23/10
During the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany, an American sports broadcast team must adapt to live broadcasts of Israeli athletes being held hostage by a terrorist group. Juliette Ménager worked in the casting department for both this film and Munich (2005). Film Title: September 5 Director: Tim Fehlbaum Screenplay: Moritz Binder Tim Fehlbaum Alex David Production Companies: BerghausWöbke Filmproduktion, Projected Pictures, Constantin Film, Edgar Reitz Filmstifung Release Date (US, Wide): Dec. 13, 2024 Capone Rating: 4⭐/5⭐This is a difficult one to write about, as I’m sure that’s one of the reasons (among many) that the film was difficult to write and produce. It’s impossible to avoid the connection between this film and Spielberg’s Munich (2005). It’s a story-telling equivalent. In Spielberg’s film, we get a quick summary of the travesty that was September 5, 1972, and then we get the full, long post-credits — the hunt for its perpetrators. In Fehlbaum, we’re wrapped up in the news of the day — quite literally, as the film tells the story of the hostage crisis from the perspective of an ABC camera crew trying to handle it effectively. Knowing so much about how the films are related, I’ll leave aside the 2005 film and focus on the new film with its new take on that terrible event. The film deserves its own treatment and respect. Let’s start with the fact that there’s a lot going on in the film. Reminiscent of 12 Angry Men (1957), September 5 was almost a one-room film. All of the action in the film takes place in the ABC studio, with the outside world viewed from behind a television camera or from the terrace outside the door (for very brief moments). As we set off, the story’s lens never shifts to a long shot of the studio building, the city overpasses, or offers any perspective other than that which might be gleaned from the crew manning the station in a single day. The Munich ’72 Olympics. It’s all within a few rooms: the control center, the film lab, the subtitling room, the replay and film editing room, and perhaps one other location in the building. 80% of it probably takes place in the control room. (Even 12 Angry Men has its courtroom scenes.) The effect of this choice is, in itself, to put the audience directly in the seat of the production team from the perspective of the known and the knowable. It heightens the suspense – but not as a plot device – as an emotionally powerful reenactment of the reality of those circumstances. Combine this with the handheld camerawork and the fact that we can’t hear the other end of calls that aren’t being sent to the room, and other directing and editing choices, and we get a very limited scope of what we, the audience, can understand about the world outside the television studio. These choices impacted the viewer strongly and clearly. The performances were top-notch in every way in this film. I appreciated the scoring, most but not all of the handheld-vs-steadicam choices, and the camera placement in relation to the actors and the action. These directing and acting elements give the script an undeniable strength that in itself shined as a powerful and thought-provoking (not just provocative) story. Next: Two complaints. in a way. "Missed opportunities" call them. One. The optics and its real collective emotional impact on a country and its people that has failed to protect Jewish visitors at a time when international camaraderie is a momentary feeling and an opportunity to “do good” (even if healing the Holocaust, as any German or Jew will tell you, is not possible) in the interaction between a former oppressor and a visiting refugee.