September 5

Making a movie now about the 1972 Munich Olympic terrorist attacks might be considered something of a political hand-grenade since political opinion is clearly divided between those who side with Israel's continuing attacks on Gaza and those who are sympathetic to Palestine.

In "September 5" the 'villains' are clearly the Palestinian terrorists and the horrors of what is currently happening in the Middle East may put many people off seeing this film but then you could also say that "September 5" isn't so much about the hostage taking as it is about the reporting of the situation by ABC and this is definitely the best film about political journalism since "All the President's Men".

Director Tim Fehlbaum films it like a documentary and his remarkable cast respond beautifully. Every performance is pitch-perfect as is Markus Forderer's cinematography, Hansjorg WeiBbrich's editing and Fehlbaum's screenplay co-written with Moritz Binder and Alex David which doesn't feel like a script at all but a piece of actual news reportage and the thrills come not so much from hostage taking as from the dangers involved in simply recording it. The result is terrific cinema that simply shouldn't be missed.

As "September 5" (2024 release; 95 min) opens, we are watching an ABC promo on how it is broadcasting the 1972 Olympic Games "live and in color" from Munich, West Germany, a first in television history. We then go to the ABC studio right next to the Olympic village where they are just finishing coverage of the day at 4 am Munich time (10 pm New York time). Not long after, gunshots are heard... At this point we are 10 minutes into the movie.

Couple of comments: this is the latest from Swiss writer-director Tim Fehlbaum ("Tides"). Here he revisits the terrorist attack on the Israeli team at the 1972 Olympic Games, but strictly told from the perspective of the TV broadcasting team (ABC Sports). Multiple issues are raised, such as: should ABC Sports (on site in Munich) take the lead, or ABC News (in New York)? Should they air a potential killing of a hostage be aired live on tv? Etc. The movie plays out almost entirely from the ABC field studio in Munich and hence feels quite restricted (literally), creating even more tension. The cast is terrific, including Peter Sarsgaard as Roone Arledge (as head of ABC Sports). As you are watching this, it almost feels like all of it is happening in real time, but in fact it isn't (these events took place over almost 24 hrs. In real time). Last but not least, the film has a terrific original score, courtesy of Lorenz Dengel (who has collaborated with Tim Fehlbaum before).

"September 5" premiered at the Venice film festival last summer to immediate and broad critical support. The movie started airing in US theaters in December and is now streaming on Paramount+, where I watched it just last night. It picked up an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay. It is currently rated 93% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which feels a little too generous to me. Regardless, if you want to revisit the horrible events of September 5, 1972 at the Munich Olympic Games, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

September 5 is a gripping documentary, but many analysts believed that the 1972 Munich Olympics attack set a precedent for modern terrorism.

The world watched in real-time as the crisis unfolded, and Black September achieved exactly what they wanted: maximum publicity. This was one of the first instances where a terrorist attack was staged with the global media in mind, creating a model that has since been replicated.

The media's role in amplifying terrorism is complex. On one hand, coverage is necessary to inform the public, expose security failures, and hold governments accountable. On the other, the relentless focus on the perpetrators can sometimes grant them the notoriety they seek. This has led to ongoing ethical debates about how journalists should report on terrorism without unintentionally promoting it.

By revisiting September 5, the film not only honors the victims but also forces viewers to confront the enduring complexities of terrorism, security failures, and international politics that remain relevant today.

'September 5 (2024)' is a thriller which focuses on ABC's unprecedented live coverage of the 1972 summer Olympics hostage crisis. Restricting its viewpoint primarily to the inside of a newsroom lends the picture an insular and immediate effect, capturing the chaos of the moment in a way that often has you on the edge of your seat. Although some of its control room sequences are far too dark for their own good, the feature ultimately crafts a palpably analogue aesthetic and puts you right in the centre of its action. By seamlessly interweaving archive footage with newly shot material, the picture continuously blurs the line between fiction and reality in a way that's often quite unsettling. I didn't know the footage wasn't just recreated until after I'd seen the affair, and the knowledge that it's the real deal certainly makes some of it even more disquieting. Perhaps that raises a question about the ethics of using said footage, even if it doesn't outright show any murders or anything like that, because it's arguable that the picture utilises these images as a shortcut to further its own power. You could take this further and say that the flick therefore exploits the real people involved in a similar way to how ABC potentially did the same thing for the sake of their viewing numbers. That's perhaps a little harsh, but it's difficult to know exactly what the feature is trying to do with its exploration of its true story other than use it to provide a thrilling and chilling experience for its audience, thereby sensationalising a tragedy and doing the same thing it at least partially seeks to interrogate ideologically. It's not like this is a new grey area for films which adapt true stories, and I don't think it totally derails the picture's general success or completely undermines its entire existence, but it's worth mentioning nevertheless.

Thematically, the film aims to examine the media's responsibility when it comes to covering tragedies, especially when doing so threatens to sensationalise the event and potentially give certain parties the platform their violent actions are designed to capture. Although it doesn't go all out in exploring this aspect, it poses interesting questions and presents a number of sequences in which the ethics of those involved are directly questioned (is ABC doing this because their audience deserve to know the truth or because it's good for their ratings?). Further to this, though, the feature aims to be as apparently apolitical as its focal news crew, following its story without specifically commenting on its implications. In one way, it is able to get close to achieving this, as this aspiration mirrors the information available at the time of the events it depicts. However, the film itself takes place well after the period it focuses on, and its decision not to contextualise itself from a retrospective point of view is somewhat problematic given the landscape in which it is realising. Although I think it's a stretch to say this is any sort of propaganda, I can certainly appreciate the fact that it's poorly timed at best and poorly considered at worst. While the series of events this follows did occur in real life and said events were undeniably tragic, there's an argument to be made that this contributes to the media's current positioning of Palestinians as a faceless threat to Israel rather than as people in their own right. Nobody is saying that what occurred in Munich in 1972 wasn't absolutely awful, nor are they saying that the hostage takers were in any way justified in their actions, but they are saying that releasing a picture like this today, when Palestinians are being forced out of their own country not just with unimaginable violence but also with potential forced 'relocation' from the US itself, without doing the work to convey the realities of the longstanding conflict underlying the situation or to separate it from modern history by taking a clear stance on the issue at hand piles on to the supposed evidence some people present when they try to justify Israel's actions in Gaza. I will clarify once more that I don't believe this to be intentional, and it's certainly not as strong a subtext as some reviews on here would suggest, but this is the sort of feature that has to be a bit more delicate in its presentation than simply taking a supposed apolitical stance if it wants to avoid being part of a conversation in which many people are condemning it. It's a case of bad timing, for sure, but the timing of a movie's release is part of how it's going to be received and there's no way of avoiding that.

Despite its controversies, this is ultimately a good movie. Its brisk pace, convincing performances, claustrophobic direction and tense atmosphere make it a really compelling experience. It's also really sad, and is able to affect you emotionally on occasion (especially if you don't already know the particulars of its situation). It's also a great time for anyone who wants to see the realities of analogue television, which somehow seem more impressive than their digital counterparts. You really get a sense of the raw engineering involved with live broadcasting, and details such as how superimposed titles work or how you can jack into phone lines to get them on the air are really tactile and intriguing. As a historical thriller with a purposefully limited point of view, this is really effective. It may struggle to balance its apolitical intentions with its subtextual realities, but it's worth watching if you can separate it from the time in which it was released. As one of its characters says early on: "it's not about politics, it's about emotion." That may not be entirely true (or, indeed, possible), but it's the spirit in which it intends to be taken. It's a solid thriller that's well-made and engaging throughout.

The attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics has been told in many ways, but September 5 takes a different perspective: that of the journalists who covered the crisis live. The film throws us into the ABC newsroom, where a team struggles to inform the world while the events unfold with unbearable tension.

The story feels real and intimate because it doesn't need to exaggerate the drama. There are no unnecessary reenactments or cheap emotional tricks. The pressure of the moment is conveyed through intense dialogues, uncertain glances, and the constant feeling that every decision inside that newsroom could change everything. It's a raw look at journalism when immediacy clashes with the responsibility of telling the truth.

The setting is excellent, and the pacing maintains the tension without forcing situations. While some parts may feel slightly stylized for cinematic impact, the film achieves its goal: making us feel the anguish of those who lived that day, not as mere witnesses, but as the ones responsible for informing the world.