|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Munich
|
|
|
Will Kutler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1506
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 01-14-2006 06:15 PM
Isser Harrel was actually present in Argentina. Eitan was the team leader. Malkin actually tackled Eichmann with his famous words "One, moment, sir". Zvi Ahroni was the chief interrogator.
From what I gather, there continues to be a clash of egos between Malkin (who died earlier last year) and Ahroni.
It seems that Harrel hand picked each member of the team. Malkin was a martial arts and make-up/disguise expert. As such, Malkin was chosen to tackel Eichman, and Harrel left the operational planning to Malkin, who was a very experienced field operative. Ahroni was not an experienced field operative. Anyhow, the two clashed about the operational plans for the actuall capture, and due to experience (et al) Malkin's plan won out.
All in all, there was someting like 30 agents involved in the Eichmann kidnapping.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 01-15-2006 03:55 AM
"Even a novice" could see that? You mean, as opposed to a veteran agent like yourself? Come on, only because you read one or two books, that doesn't make you a secret service insider. AFAIK, the book the movie is based on has the reputation of being well researched.
quote: Will Kutler
Paper trails...remember at the beginning of "Munich" where the Mossad accountant wants reciepts. Never occurs in real life, as recipts leave a paper trail. Mossad agents reported their expenses via an honor code of sorts. It was in fact a reciept paper trail by an inexperienced member of the Lillehammer team that lead to the arrests of the fellow team members.
There is a very massive contradiction in your statement here. First you say no receipts were collected, then you say some agents were exposed because of such receipts. That doesn't make sense (I am sure a veteran detective like yourself can easily see that ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ).
I think it's quite possible that the bureaucrats wanted to know what happened with the tons of money they gave the agents.
Obviously, they wouldn't get receipts from the French informers from whom they bought so much information for a lot of money. That is what remained for me the only open question of the film: why did they have to spend so much money to buy that information? Didn't they have agents who could research the whereabouts of the PLO people themselves?
But all these detail questions, as interesting as they may be in themselves, aren't the point of the film at all. The film is not a simple thriller about a bunch of people blowing up some other people. It is about the people themselves, about the historical situation they find themselves in, about the complexity of that situation, about the extreme toll it takes on the people involved in such operations, what it does to them and their families, their doubts and fears. The movie doesn't try to be some kind of real life 007 adventure movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 01-15-2006 08:45 PM
Today, 1:55PM, Cinemark 17 in Springfield, House #15, SR•D. Attendance probably close to 100. No significant presentation problems, looked and sounded good.
This was the first time I've seen a digital pre-show there (or anywhere for that matter). The slides, MovieTunes, and 35mm ads are gone. This will sound like heresy, but I liked it better than static slides and 35mm rolling stock. I might start a thread on another forum to discuss my impressions on this significant change.
The movie kicks ass. I liked it a lot. Very thought-provoking. Fascinating and sad at the same time. The business with the receipts seemed out of place, like it was thrown in for humor. I, like many Americans, am fairly ignorant on many of the political issues raised by this film, so I have to appreciate it as a taut, well-made thriller, and leave the historical analysis to others more knowledgable than myself.
"Munich" gets 4 out of 5 stars from me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 01-17-2006 11:48 AM
quote: Will Kutler
Cut the sarcasm. No, I am not an experienced "agent". However, many Mossad missions are things of legends. And legendary Mossadnicks like Malkin, Harrrel and others have written about their exploits and what they did to overcome various obsticals.
Once again, cut the sarcasm and personal attacking and go do some legitimate research on your own.
That has nothing to do with personal attacking. You are comparing completely different historical situations with each other. But that is not even the point here. Any account of historical events, especially movies which generally need to condense the actual events into a fairly short time and into a the frame of a dramatic medium, will have some elements which are maybe not accurate in all details.
The point of the movie is not to retell "things of legends". I guess that's what you expected and that's why you are disappointed. But the point of the movie is that it's about the human drama behind the action. It's not about "legends" and "heroic exploits", it's about the people in that historical situation. For instance, I don't know if the scene in which they get booked into the same safehouse as the Arab team is historical. I rather doubt it. But it works very well in the movie to compress a number of important elements. The scene shows that they have much more in common than they usually realize. But they happen to have been placed by the situation on different sides of the fence. This could have been a very shallow "why can't we all get along" scene. But it isn't. It simply lays out the conflict the two men find each other in. The next time they meet, they only hesitate for a very brief moment and then shoot at each other.
The achievement of the movie is that it manages to show how complex and twisted the situation is without taking sides - even though we see the entire story from one side. At the same time, it also explores the human dimensions of the conflict.
But I guess that's what some expected - easy to understand action with shining heros and easily identifiable bad guys.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
the film "Munich" was. Gee whiz, if agents in the field operated as they did in the film, they would have all been uncovered before they even got started.
Printer-friendly view of this topic