The events of the 20th Olympics in Munich in 1972 are not something new to the big screen, with Spielberg’s 2005 film Munich, which details the events of the aftermath of the massacre that saw the death of 5 Israeli athletes, 6 of their coaches, 1 West German officer, as well as 5 members of the terrorist group Black September. However, Tim Fehlbaum’s media ethics thriller, September 5, takes the audience through the ABC broadcast of the attack.
The duration of the film is shot within the confines of the control room and the offices around it. In the opening scene, there is a light confidence to their coverage. The games are at the halfway point, and the ABC team are showing their audience how they are shooting the coverage. There are cameras overlooking the village, as well as coverage from every game, and the film takes great joy in showing the tricky procedure of producing a live broadcast in 1972.
Meanwhile, the lead voices behind the scenes are picking their coverage, do they show a sport without US interest or do they show a boxing match between the US and Cuba. There is the danger of bringing politics into the coverage, overshadowing the sport. However, Roone, the president of ABC Sports, assures them that this is about emotions, not politics; an idea that the film echoes in its output. However, in the early hours of September 5th, a focus on sports quickly evaporates, as gunshots are heard, and we soon discover it has come from the Olympic Village. What follows is the tough decisions in choosing how to cover this dangerous, threatening and politically tense story that has emerged under their noses.
This 90-minute thriller is a tense and gripping affair. Silence washed over the audience I saw it with like a low layer of fog sweeping the landscape. There is no question that this is an engaging watch. Particularly interesting is how the film displays the challenges laden in front of the crew and how they find solutions.
The quick and intense decisions that the crew need to make are fascinating. There is great pressure in the film and it feels like every choice made could be a wrong one. There is no doubt that it is an intriguing watch. However, traversing below this surface is where the film struggles. It rarely engages with the ethical dilemmas. Whether what their showing should be shown, about the spectacle of the media, and whether it is more important to protect the safety of the hostages or provide greater coverage, getting more eyeballs on their screens from around the world.
Likewise, the film barely dips its toes into the water when it discusses tensions between Germany and the Jewish people. Only noting the danger of triggering a traumatic memory through the images of armed Germans patrolling fences. Especially as the terrorist attack involves the state of Israel, there is a sense that the very raw image of Germany mustn’t be damaged any further.
However, it feels as if the film’s tense nature only comes from the severe emergency of the story rather than the filmmaking itself, which feels uninventive. Characters feel underdeveloped and the film can’t deal with the weight of the overt political themes at hand. At a brief 90 minutes, it feels too focused on the fast-paced thriller aspects, that it forgets to add characterisation and moral greyness to propel this story up into the next level. So when Jim McKay utters the words “they’re all gone” it is an undoubtedly numbing moment, but apart from that it can’t help but be asked: Is the film really adding anything?
Comments