Munich

[Max Jacoby]

I was not questioning whether she spoke English or not, but that she spoke English instead of Hebrew, like all the other characters in the film.

[David Sweetman]

Although the worst example is still one of the Indiana Jones, where one of the Nazis is supposed to say something in German, but actually only says something which merely sounds like German, but in fact doesn't make any sense!

 

Hahaha I love this kinda stuff. My favorite is the Germans talking in Three Amigos -- "Nacht yacht Diemond!" hahaha, crazy foriegners.

[David Mullen ASC]

I was not questioning whether she spoke English or not, but that she spoke English instead of Hebrew, like all the other characters in the film.

 

Actually, there is quite a bit of subtitled dialogue in the movie too.

[Chris Fernando]

Was it just me or was this film not as balanced in it's depiction of both 'edges of the sword' (Palestinian v. Israeli POV) as one was led to believe in a number of pre-release articles?

[Max Jacoby]

Actually, there is quite a bit of subtitled dialogue in the movie too.

Who did they subtitle then? The Germans? Palestinians?

[Elhanan Matos]

I only heard about four or five lines of hebrew spoken in the movie... and two of those lines were subtitled the rest werent. Then there was alot of french, italian and german that was subtitled.

[Max Jacoby]

So some Hebrew was subtitled and most was being spoken as English? Is the subtitled Hebrew spoken by actors or taken from real life footage? Because if it is the former, then that is the same nonsensical approach as in 'Schindler's List' where some Germans spoke German, some spoke English and then there was Ralph Fiennes giving his best Dr. Strangelove imitation....

[David Mullen ASC]

It's one of the most common conventions of Engliush-language movies to have the majority of the dialogue in English -- it's not like the actors in "Gladiator" are speaking in Latin and whatnot. And if anything, a movie with an Isreali lead character raised in the US speaking English is not all that unjustified... don't some Isrealis mix English and Hebrew in their conversations?

[Kevin Zanit]

"Don't some Israelis mix English and Hebrew in their conversations?"

 

Yep, stand around Band-Pro for a little and that becomes apparent ;)

[Max Jacoby]

I am not questioning the fact that movies substitute the original language of the characters with English, but the inconsistency of not doing it all the time, i.e. reverting to the original language at times, thereby only attracting attention to the fact that the language being spoken is not the original one. In 'Schindler's List' for instance this was the case and it really pulled me out of the movie. So far I've found that if the characters use straight English all the time that works best, while trying to 'colorize' it with an accent of the original language (Schinlder's List once again) prevents it from being invisible.

[Sean Azze]

From what my Israeli girlfriend tells me, you're likely to hear people speaking English 50% of the time on the streets of Israel. Regardless, the majority of Avner's conversations are with his band of assassins who are all from various countries, and with his French contacts.

 

The American filmmaking industry is lucky in the sense that English is the most widely spoken language in the world. It isn't so far fetched to find foreign people speaking English with one another, especially if their respective countries speak different languages. We Americans are very spoiled that the entire world seems to learn English in school as a prerequisite! :P

 

Oh, I just recalled this hilarious sketch that aired about a month ago on some comedy program (can't remember which it was, sorry my memory is so shot!)

They were talking about how everyone on the miniseries Rome spoke with a British accent, and how if they really wanted to be accurate, they should all sound like a group of Italian mobsters! I wanna say it was The Soup..I dont know, funny sh*#...

[Jonathan Spear]

To me it's like using day-for-night shots and "real" night shots in the same film. It's not that big of a deal.

 

You can be the type of person who's always on the lookout for any type of flaw or imperfection, or just sit back and take the story in and be thankful that we live in an era where hearing Hebrew being spoken on the big screen is allowed and not frowned upon. 'The Passion' might have been an entirely different film if Aramaic and Hebrew phrases weren't included.

 

It's nice to mix things up every now and then, in terms of dialogue, because it really can add to the authenticity and flavor of the film.

 

Besides, you might actually lear a few new words in a different language.

[David Mullen ASC]

I understand why it may seem silly to have actors speak in English but in a fake accent, but some viewers find the opposite approach to be just as distracting, to have them speak in whatever their true accents are -- examples would be "The Last Temptation of Christ" or recently the movie "The Grey Zone".

 

A recent article on "Memoirs of a Geisha" talked about how all the Chinese actors in the movie had to learn to speak English with a Japanese accent to avoid clashes in accents (Michelle Yoeh, for example, normally has a slightly British accent, which she had to minimize.) Now one might ask why not hire Japanese actors...

 

I recall some other period movie I saw this year that I can't remember, but again, it was like "The Last Temptation of Christ" where I noticed that the director decided to just let everyone speak in their own "modern" accents rather than impose some overall accent.

 

A famous example is "Ben Hur" where William Wyler decided to cast British actors as Romans and American actors as Jews, more or less, to create some internal consistency in accent.

 

I also recall some of the complaints of mixed accents in Branaugh's "Hamlet" even though there is not a real reason why Shakespeare must be performed with a British accent.

 

I'm just saying that if one's criteria is not to be distracting, and assuming that the film has to be in the English language, then having the cast try and speak with a fake accent can be just as valid an approach as having them speak with their own natural accents. You may have found yourself just as distracted in "Schindler's List" if Liam Neeson was just speaking in his natural Irish accent throughout and wishing he had suppressed it.

[Craig Knowles]

On thing I found really interesting about "Munich" was Spielberg/Kaminski's use of the zoom. Like it or not, it worked beautifully in selling the whole 1970's aesthetic.

Edited December 31, 2005 by Craig Knowles

[Guest gurbaniak]

Golda Meir moved to the U.S. at a young age and lived in Milwaukee for 15 years, so her speaking english does not bother me. Neither does the english of the other people, many educated people in that region at that time were educated in the english speaking world.

 

But seeing as this is a cinematography site, this film is amazing! I have yet to se a bad Kaminski film!

[Leo Anthony Vale]

It's one of the most common conventions of Engliush-language movies to have the majority of the dialogue in English -- it's not like the actors in "Gladiator" are speaking in Latin and whatnot. And if anything, a movie with an Isreali lead character raised in the US speaking English is not all that unjustified... don't some Isrealis mix English and Hebrew in their conversations?

 

---In B.Rose's "Anna Karenina", the main characters, Russian aristocrats, speak English, while the servents and commoners speak Russian with English subtitles.

 

I can only guess this is supposed to reflect the then custom of the aristocracy speaking French with each other and Russian with the servants.

 

I'd be interested in seeing the French language version.

 

A friend who was in the USAF was stationed in Bogata. He said that the upper middle classes, who mostly went to American Universities, speak English among themselves and Spanish to the servants and at the market.

 

"Anna Karenina" was produced by Mel Gibson's company.

It struck me in'The Passion...' that the Roman legionairies were speaking Latin with Italian accents.

The American accented Latin I'm used to sounds like a dead language, whereas the Latin there sounded like a lively Italian.

 

---LV

[David Mullen ASC]

Oddly enoughly, the same justification was used in "Star Trek 3" to explain why sometimes the Klingons speak English and sometimes in subtitled Klingonese -- that the officers might occasionally speak English among themselves the way that non-French aristocrats might speak French or something among themselves, or WW1 German army officers might occasionally speak French to each other, perhaps so that the enlisted men couldn't understand what they were saying...

[Evan Guilfoyle]

ALL THE SEMANTICS ABOUT LANGUAGE IS INTERESTING, however there was a post where it was mentioned that "both sides of the sword" weren't equally addressed. I find it to be totally weighted to the Israeli perspective. The controversial scene between Avner and the Palestinian in the hallway was too unbalanced in the forcefulness of Avner's argument. The idea that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind is not a new concept, even if it is from the director of "Schindler's List".

 

On another tangential note, having seen "Memoirs of a Geisha", I could see why Spielberg did not want to direct the Japanese version of "The Color Purple".

 

Kaminski work on "Munich" was too mannered: retire the Dior stocking!! The use of zoom was interesting, however unneccessary it was too the story.

 

But, Charles Fox ("Day of the Jackal") was interesting as a Frenchman (read: Anti-Semitic) with compassion toward Avner and his family. I found that detail insightful into the movie "Munich" could have been.

[Chris Fernando]

ALL THE SEMANTICS ABOUT LANGUAGE IS INTERESTING, however there was a post where it was mentioned that "both sides of the sword" weren't equally addressed. I find it to be totally weighted to the Israeli perspective. The controversial scene between Avner and the Palestinian in the hallway was too unbalanced in the forcefulness of Avner's argument. The idea that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind is not a new concept, even if it is from the director of "Schindler's List".

 

Oh before careful Evan, you know what they do to free thinkers who speak their mind!!! BTW, I agree wholeheartedly, but I was still engrossed enough to watch attentively for the near 3 hour running time.

 

As for the diffusion, I think the man is a visual genius who dooesn't get nearly enough credit, but if you notice the diffusion in every shot (of every film now) isn't it calling attention to itself (IMHO :ph34r: )?

[Guest Michael Collier II]

Finnaly a good speilberg movie. I know a lot of people want to rag on him (probably because he has super-star status among the general public, but in truth his movies are hit and miss.)

 

I have been mad at him since AI (possibly because I thought it would be much, much different if kubrick had done it all, and partly because it dragged on and had no engaging story) he had small victories with saving private ryan and minority report, but never thought he would get back to the Shindler's list days (cynics aside it was a good movie) I think with this movie he finally got back to it.

 

I for one thought it as ballanced not in which side it portrayed, but in the point of the film. Its not about whos right and whos wrong in the palistine/israeli conflict, its about the fighters comming to realize the futility of that kind of fight. I think a big part was to see what becomes of people who involve themselves in that fight.

 

There was really one one discusion in the movie that went into the drive behind it, when they share the safe house with the palistinians. Nobody won that conversation (we saw motive, but nobody seemed to have more right in the discusion) I think the film did well to stay out of deciding whos right, just show how one man can loose his soul in that fight.

 

as for the look of the film....well who am i to tell johanz it sucked? It was awsome, spot on. I felt there were times that you can point to stylistic things and say, I wouldnt take it that far, or I would push that look farther, but in the end it was really good.

 

And the one thing I have always hated about spielberg is his absurd use of moving camera. Halfway through most of his films I get sick of the camera moves because they dont seem to have any relevence to the story, its just moving (think Team America, world police, the way the head guys chair is always moving) this one I felt I could take away some peice of the story with how the camera moved.

[Andy O'Neil]

"Munich" didn't set me up enough for revenge. The events that actually took place are horrifying, but for some reason, I was not ready to go on a murdering rampage with Avner and his operatives.

 

There wasn't enough conviction behind the story-telling either. Spielberg throws in awkward jokes (i.e. the radio war), soft chats between mother and son,... it's as if he can't quite justify state-approved kills. A more succinct, matter-of-fact style would have suited me better.

 

And the use of flashback was all wrong for me. All of the awful events should have been punched in the very beginning instead of spread out throughout the movie. It's not like I'm going to forget what happened.

 

Finally, at the end of the movie, the sex scene cross-cut with the hostage ordeal - Is Avner actually getting off to the sound of German helicopters?

 

The cinematography was nice and all... but...

 

My favorite shot: The Palestinian terrorist with the sock on his head watching the news cast from his hotel room. As he walks out to the balcony, the television reveals the news cameras are on him. It's the image that comes to mind when I think of Black September.

[Krystian Ramlogan]

I just saw Munich. I agree with a lot of what has been said so far. For me the most glaring thing was the cinematography: a lot of shots / sequences were too soft and grainy, especially when Avner meets Papa. The change in look/texture throughout also wasn't quite working for me and I thought it was a bit overdone; a bit more consistency would have worked better I think.

 

I also agree that the shot of the terrorist on the balcony with the TV focussed on that terrorist was a great shot, and certainly one that I will remember for a long time.

 

I was engaged, and I followed the story closely throughout its run (as opposed to KONG where I was altrernately bored or excited). In terms of Spielberg's body of work I think this is definitely a strong piece, which could have been better if the softness wasn't there.

 

I don't care that much to make a big deal of the accents / english and I have also been brought up on Sub-titled films from a very early age (3 years to be exact).

 

There was a fair amount of movement, but I think it was all done in an attempt to show a different perspective of events that could have happened, instead of trying to paint a traditional view: why would someone want to do traditional if they can try something new or a bit different? As individuals we all would make different choices, but this was not our film to tell, so I give Spielberg kudos.

 

About the sex scene, it shows how deeply affected Avner is by the entire ordeal: he can't even relax and have sex with his wife, the intercutting shows what he must be imagining - the event that started his entire walk along that dark and lonely path he had been treading, that event had become the focus of his entire life, and he was losing himself...I think his wife saying she loved him shows she understands and she accepts, and that makes the difference to him to come back to himself, as we see later on.

 

I think as well it would be interesting if everyone tried to see the film from a cultural perspective; it is a culture film, and it takes on different tones and the sub-text changes if you allow yourself to imagine for a moment that you are a jew fighting this battle from a jewish perspective.

 

It was a good film, not the greatest or the best, but a good film. I got my money's worth and learnt a thing or two that movies today don't have: a filmmaker can still tackle hard stories and with some determination and confidence weave a story that leaves people thinking, which is what we are all doing right now on so many levels because we have all been affected by the story. Lol, you don't need to like Spielberg but he provokes thought!!

[Guest Michael Collier II]

Finally, at the end of the movie, the sex scene cross-cut with the hostage ordeal - Is Avner actually getting off to the sound of German helicopters?

 

Did it look like he was getting off? To me he seemed distant and removed. It was like even in the most intamate moments he is still not able to remove himself from the violence he had become. It was the realization that he had lost his soul. anyway thats what I read into it.

 

And the use of flashback was all wrong for me. All of the awful events should have been punched in the very beginning instead of spread out throughout the movie. It's not like I'm going to forget what happened.

 

I did. well not really but after enough killing you kind of forget the reason hes doing what he does, especially as things goes wrong, sometime its not a bad thing to re-examine what is driving him. The other thing about the flashbacks that I liked was it filled in the gaps that the beggining left. In the beggining I was upset they went through so quickly, it was like jumpcutting, but as the movie progressed you got filled in with the middle bits.

[Evan Guilfoyle]

The crosscutting between Avner and his wife having sex with the execution of the hostages was straight-up tacky. There hasn't been as egregious a use of slow-motion since Cuba Gooding hopped on the machine guns in "Pearl Harbor". If someone was pumping away on me like a robot (possible A.I. reference?!?) I WOULD TELL THEM TO GET OFF ME!! Her understanding was a tacked-on response to justify showing the murder of Israeli Olympians at the end of the movie, instead of the beginning. The beginning had great shots, yes. But, I did not find a human moment between the members of Avner's team until the bar exhange about the Dutch Honeypot. There is a lot of backward justification going on to explain a disjointed approach to A VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT!!

 

Why did the old man feel haunted by the Murder of the Dutch Woman? He was the one who wanted her to be found dead and nude, and went so far as to uncover her after she was covered?!? This microcosmic instance shows the extreme dialectical nature of Kushner and Spielberg's approach. You can't have it both ways, show thier barbarism and then have them explain how bad they feel afterwards. It's almost as if Kushner had a morality play but Spielberg had all these cinematic ideas he wanted to wedge in (70's Paranoia: Conversation, Parallax View, Zooms: Battle of Algiers, etc., Grainy Footage crosscut with Actual Footage).

 

Not to go on and on, but most people born after the real events will use this movie as a compass into what Black September was all about. And for that reason alone, "Munich" is a dangerous mess of what could have been a masterpiece about the modern Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

 

For subtlety about another on-going and related problem in the Middle East, see "Syriana". At least it has a consistent point of view, no matter how hard you have to work to find it.

 

Evan Guilfoyle

Filmmaker - Baltimore, MD

[Guest Alfred]

On another tangential note, having seen "Memoirs of a Geisha", I could see why Spielberg did not want to direct the Japanese version of "The Color Purple".

Can you explain how their similar? Edited January 8, 2006 by Alfred