There’s a common thread to these (& Badlapur too).
The movies Munich & The bridge of Spies come from Steven Spielberg, while the TV series Fauda comes from Israel.
Fauda is possibly the most unwatchable "must-watch" TV series. Its a thriller about a secret anti-terrorist cell chasing a dreaded palestinian terrorist, and what transpires. Its got a fabulous plot and full of edge-of-the-seat, nail-biting suspenseful tense moments - not recommended for those with high BP or weak hearts.
Spielberg’s Munich is his retelling of what must have happened when Israel followed up the massacre of its athletes at the Munich Olympics. A dedicated secret team chased those responsible for the Munich massacre.
Fauda & Munich had a similar vengeful vendetta retribution to terrorism story at their core - ‘an eye for an eye’ but the treatment was vastly different.
But first the big surprise for me was how more or less equal the two sides were. I was genuinely surprised how well-equipped & well-trained the Arab terrorists were. In the middle-east there was a lot of self-deprecating humor (especially after 9/11) which went along the lines of ‘we are not that smart’. But in Fauda and Munich the Arabs give as good as they get, with a little help from the US and their other allies.
In Fauda, the story falters towards the end with a few convenient plot line twists that seemed to suggest the writing team ran out of steam and wanted it to just get over. Also the over-arching theme is that this is an infinite loop, with each side not giving in, and increasing the retribution each time. Everyone else is collateral damage and don't matter, with the terrorist willing to even sacrifice his daughter and elders to the cause, and similarly the counter-terroist cell forgets his family while he loses himself to the cause. The scary truth facing us is the world going blind as Gandhi had predicted when we go with an eye for an eye.
Spielberg goes with a lot more maturity, and I was truly impressed with how balanced the narrative was. (Nearly two decades earlier He’d presented the moving Schindler’s list about the horrors of the holocaust). But in Munich he doesn't take sides, and it is clear vengeance is not the way to go about.
As you watch Munich you cant help feeling horrified how terror was already a full-blown industry where there are so many middlemen making horrendous capital out of it. Besides the arms & hospitality suppliers - even the information suppliers are on sale, and make money from both sides. There’s truly no honor among thieves, and these middlemen do not cater to either philosophy or religion. In one of the scenes the Israeli team is actually camped with those sympathizing Muslim rebels.
Particularly chilling is how the US’ CIA is easily supporting a side convenient to them, as the Israelis discover to their shock, when the CIA team botches the Isreali team’s opportunity to get one of the ring leaders.
But as Munich progresses, the message is clear - there is no winning this way, and Spielberg drives this home. For all of Israel’s smarts, clout, power and global support base, it cannot sustain this. The team working on this is condemned to a life of fear and have to watch their back for the rest of the life. Is it worth it? Can there be a better solution.
Many years later after Munich’s release, Spielberg came out with the answer - Bridge of Spies, a terrific must-watch movie that moved me like very few other movies have done. The movie revolves around Tom Hanks (who can portray an archetypical American like Tom Hanks like few can). Tom plays the role of a lawyer who gains the wrath of his community and his family is threatened when Tom defends a Russian spy at the height of the Cold war. Those threats are real when his house is bombed but Tom doesn't give in.
Tom argues that the spy should not be killed but given a life sentence which the court grants grudgingly and seals his family’s unpopularity in the community.
But a short while later, when an American air force pilot is caught by the Russians, it gives an opportunity for recovering him by giving up this Russian spy in exchange. (its not exactly equal because more or less, the Russian faces death or worse back at home).
The movie is superlative because it shows that eventually it is a superhuman individual (like that lawyer) who will have to rise to the occasion. It simply cannot be done by the petty-minded and short term bureaucratic government officials. the lawyer actually spent and lost a lot of his personal money when he went to East Berlin to negotiate the release of the American soldier (and others) - there also was no official sanction. It truly was a thankless job.
Spielberg in his most mature, and excellent narrative style tells us this is how the world needs to move on - through dialogue, interaction, forgiveness and exchange.
An Indian film Badlapur (allegedly inspired by a European book, based on a real life incident) by Sriram Raghavan presents both views. The hero is so consumed by the murder of his wife and kid that he dedicates his life to avenging that. The final part of the story was a mindblowing surprise - but was one which was what should have been the mature response, and redeems your faith in humanity.
The world is today teetering on edge, with terrorism on the rise as well as countries that are sworn enemies fighting it out with skirmishes on every petty small detail.
These films seem to show the way - while the governments and authorities really can't find much of a solution, its finally up to the people if they want to carry this in their hearts or find forgiveness and show us the way ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment