posted
Warning - massive spoilers. Please go see the movie if you haven�t, some of the things I bring up works best when ingested without foreknowledge.
Who else has seen it? I got the impression from recent discussion of this movie that the US audience was rather unreceptive of this movie, both because of the R-rating and because of the conflicted and infected nature of the plot. More on that later, depending on if you'll indulge me.
A few things really grabbed my attention. First off, I was blown away by the attention to 70's clothing, cars and overall feel. It really reminded me of the few, scarce vacation photos my parents took in Cyprus in the early 70's, that certain yellow tint was carried over, especially in the scene were Geoffrey Rush eats baklava).
Secondly, tasteful music priorities. With the exception of the scene showing the final fate of the hostages at the airport, no shooting or fighting scene had any background score to go with it, just gunfire and shouting - and what sound it was. Loud, white, echoing and realistic gunfire, like the one you hear in real war footage. Not the "Die Hard"-blam blam crap. And the parts that had music were rather unobtrusive and subtle, with the exception of the generic �eastern wail-theme� during the opening credits, done to death in movies like Gladiator, Troy and Alexander. Really, I was surprised when I noticed John Williams was the composer, as he usually isn't all that subtle.
Next, realism in agent work: after endless shows of ridiculously slick and effective agent work � la "Mission Impossible" and the last three bond movies, we saw how the initial operations of the Mossad-team led by Avner (Eric Bana) were improvised, sloppy and nervous. Especially the first hit at the elevator. Avner's colleague flinched and as a consequence they ended up emptying their clips into the poor old man/palestinian butcher (it's both ways with Spielberg), spilling milk and cherries on the beautiful marble floor. I had expected one shot in center mass, walk up, one shot in the head, done. Wisecrack, if it'd been Cruise or Pitt. But these were ordinary people having to work during extraordinary conditions, and then shit can and will happen. And I was sure they were going to waste the daughter of that office-working target in the last minute, but they waited, she left and they carried on, what else could they do? Time is money, especially if you�re government-funded.
The scariest scenes (the initial kidnapping, the grisly assassination of the dutch female mercenary, and the Beirut hit with the collateral damage) all had a place in the story, no doubt about that.
Everyone is talking about how this movie is predominantly grey - CIA, Mossad, PLO, they are all exempt of innocence. Sure, we know that. But what I got from those scenes was what I sensed is the most modern and recent way of depicting bloodshed and transgressions in film. Namely that in international relations it is carried out in two ways; fanatical inspiration and its attached fervor (as in the hostage killings) or unfeeling, detached professionalism (the later Mossad hits and especially the extra one on the female in Holland). Two sides of the same coin, both leading to the continuation or resumption of hostilities.
That being said, I was surprised to see one of the most beautiful love scenes of the year in a movie like this. I'm of course talking about the early, establishing scene for Avner and his mate Daphna. Both were perspirating, Daphna was clearly showing signs of pregnancy, making her the epitome of glowing womanhood. Also, her bellybutton looked the same as my first girlfriend's, so I was deeply nostalgic, on top of it all. And judging by the atmosphere of the scene, it seemed like the woman was the initiator. She loved him, she was pregnant, she had needs. Realistic and fresh, especially for a culture and region we like to associate with conservatism. Daphna was also given nice sarcastic cracks to throw at her laboring husband throughout the story, almost all with the same underlying meaning: "please come here and be with me". And yet, that didn't feel old, she didn't strike me as the woman on the porch, mopingly watching her cowboy strapping on his sixguns. Daphna also complained about their moving to Brooklyn, claiming that it "had more churches than at home". An interesting angle, dealing with the age-old tendency for immigrants to paint a picture of their homeland that is exaggerated and ornamental compared to the original (See: �hyperreality�, if you�re into anthropology like me).
But back to sex, it was nice that Spielberg and co knew to appreciate that part of life as well, specifically avoiding wrapping it up in silk, rose petals and saxophones.
The most controversial scene, with the main characters tracking down and disposing of a female mercenary that had killed one of their own, was disturbing in so many ways. Most of all, the cold detachment of the agents reaches its pinnacle. Secondly, in the almost Freudian violation of the female body (the woman tries to stall and invoke their guilt or doubt by parting her neglige) and lastly, the heart-breaking gesture when she sleepily stumbles out of the room bleeding, notices her cat on the table and walks over to pick it up, embracing it one last time. (Is it reflex, or is she perhaps concerned what�ll happen to it?) At their coup-de-grace, and despite her state of clothing, she leaves them with her dignity intact, without pleading or condemnations. She may just have been the most beautiful character in the whole film. Or one could just put it down to shock, judge for yourselves. Regardless, watching that scene a second time would be hard on me.
Generally the actors all did good by me. Daniel Craig didn't overdo it and gave me hopes for �Casino Royale�, Geoffrey Rush was almost inspired and Ciar�n Hinds radiated confidence, as always. There were times when Bana almost fell into the same trap of Jim Caviezel (playing martyr, even in movies not about Jesus) but in the end he proved he was a human, and one just trying to deal with it.
Regarding symbolism and message(s) of the drama, I appreciated that they managed to keep religion out of the debate as much as possible. The movie succeeded in showing that international terrorism in the 70's was different from today, much more secular and political. It also provided a very forgiving perspective on Avner as an israeli and a jew. He was fallable, he wasn't above desensizitation (sp? sp!), even his mother commented on not being the praying type. It felt relevant to modern cultural discourse, if nothing else.
An interestingly accurate tidbit pertaining to middle-eastern emigration during the 70�s: in the middle of the movie, Avner happens to become engaged in conversation with a Palestinian he�s soon going to kill, stumbling upon him at a hotel balcony. The Palestinian tries to place Avner�s accent and pegs him as coming from Sweden (!), explaining that he has worked as a language teacher for middle-eastern women in Sweden for a number of years. This is actually very relevant, since the majority of the middle-eastern part of our population (which is considerably larger than any other Scandinavian country, thanks to the labor of people like Olof Palme) came during the 70�s and 80�s, chiefly due to wars and expulsions. I�m compelled to say that this attention to detail is unexpected for an (when all is said and done) american movie. Make of that what you will.
Finally, a question from me to you others who�ve seen the film. In the last scene, Avner most clearly declares his status as a secularized jew, and this scene also happens to be the most puzzling one, I hoped we could interpret this together.
Avner and Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush) are walking and talking in New York. Ephraim wants Avner to return to Israel, continue the good fight in defense of the glorious homeland and kill more people. Avner shows signs of disillusionment and fatigue. Still wanting to repair their strained relationship, Avner invites him to dinner with his family, saying "I'm sure in some scripture somewhere it says I, as a jew, must invite you to my home to break bread with me" (paraphrased). But Ephraim turns him down and promptly leaves, presumably ending their relationship forever. I haven't read the book the movie was based on ("Vengeance" by George Jonas) but it's said to be non-fiction so I suppose the last scene is wholly the product of the screenplay. Still, it intrigued me. I'm simply having trouble deciding if Ephraim�s rejective behavior was brought on by A: their clash of ideals, B: the harsh reality of impersonal government rank structure, or C:, the symbolic rejection of Avner as an emigrated countryman and jew, a �turncoat� instead of one under diaspora.
What do you think?
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I saw it just after Christmas. I don't have time to write a review as detailed as yours, but I will say it is probably one of the top five best Spielberg films. It was really a film to ponder; it will make you sit in silence after watching it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
