Which mainstream film critic said THIS about Steven Spielberg’s Munich?
Today’s movie culture has so thoroughly written off the concept of sin that any movie ridiculing it (from Hellboy and My Summer of Love to Squid and the Whale) is guaranteed to be widely praised. This fondness for transgression might explain the trouble Spielberg has run into with Munich. He explicates a grievous sense of wrong-doing that communicates best to those who are open to an Ecumenical view of life (or if that term scares you, Judeo-Christian). Munich’s vision is truly Judeo-Christian in that it doesn’t confuse morality with politics. It uses one to test the other.
Surely it is the concept of sin that angers Spielberg’s current detractors. They don’t want any selfish or transgressive actions to be judged. The fact that Munich won’t settle for memorializing Israel’s revenge offends some propagandists’ self-justifying nihilism as surely as it also spoils (but enlightens) the action-movie party. Bloodseekers simply can’t get off on Munich’s complexity. Munich doesn’t arouse vengeance; it isn’t about “fairness” or even-handed allocation of blame. It’s about how retribution (eye-for-an-eye politics) unbalance the universe, how Avner unquiets his soul. Throughout his killings, Avner carries a consciousness of heritage and the weight of history; plus, a sense of justice challenged by a sense of responsibility—burdens. Miraculously, this story of mankind’s moral burden becomes the perfect summary for Spielberg’s 9/11 trilogy — the most significant event of 2005 cinema.
Strong language. But I think I agree with him. The farther I get from seeing Munich, the more I find myself thinking about it and wanting to see it again. I’m not sure yet if I think it’s the best film of the year, but it’s way, way up there….
My full review will be up tomorrow, if the day goes as planned.