Blog Details

During the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany, an American sports broadcasting team must adapt to live coverage the Israeli athletes being held hostage by a terrorist group.. Juliette Ménager worked in the casting department of both this film and Munique (2005).. Film Title: September 5 Director: Tim Fehlbaum Writers: Moritz Binder Tim Fehlbaum Alex David Production Companies: BerghausWöbke Filmproduktion, Projected Picture Works, Constantin Film, Edgar Reitz Filmstifung Release Date (USA, broad): Dec. 13th 2024 Capone's Rating: 4⭐ out of 5⭐This is a tough one to write about for I'm certain is one of the reasons (among their multitude) it was a tough film to write and produce. There's no getting around the association this film will have with Spielberg's Munich (2005). It's a counterpart, in terms of storytelling. In Spielberg's film, we get a quick synopsis of the travesty that was September 5th 1972, and then we get the full and drawn-out aftermath-the hunt for its perpetrators. In Fehlbaum's, we are wrapped up in the news of the day-quite literally, as the film tells the story of the hostage crisis from the perspective of the ABC film crew trying to cover it effectively. So knowing that much about how the films relate, I'm going to set aside the 2005 film and focus on the new movie with its new take on that awful event. The movie deserves its own treatment and respect.Let's start with all the film has a lot going for it.Reminiscent of 12 Angry Men (1957), September 5 was very nearly a one-room film. All of the action of the movie takes place in the ABC studio looking at the world outside from behind a television camera or from the patio outside the door (for extremely brief moments). After we get underway, at no point does the narrative lens shift to a long shot of the studio building, flyovers of the city, or offer any other perspective other than that which can be gleaned from and with the crew manning the station during one day at the Munich '72 Olympic Games. It's all inside a few rooms: the control center, the film lab, the caption room, the playback and film cutting room, and maybe one other spot in the building. 80% of it probably takes place in that control room. (Even 12 Angry Men has its courtroom scenes.) By itself, the impact of this choice is to put the audience right where the production team sits, from the perspective of what is known and knowable. That ratchets up the tension-but not as a plot device-as an emotionally effective rendering of the reality of those circumstances. Combine this with the handheld camera work and the fact we can't hear the other end of calls that aren't broadcast to the room, along with other directorial and editing choices, and we get a very limited scope of what we, the audience, can understand about the world outside that television studio. These choices impacted this viewer strongly and clearly.The performances, all around, were top notch in this film. I appreciated the scoring, most but not all of the handheld-vs-steadicam choices, and the positioning of the camera in relation to the actors and action. These directorial and acting elements lent an undeniable strength to the screenplay, which itself shone through as a powerful and thought-demanding (not just provoking) story.Next: Two complaints. Sort of. "Missed opportunities," call them.One. There's a bit of explicit exploration of the optics and their real collective emotional impact on a country and its people who have failed to protect Jewish visitors during a time when international camaraderie is the sentiment of the hour and the opportunity to "make good" (though making good for the Holocaust, as any German or Jew will tell you, is not possible) on an interaction between the former oppressor and the visiting escapee.