Most of my impressions of the movie and my rebutals to Ms. Zacharek's objections have been covered in previous posts. I think it is worth emphasizing - for those who have not seen it - that this is the first mass-marketed movie made for grown-ups that I've seen in ages. The restraint in the sound track, the lack of gratuitous car chases, and the relaxed pace of discussion are conspicuous examples of a filmakers trust in the audience. I am reminded of the classy movies of the late sixties/early seventies.... and I assume that this is a deliberate effort by Mr. Spileberg to refer to that style as part of his mise-en-scene - along with the authentic 70s-period detail to which others alluded.

The main point I would add to the others is that the constant questioning about the morality of actions ("righteousness" in the film) is and always has been a part of the Jewish - and yes, Israeli - tradition. That is very well portrayed.

I think Mr. Spielberg has made an amazing effort to be sympathetic to both sides - even though he is under no obligation to be even-handed. Ultimately, it may be that there are no answers, per se. In nature, sex, food (so much good sensuous food and wine and whiskey in this flic), and violence (the juxtapostion scene) are simple givens; and humans are in fact just other animals of the earth - extraordinarily 'successful' predators.

"Violence isn't the answer, Spielberg tells us in 'Munich.' But the artists and filmmakers who are fondest of that handy platitude are never able to tell us what the answer is . . ."

Well, gee, if film directors have the answer to terrorism, we can all just go home. Or maybe "Munich" should have starred Vin Diesel and Sylvester Stallone, blowing away all the bad guys and feeling good about it. Would that have made you happy?

"Munich" doesn't answer any questions; it raises them. That's why I didn't just like, but loved, this movie; it is art. I can see almost every point raised by the reviewer the other way around, particularly the objection to the scene in which Avner makes love to his wife while getting flashbacks to the violence on the tarmac at Munich. This did not trivialize the violence at all. It showed eloquently the two sides of passion, what we would do to protect the people we love, and Avner's doubts about retreating from violence. It shows us precisely that there is no answer, but that we have to go into that painful place to at least look for one.

The fact that Avner did, in the end, renounce violence, didn't sit well with me as an answer, and I don't believe that Spielberg intended it to be an answer at all. His words did not move Efraim. They didn't change history. That was what was meant by the World Trade Center in the background, in case the reviewer is still wondering. (By the way, I believe that visual was flawed; part of the WTC would have still been under construction then--or perhaps construction continued only on the interior.)

If you want "shades of gray," look more closely, because Spielberg delivers them. He delivered them very courageously in "Schindler's List," and he continues the tradition in "Munich." Speilberg never tells us that morality is relative, that right and wrong are not important. He shows us that morality is hard.

Lastly, to comment on the questionable historical basis: This movie is fiction. It is "based on true events" but essentially fictional. Fiction is not true, but in such a work of art as "Munich," fiction is truth.

Is anybody else as sick as I am of movie critics using the royal "we", and generally making the conceited assumption that their reactions are naturally eveyone else's reactions (or at least the reactions shared by "thinking" people")?

It seems to me that critics like Stephanie don't have the stones to say out loud and honestly, "This is what I think; these are my reactions, feelings about this film". Whenever a critic of this type points out a "hidden meaning", an "obvious connection", or somethings that "the viewer feels", my reaction is invariably to think "Who's we, white man?" Almost without fail, those "observations" tell me far more about the critic than they do about the film itself.

If this critic has a problem with the idea that yes, EVERYBODY is human, has doubts, fears, pain, then perhaps she should restrict herself to romcoms and the twittery Hollywood "feel-good" films she protests against, because clearly she can't handle films that ask tough questions. And just whence came this straitjacket notion that films that ask questions must automatically answer them in order to have value? I don't know about you, Steph, but as an adult, I don't want films that wrap things up in nice shiny bows - I prefer films that will leave me with nagging questions, doubts, new insights. It's called "thinking"; you might want to try it sometime.

Oh, and one more thing. The critic claims that: Spielberg stages the moment to make it clear that this was a decision made with reluctance, not self-righteous certainty. Seeing as how this statement is clearly meant to contrast the Israeli deicision (which we are shown in great detail) with the Palestinian decision to commit the murders in the first place (which we are never shown at all), I'm curious - why is it no one seems to consider that the first decision might have been made with "reluctance"? It's just this kind of off-hand assumption of "we're right, even when we're wrong, but they're never right, no matter what" that always makes me curious about the people we label enemies, and far more interested in hearing their side of the story than another repackaged propoganda harangue about the "devils" that want to "destroy our way of life". Which is why I'm wanting to see Munich - even if it doesn't make much of an attempt to tell the other side, at least Spielberg seems to acknowledge that there might be another side.