L'Étau de Munich

I realise that historical events can only be reflected to a limited extent in feature films, especially when real people are brought to life by actors 80 years later. The question then is, do I play this person as he was or do I create my own character? In the case of "Munich", however, I didn't care, because I was enthusiastic about the ensemble performance as a whole, more than about the script, but that's why I give it this rather high rating. Jannis Niewöhner and George MacKay as friends on different sides grabbed me right at the beginning because they are very different actors and I have to admit that I have been a fan of Niewöhner for a long time. Ulrich Matthes Hitler scared even me. I know Matthes from the stage and like him a lot, his portrayal here gives you an idea why so many Germans were fascinated by him. Jeremy Irons may have played Chamberlain too positively, but that doesn't detract from his performance. And yes - while watching I was also preoccupied with the current Ukraine war and the parallels to Hitler's war preparations, which are very clear. Let's hope that it will turn out better this time...

The final lines of the movie, saying that the time won by Chamberlain enabled the allies to prepare for the war and defeat Germany, spoiled a bit an impression of the film. The fascism was stopped at the cost of millions and millions of Russians killed (incommensurable losses: they were practically cannon fodder) in the first place. Nowadays it's convenient to forget it.

Overall, the movie is produced very well. The leading actors were great.

I read Robert Harris's novel, about the 1938 Munich Agreement, and I loved it. Harris is a very good writer and I love historical fiction. Of course, I was well aware that Harris was trying to alter and improve Chamberlain's image and place in history, with which I vehemently disagreed. Chamberlain's egotism and stubbornness blinded him to the fact that you cannot appease or negotiate with a madman, as Churchill intuitively and correctly realized.

I read the book a second time and thought it would make an excellent film. Of course, I thought, the film makers should not make Chamberlin the hero of the piece in any way, shape or form. I even cast Jeremy Irons, as Chamberlain, in my head.

Irons is, of course, excellent, as are the two young leads played by George MacKay and Jannis Niewöhner. Niewöhner is especially one to watch. The film has enhanced the roll of Helen Winter (Sandra Hüller) I suppose for woke purposes of having a women in a central supporting role. I thought Hitler was miscast. Again, when I cast the film in my minds eye, after reading the book, I thought Steve Buscemi would make a great Hitler.

I said to myself, when I read the book, that the scene they must cut, if the make a film, is the midnight drive to see the old girlfriend. My instincts were 100% correct as it kills all the tension that has been building. They could have trimmed the running time and improved the film.

The film, as does the book, completely downplays the very inconvenient declaration, by Chamberlain at the airport, of "peace in our time." The film also posits, as does the book, that Chamberlain bought time to properly prepare for war when it did come and this contributed to the German defeat. This is an absolute lie. When Churchill took over, as PM, the army was woefully underprepared and under equipped. In fact, had the Allied Forces acted forcefully in 1938, Hitler might have been stopped by an internal coup from the German Army.

"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." -Winston Churchill.

Well hopefully not - I did not think of the Russia/Ukraine conflict when I watched this (a few days ago), but thinking about it now ... and it is quite eerie to be honest. Let's hope there is not really a connection there or a repeat to be more to the point.

Having said that and while I reckon we can argue about how one feels about Putin (and a comparison to Hitler that I sort of did above), the second world war and certain things that led up to it ... seem almost inevitable. Or are they? If you know history, you know what transpired overall and where or rather how the movie ends. So there should not be a big surprise there. Still the movie is tension filled and even when you know that certain things could not have happened ... you kind of still expect (hope?) for something different to happen ... don't hold your breath though.

The acting is more than solid and you see historical figures doing their thing ... trying their best to be either as diplomatic as they can or hammering a point across (warning or whatever one wants to call it). There are other comparisons one can draw here - but I'll leave them up to you. I'll just tell you that this movie is very well made ... although I guess you kind of expected that anyway.

The subject is a fascinating one and part of me was intrigued in seeing what 'Munich: The Edge of War' would do with the much maligned Neville Chamberlain, here given a more sympathetic treatment than what is often said and written about him. Robert Harris' book is a hugely compelling read, George McKay impressed me hugely in '1917' (one of 2019's best films) and Jeremy Irons is one of my all time favourite actors and has been ever since his iconic voice work in 'The Lion King'.

Watching 'Munich: The Edge of War' earlier last year (am behind with reviewing so it's taken a while to get round to talking about films seen last year), it turned out to be very interesting and well done. It did have potential to be better than it was, as not all the storytelling is there and there is a major casting blunder. But it does well with maintaining the book's intrigue and tension and there is one performance in particular that one could spend all night raving about. 'Munich: The Edge of War' was good if not great, but is one of those films that should be taken on its own terms for anybody expecting historical truth will be disappointed.

'Munich: The Edge of War' has many good things. The best aspect being the phenomenal performance of Irons in one of his best ever performances as Chamberlain (who he bears an uncanny resemblance to here), he brings wit, nuance and gravitas to an interestingly sympathetically written interpretation of a maligned figure in history. In the film though, it and the book do make a good case for him not being as bad as reputed in my view (something that won't be shared by others). One of my favourite performances of the year actually and that it didn't get any awards attention is a crime. McKay carries the film very commandingly, loved his increasingly tense chemistry with Jannis Niewohner.

Also thought that the costumes and sets/scenery were handsome and atmospheric, with a good sense of period. The music is haunting and doesn't over emphasise the mood. The film is very intelligently scripted (apart from some anachronistic language), especially Chamberlain's dialogue and had no problem with the German or the subtitles. Everything with the agreement has intrigue and tension and all of Chamberlain's scenes are a delight, both when more eventful and in smaller moments.

It's not a perfect film though. The camera work is rather dizzying and had a very feeling sick on a ship feel to it in some of the second half. All the female roles are severely underwritten, as is the too brief and not that necessary family/romance subplot that could have been excised.

Do have to agree with everybody panning Ulrich Matthes, whose casting as Hitler is one big catastrophic miscast. Too old, too thin/gaunt and nowhere near sinister enough, perfect for Goebbels but completely wrong for Hitler.

Overall, interesting and well done, with Irons being reason alone to see it, but it could have been more. 7/10.