Steven Speilberg is one of the most prolific filmmakers of all time. There is no genre in existence that he hasn’t explored. From science fiction to romance dramas, the director has given a classic in each genre. His prestigious filmography is filled to the brim with movies that have stood the test of time and turned out to be classics. I believe he is the only filmmaker in existence who can reinvent the wheel with any film he directs. In one year alone, the man can direct a boundary-pushing popcorn blockbuster (Jurassic Park, Minority Report, War Of The Worlds), and in that same year, drop a contemplative human drama (Schindler’s List, Catch Me If You Can, Munich respectively). 

2005 was the year Spielberg was taking huge strides in his career and meddling with some dark chapters of history, even at the expense of alienating the audience. I know “War of the Worlds” had some of the most unimaginative aliens ever seen in film, and its conclusion was as choppy as it gets, but it certainly made a bold statement about the post-9/11 pandemonium better than most movies out there. While “War of the Worlds” was him just meddling with something controversial, “Munich” was his full-fledged entry into the territory of a controversial subject matter. 

Steven Speilberg is known to make immaculate pieces of art that are gorgeous to look at and make you feel a gamut of emotions. “Munich” veers away from the hallmark Speilberg style and stands out as one of the most thought-provoking films about the corrupting act of vengeance and the escalating cost that comes with a commitment to revenge. To me, it is Steven Speilberg’s career-best film, why? Let me explain below. 

Spielberg’s Unique Approach to the Material of Munich 

“Munich” came to Spielberg via producer Kathleen Kennedy in the early 2000s. The source material is a 1984 non-fiction book “Vengeance” by George Jonas. When Spielberg decided to adapt the book into a movie, he was having a great run as a director. He had already made films like Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, and War of the Worlds. There was no reason for him to make Munich. The material had elements that could potentially trigger both Israelis and Palestinians (which it eventually did), but Speilberg did not care for this. He wanted to make his angriest movie to date and went on with it. 

With Munich, Spielberg didn’t set out to make a documentary, nor did he aim to make a pro or anti-Jewish propaganda piece. It’s a story based on real events that took place; not an attempt to replicate a crisp portrayal of what exactly happened. This unique approach makes the movie stand out; it shows you the futility of revenge better than Oldboy (2003) (sorry, Korean cinema fan, but I will always die on this hill). The film came in the Bush era, so it is only fitting that it posits a question worth contemplating for people in that era- why does a country feel its best defense against a certain kind of violence is counter-violence? No movie back then dared to ask this question, but Spielberg, who is the most unlikely person to make an uncompromising piece that asks difficult questions to his audience, did it with an unflinching approach to bold material. 

Speilberg’s Staggering Storytelling Elevates the Potentially Muddled Narrative

The story in Munich gets to a point where the plot gets deliberately muddied and repetitive; where the characters and, by extension, the viewers are made to question their orders. The cycle of violence is repeating itself over and over again and the characters are tired of playing this game of blood for blood. In this case, a lesser film would have been unfocused, but Speilberg’s staggering storytelling makes Munich more fragmented by design – a prism for how pointless the mission gets. What was initially presented to us as justified counter-terrorism pulls the rug under us to be revealed as state-sanctioned terrorism no different in brutality (maybe even more brutal?) 

Our Mossad characters take a detour from their main mission and join a hit squad in Beruit midway. By that point in the narrative, they have become cold-hearted in the name of patriotism -just like the Arabs they call “terrorists.” Speilberg blurs the line between good and evil from the get, but with this, he makes it even clearer that no one is justified in their inhuman action. All the violence is pointless, and the hatred stems from nothing and ends with nothing; this is something no other Speilberg film dared to touch. Yes, Schindler’s List is as brutal as it gets, but even it has a clear line between good and evil. Speilberg normally tells us whom to support and whom to detest, but in Munich, he creates a narrative where morality takes a back seat and inconceivable violence in the name of revenge takes the center seat. 

Filmmaking Prowess in Munich

I am going gaga over Munich, but I haven’t even started talking about its filmmaking yet. Spielberg’s zoom lens; Janusz Kaminski’s use of light to capture the gritty paranoia of the ’70s; and John Williams’s understated score; that one tense hotel scene and the other scene where a simple phone is filled with dread would have made Hitchcock proud. Munich has some of the most stupendous shots I have seen in my life, and it’s even more so when you learn the movie was not storyboarded in advance. People call out directors like Bay and Snyder for indulging or flexing to impress. Those aren’t bad things; the problem is a flex that doesn’t feel effortless or doesn’t add anything to the narrative. The best part about Spielberg and DP Kaminski’s shots is that you don’t actually notice it when you’re watching the film, it just is part of the film’s visual grammar.

 The color red is referenced in almost every frame: red tablecloths, red curtains, red wine, red-dressed femme fatales, hell, there’s even a little girl in a red sweater, just like in Schindler’s List, wonder what red symbolizes in a movie about state-sanctioned assassins and terrorists! Also, notice how the camera pans up to reveal the Twin Towers still standing at the time…..trimmed fingernails growing back again throughout history; the murders get replaced by worse. 

The Most Pessimistic Spielberg Ending Ever 

Now, onto the most important aspect of Munich that makes it cut above the rest in Speilberg’s filmography for me. It has got the most pessimistic Spielberg ending ever. Spielberg is known to comfort his audience with closure by the end of his films. Even in his greatest filmmaking achievement, Schindler’s List, Oskar saved a great number of Jews, which is slightly comforting to know when the colors burst out at the end of the film. In Saving Private Ryan, Ryan is obviously saved. These closures give the audience some satisfaction and some hope for the characters! 

On the contrary, Munich gives the audience a cynically pessimistic ending where they feel as defeated as the film’s main character, Avner. A disillusioned Avner completes his mission and is rewarded with paranoia. His patriotism fades into oblivion, his own organization disowns him, and no one will ever even know about his so-called brave act. He and his family will keep living in fear; his life is irrevocably ruined because of a senseless mission of vengeance. 

Even as he is making love to his wife, his mind flashes back to hostage massacres. As if the film is asking, “What were all the assassinations for? To get back home to a regular wife-and-kids-type life? To serve a country that disavowed his very records and existence?” This ending never fails to send chills down my spine. Munich is an angry film; it is a controversial film, and unfortunately, it is a very relevant film. Speilberg might have made more entertaining, more technically prominent, and more cathartic films in his career, but he has never been this uncompromisingly brutal with cinema in his life, and for this boldness, I consider Munich the best Speilberg movie ever made!