BECOME DRAINED BY IT. THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE LACK OF NUANCE AS MANY CLAIMED, FOR THERE IS NO POSITION ABOVE THE DEADLOCK IN THIS FILM. INSTEAD IT SERVES AS THE BEST EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE ENTIRE CONFLICT REALLY IS: THE MOST CRUSHING AND DRAINING PORTRAIT OF THE CYCLE OF WARFARE HULK'S EVER SEEN. SO OFTEN WE WATCH THIS FILM AND WITNESS TWO PEOPLE TALKING WITH DEEP INDOMITABLE GRIEF. THE PARALYSIS DOESN'T COME FROM THE FACT THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM, BUT FROM THE DEEPLY HUMAN INSTINCT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO HELP THEM. TO HELP SEEK JUSTICE. AND SO TO LOOK AT THEM AND INSTINCTIVELY ASK WHY THEY DO NOT TAKE A GHANDI-LIKE APPROACH TO THE CONFLICT IS TO DENY THE RIGHT TO REVENGE IS TO DENY A UNIQUELY AMERICAN NATURE, WHICH IS TO ADMIT A RATHER HUMAN AND UNIVERSAL NATURE...

THIS IS HOW PEOPLE REACT TO ONE ANOTHER WHEN THEY ARE ATTACKED.

MEANING MUNICH IS THE ENCAPSULATION OF THAT VERY INSTINCT THAT MAKES UP OUR MOST BASIC AND ACCEPTED URGES, AND HOW THE HORRIBLE CYCLES EMERGE FROM THAT INSTINCT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. AND IT DOES NOT TRY TO REMAIN ABOVE IT, IT TRIES TO GROUND US IN THE REALIZATION THAT THIS IS TRUE OF US TOO. IT IS, PERHAPS, THE GREATEST LOST NUANCE OF ALL. AND ITS ARTICULATION OF THE HIGH COST OF REVENGE COMES IN A FORM WE PERHAPS DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE, FOR IT CLEARLY STATES THAT:

JUSTICE IS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LOST SOMETHING FOR THE FIRST TIME,

BUT INDIFFERENCE IS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY LOST EVERYTHING.

AND IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT BROKEN SENTIMENT, IN ORDER TO REALLY FEEL IT ON THAT HUMAN LEVEL, WE DON'T NEED THE DETACHED REMOVAL OF A FILMMAKER WHO KNOWS BETTER THAN THE CONFLICT ITSELF. WE NEED A FILMMAKER WHO WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO VISCERALLY PING-PONG US BACK AND FORTH THROUGH THAT CONFLICT WITH RECKLESS ABANDON. WHO WILL MAKE US COMPLICIT WITH EVERY ACT ON EITHER SIDE. WHO WON'T LET US GET ABOVE IT. AND WHO WILL REMIND US THAT WE ARE JUST AS SUSCEPTIBLE AS THAT PERSON WE LABEL "OTHER." AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY HULK WOULD ARGUE THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT SO MANY OTHERS DID.

MUNICH COULD ONLY WORK AS A SPIELBERG MOVIE.

AND THAT'S THE ONLY SUBTLETY YOU NEED.

<3 HULK