So what is Munich? At its heart, like every other Spielberg film, it is a family drama. And it is a thriller. A political thriller, maybe, like Day of the Jackal, but still a thriller.

A thriller about Mossad assassinations of Palestinian terrorists. Hmmmmm. In a word: problematic.

Let’s forget all notions about perspective. At first, I got hung up on the fact that the film is very one-sided; it only shows the views of the Israeli agents. Only the agents are allowed to debate their methods or to have moral dilemmas. However, I realized that that’s not the issue. The film doesn’t need to be objective, in fact, it shouldn’t be. I’ve said that so many times that I would be a hypocrite if I reversed my position just so I could hold it against Spielberg.

The key issue here is the positioning of the film’s politics in what is essentially a genre film. By very definition, genre films share certain aspects which make them a genre. When we view a genre film, we know what to expect, we know what signs to look for and we know what they represent. So when you take an issue as complex and convoluted as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and dress it up as a thriller, there’s gonna be trouble.

While I was watching the film, much of my reactions to it were those that I would have watching any thriller. I watched the agents intricately plan their assassination, putting all of the necessary pieces in place. And I watched as the plan began to unfold, waiting for the inevitable slip-up which catches your breath and keeps you on the edge of your seat. The same kind of reaction one would have while watching any thriller. But with Munich, it doesn’t sit well.

Spielberg uses the conventions of the thriller genre to align our identification with that of the agents. He so carefully disguises his film as a thriller that we are willing to accept whatever is put in front of us. The characters might be in moral crisis, but that’s merely lip service. The filmmaker is in no crisis, as witnessed by the action scenes which are no different from any other action film. Spielberg has his characters mouth the words of morality, debate the logic of power and struggle, and question their roles within the conflict, but the mechanics of the film reveal no doubts about the issues at play. The film itself is a very confident thriller which insidiously dumbs down complex issues in an effort to dupe its audience into believing that this is an important work. The characters talk about never-ending cycles of violence as Spielberg revels in shoot-outs, explosions, and tense assassination attempts wherein we end up salivating for the kill, if for no other reason than to achieve a release of narrative tension.

That being said, I don’t view the film as being pro-Israel. I feel that it manages to create limited debate about the morality of both sides of the conflict. However, the film fails in its ultimate goal: to be a political film which offers something valid to the debate. Instead, it’s a thriller which aligns our identification with that of the Israeli agents in order to achieve suitable thrills and chills while attempting to contemplate Serious Issues by hitting us over the head with awkward, obvious dialogue (the laziest way to get a point across, in my opinion. Christ, even in film school they teach you to show, not to say).

Lastly, Munich is part of a media trend that offers a negative portrayal of Palestinians and of Arabs in general. Before, I said that I don’t fault the film for showing the story from an Israeli point of view, and I stand by that. However, no one can deny that mainstream media has depicted quite a negative view of Arabs, a view that many viewers will bring with them to Munich. And that view will end up being supported by Spielberg, perhaps inadvertently. Really, it’s not Spielberg’s fault, he’s just the latest person to do it and it will end up solidifying views that some people already have and which were shaped by an endless stream of earlier films, TV shows, and news media.

Interestingly, the audience accepts the guilt of the assassination targets as whole-heartedly as the Israeli agents, who are shown no proof linking them to the murders at the 1972 Olympics. For the agents, having a list of names given to them by Mossad is proof enough. For the audience as well, that suffices as proof and we end up rooting for all of the bad guys to get bumped off, one-by-one (Godfather-style and thoroughly thrilling). We never stop to ask questions, we’re just along for the ride.

That’s the greatest failure of Munich. Above all else, a truly political film should elicit questions, debate, and a true exchange of ideas. And that is why Munich proves (once again) that Hollywood (here personified by Spielberg) is incapable of making a truly political film.