I'd watched V for Vendetta on Friday, at a cinema, with a friend, and Munich yesterday, at home and alone. Different styles, different directions. Yet, a similar theme ran through both, which is violence used as means to an end. I have to give it that Spielberg's movie pays better attention to details compared to McTeigue's but both are similarly charged. It is an unfair comparison, seeing that Spielberg has had more experience but McTeigue is definitely at home in the science-fiction/fantasy genre, and knows how to tie in the loose ends, and made the action-packed movie a substantial one.
There is so much that can be reviewed, or critique about the two films (one made it to Malaysia, the other did not, maybe because of the subject matter) but I am merely making notes here of my observations, that might be usable in future articles, or writings.
Both were about fighting for a cause, and both involved the use of murder and violence. While the human element is played to the full in Munich, it is played out pretty well in V for Vendetta by Weaving and Portman, though sometimes, I feel that V was more like a very well-groomed automaton who always knew the right things to say. But His voice, I have to say that I was transfixed by the well-modulated voice, not something you hear everyday if you live where I do. The only time I saw any semblance of actual love for humanity, was the anguish he felt when Evey told him that she was leaving him. It was then that you realised that he actually had REAL feelings. In fact, the problem I would have with the movie, other than it being a rather unevolved political skit, is that we don't get to see more of the characters feelings, though I believe Weaving did a superb job, as did Portman. What is more, there seems to be too clear a demarcation between the good and the bad. And the bad seems almost mad and monstrous, all with the exception of Finch, the head of the police department, who despite being initially on the side of the "bad guys" (but one can see that he had a heart, as he wanted to save Evey from possible torture and death if she were to fall into the hands of the secret police, the "fingermen"), soon sided with the "good guys" towards the end of the movie, and helped toppe the government ala Guy Fawkes by bombing the Parliament. Maybe I'll read the graphic novel before I comment further, and that would require me to try fnding it in a bookshop. (:
As for Munich, I am sorry that it did not make Malaysia's cinema. Though a Hollywood movie, it does not have many of the irritating qualities of the current breed of movies from Tinseltown. I am so glad that Spielberg did not try to distinguish between the good and bad guys, and the beauty of the movie is how multi-faceted his characters are, even those who made but cameo appearances. It is a story about the aftermath of the 1972 Olympics in Munich, where 11 Israeli atheletes were massacred by a bunch of Palestinian freedom-fighters. There were as many violent scenes in the movie as there were tender moments.
I have to say that it is the dialogue that made the characters come alive for me, and I almost wished that the "terrorists" (Palestinians in this movie, according to the Israeli government) that were being hunted would escape unscath, because they were so kind, gentlemanly and courteous in person. They were loving to their families, they obviously love their people and shared in the sufferings of their predicament, despite living bourgeoisie lives in Europe.
One must remember that the events that took place in this movie was just slightly after the six day war in 1967, which heralded the drawing up of West Bank border. It was also not too long after the repatriation of the Jews to Israel. Violence was then escalating as the stateless Palestinians fought to regain their land. It is important to mention that when the word "terrorist" were used in the film, it was not to influence the perception of the audience towards the Palestinians, but rather to let us view them through the eyes of the Israelis who were then at war with them. But when we observe individual interactions, and there are so many such instances of such in the movie, we soon realised that, if not for all these political hatred, these people could had been very good neighbours and friends with one another. Just like how the Bosnians and Serbs were friends prior to the Balkan conflict.
There was a scene showing Avner (the hired assassin, formerly of MOSSAD, the Israeli secret police) having a pow-wow with Ali, a Jordanian, who freely told the former that he hated the Jews, after having mistaken the former for a German. The latter did not love the Palestinians any better, but they were considered preferable to the Jews because the Arabs felt that the Jews had be the cause of their destabilisation. A few scenes down, when Avner was shooting Ali in the former's attempt to get away after assasinating the man the latter was guarding, you could almost see in Ali's eyes, the look of sadness and betrayal. And one sees that anguish in Avner's eyes (or maybe I'd imagined it) as the cameras did a close-up. The Israeli assassins were ethical in their attempt to inflict minimal damage while ridding themselves of their targets. One of the assassins, the bomb-maker Robert, was trying to get details of the telephone of one of the targets to plant a bomb, the target's daughter saw him doing that as she came in to practice on the piano. But the girl was unsuspecting and even smiled at Robert. He must had felt terrible then, knowing that he was soon to make her fatherless, and the anguish was apparent later, when he lost his appetite after having successfully killed the target at last. There was a scene where they found out that she was still in the house, and had picked up the call that was meant for her father. They attempted to delay the assassination until she was safely out. But was indeed a very sad scene, for the viewer knew what will soon come to past.
There were many scenes of brutality, but also many scenes of tenderness. Avner's love for his family saved him from becoming a victim of another assassin masquerading as a prowling man-trapper. I saw him cried as he spoke to his little daughter on the phone, and I wondered how he felt then about the men he had been assigned to destroy, the men who were also husbands and fathers. Towards the end of the film, the audience is shown how much toll such a life had had on him, renderind him paranoid and giving him the equivalent of a post traumatic stress disorder. From the time he decided to undertake the mission, his life changed, and would never be the same. But he began then to open his eyes to the futility of brutality as it begets more brutality (something that we get to see through the news that came on a few times in the movie). His previous unquestioning loyalty towards his homeland took a turn when he realised how much of a pawn he was to his country's politics. The movie succeeded in portraying the weaknesses and cruelties of both sides, as well as the humanity that exists in each individual person. Unfortunately, since the focus of the movie was on the Israeli, we did not get to see really what goes on in the minds of individual Palestinians and Arabs, but from the short exchanges of dialogues, and from the various scenes, we get a notion that they too have a heart. We are reminded of the fates of the refugees after the Palestinians were rendered stateless, and it is clear that the movie aspires to tell both sides of the stories as well as it could. We also get to see the kind of impression PLO had on the world back then, and how easily they were confused with HAMAS (maybe because of the ties to both organisations by certain individuals).
Hence, I think it is shallow prejudice that kept Munich from being screened in Malaysia. Anti-semitism, unfortunately, is still pretty high in this country, and that had kept many worthy movies from being shown. We are in some ways worse than terorrists who had become such due to their despair, because we are blindly prejudiced in our complacency, only because it is easier to be prejudiced along with the majority rather than to question it. I suspect that V For Vendetta was allowed to be screened because it had been categorised as some movie version of comics, despite its obvious political content and unrelenting criticism of establishments. V, the man who is liberator of the masses, as had been said in other reviews, is also highly individual, in that he has tastes that could not be considered "popular", with the exception maybe of the jukebox. He does remind me of Eric in the novel Phantom of the Opera, though perhaps a more highminded version?
Both movies were about fighting for freedom. One involving only one country, whereas the other involved a country that had become the source of wars between two factions. I daresay that the two movies would be interesting to explore what is means to be a terrorist, and the "black September", September 1972 and September 2001.
And if you need a refresher course on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, do check out here
No comments:
Post a Comment