L'Étau de Munich

I am all for revising understanding of history for the better as we learn more. But this film, like the novel it is based on, is not that at all, but rather an apologia and whitewash of Chamberlin's very real, naïve and ghastly mistake at Munich.

Robert's Harris' novel, Munich, on which this film is based isn't simply somewhat wrong, it is totally wrong. In fact Chamberlin was not thoughtful, and was NOT a skilled diplomat. He was a vain, pompous and petty dupe. The idea that he somehow outsmarted Hitler is ludicrous, Hitler got everything he wanted.

We even see in the crawl text at the of the film the claim that "The extra time bought by the Munich agreement enabled Great Britain and her allies to prepare for the war and ultimately led to Germany's defeat." Errr.. no. That is completely wrong. All the data on industrial capacity trends, submarine production, armored vehicle and aircraft production tends, as well as oil and other fuel reserves, shows that the UK and France were in a stronger position in 1938 than in 1939. The Munich agreement also had a massively deleterious effect on both strategic and popular views in the US and the USSR. It convinced Stalin to ally with Hitler. Which was the only way Hitler could invade Poland. The delay of the inevitable war resulted in the annihilation of Poland, the actualization of Japan's closer and more effective alliance with the Nazi's, and by all analysis made the holocaust 3x more effective by allowing the Germans to ally with the Soviets giving the Nazi more control of more of E. Europe where they mass murdered the Jewish populations. American isolationists got a massive boost from the blunder at Munich as well.

We know from Hitler's "second book" (go to youtube and search "Gerhard Weinberg Hitler's second book. For an excellent panel talk on it) we know that Hitler for considered the United States as the ultimate enemy of Nazis. He thought Great Britain would fold (and it initially did due to Chamberlin), that France would be easy to defeat if the war with them started in 1939 instead of 1938 (and it was), that he could fool the Soviets (and he he did for several key years). He thought the non-racial based nationalism of the US, which is to say the US's people's love of democracy, was the ultimate threat to the Nazis.

So in "Edge of War" we are left with a film that has some nice period elements, certainly fine acting, but is also severe disinformation on what went on at Munich. We know for a fact that Goering wrote the agreement, that no British changes were accepted, and that Chamberlin signed off without an argument which stunned even the Nazis.

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.

Munich: The Edge of War is an entertaining movie to watch. Just don't get mislead by the title though. It's not really a war movie, more of a drama. You won't see any shooting or killing, just political conversations about going to war or not. Sounds boring but it isn't. It's an interesting story based on a novel, certainly not accurate to what really happened, something we will never really know. The cast was excellent, good acting from all of them. Nice cinematography as well, it's all quality. Just don't expect action because there isn't any.

This movie did not disappoint.

The story kept me at the edge of my seat, the unraveling of the events was gripping and full of suspense. I saw it a week ago but it's still on my mind.

Jeremy Irons, was great and he shined a bright light on the prime minister that was later overshadowed by his successor (fairly, but still it was the first time I got to appreciate Chamberlain's passion).

I had never seen a movie with any of the two main actors starring before, but from now on i will definitely keep my eye on any other work they may do.

The subtle tension between the two lead men that shifts to different notions as the story evolves is very intriguing and i love the fact that words are mostly left unsaid about that relationship between them, but the emotions flow effortlessly from their eyes.

This is a movie i would gladly rewatch.

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.