Taking a stance on Spielberg’s ‘Munich’

Steven Spielberg calls his latest movie, “Munich,” a prayer for peace.

But the filmmaker’s tale of the Israeli hit team avenging the 1972 massacre of 11 of its Olympic athletes is already dividing viewers. One of the year’s most anticipated movies and a potential Oscar contender, “Munich” has triggered debate among audiences -- including Oscar voters -- who have been the first to see it.

Some are finding fault with how the film tries to balance the initial terrorist act with the retaliation that followed. Others are challenging the historical accuracy of the book “Vengeance,” by George Jonas, upon which the movie was based. While some commend Spielberg for creating multidimensional characters in an attempt to humanize the conflict, not everyone is applauding that approach.

As Spielberg avoids the traditional junketeering on the eve of the film’s premiere, the marketing forces have staged screenings for community leaders and opinion-makers in Los Angeles, Washington, Berlin, Munich, Paris and Tel Aviv.

Heading the effort in Israel, where the movie has triggered mixed response: one of Ariel Sharon’s top strategists, Eyal Arad. Last week, a screening held for the widows of two of the slain athletes was attended by producer Kathleen Kennedy and writer Tony Kushner, who have been touring Europe with the film.

What follows is a sampling of opinions from those attending the screenings:

* Lynn Roth, writer/producer/director, who teaches a master class in Tel Aviv: “The more I live with this film, the less I like it.... The message of this movie isn’t clear. Spielberg tried to be all things to all people -- to give a voice to everyone’s cause. Everyone knows the director has a strong Jewish identity ... what he’s brought to Judaism and Israel is immeasurable. Maybe the ambiguity reflects his own anguish about what Israel is required to do to protect herself.”

* Michael Barenbaum, professor of theology at the University of Judaism: “I went in with a certain measure of apprehension, afraid Spielberg was drawing a moral equivalent between the Palestinian and Israeli cause.... He didn’t. What he does say is that Israelis, represented by the team leader Avner [Eric Bana], wrestle to remain moral in circumstances requiring immorality. One Jewish historian criticized that approach, asking why it’s always the Jews ... who feel guilt. The answer: Jews are Jews and don’t want to become Dirty Harry or James Bond. As [Prime Minister] Golda Meir said, ‘We may someday forgive Arabs for killing our children but not for making our children killers.’ ”

* Nidal Ibrahim, editor of the magazine Arab American Business, based in Huntington Beach: “I almost walked out of the movie, to be quite honest. For the first half, I thought the portrayal of Palestinians was completely one-dimensional but, in the last half, that wasn’t the case. I was particularly touched by a scene in the stairwell that had a Palestinian talking about his family and the idea of ‘home’ -- something you almost never see in American cinema.... It was a no-win situation for Spielberg and I give him credit for taking it on. The fact that the film has been so harshly criticized by Jews and Arabs says something about the film.”

* Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council: “It was a riveting movie. The main argument is that we, as Americans, have to get out of our zones of comfort and our numbness toward Middle East violence.... It was balanced. And, coming from him -- a Hollywood director with a presumably pro-Israel orientation -- more than balanced.... While the terrorists of Munich were wrong in what they did, he’s saying it’s not indicative of the whole community.”

* Robert Eshman, editor of the Jewish Journal: “The movie works as a thriller, its first obligation. But it becomes less interesting when the action dies down and it becomes all about Avner’s moral quandary.... Before ‘Munich,’ Spielberg was a guy who could do no wrong in the Jewish community, so this was a choice with consequences. It was brave of him to step down from his pedestal and wade into this muck.”

* Robin Harrington, talent agent: “It’s not about Israeli vs. Palestinian but about a country divided -- and everyone’s common humanity. The point isn’t to create a documentary, but to get people thinking. The message of the movie is ‘You can’t fight violence with violence’ -- that we have to find another way. If that’s controversial, we’re in trouble.”

* Jeff Kanew, director: “Because Jews are so often portrayed as victims, it was a pleasure watching them kick butt.... Considering the magnitude of the atrocity, I might have made the Palestinians a lot less human. But rather than drawing a cardboard stereotype of evil, Spielberg let the audience make up its own mind. He walked the line and he walked it well.”

* Siwar Bandar, spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee: “I don’t think that the portrayal of Palestinians is 100% fair. But it’s a step forward from past Hollywood films.... [Spielberg] made a genuine effort to make a movie with multidimensional characters that wasn’t stereotypical. Arabs carry guns -- but so does everyone else. And Munich was portrayed not as an isolated incident but as part of an ongoing cycle of violence both sides have to break.”

* Jonathan Dana, independent film producer: “I liked it. It was a good international thriller that had me riveted to my seat. I don’t understand why people are ragging on this movie. Much of the criticism, I suspect, is very much ‘inside-the-beltway.’ It’s a big subject, and what else can you say. War, in the end, is hell.”

Times staff writer Ken Ellingwood contributed to this report.