5 septembre

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.

Performances all believable, comedy in the right places, and a pacing and runtime that doesn't leave you peeking towards the exit before the credits.

For someone who didn't really know the story, the details of what went down truly interested me. They did a solid job of not telegraphing the plot points.

Some may find the lack of change of scenery tiring, but I think it worked in this case. I think they wanted you to feel like the control room is your world, and to feel as they did on this eventful day.

They touched on the political and emotional elements nicely. Making you think, without preaching.

Mixing in footage from the actual event, including broadcast footage as well, definitely draws you more into the experience. A nice touch.

While it's not a movie I really intend on rewatching over and over, it is a very well done piece that I'd recommend to friends who enjoy movies like this.

September 5 is a gripping retelling of fact based events that doesn't let up on the tension from the moment it begins to really escalate. It offers an in depth look at the commitment of the newsroom broadcasting the events and all of their decisions with the sometimes destructive consequences of them as they choose the wrong wording and prioritise being the first to get the story out over getting it right, minus the consequences.

The whole cast does a great job of saying all the news jargon with a high intensity but the main 3 stand out further. John Magaro rises to the challenge of covering something he never thought he'd have to whilst feeling the most guilty about what transpires, Peter Sarsgaard is commanding and clearly just as interested in personal gain as he is in documenting the events and Ben Chaplin is the most cautious yet still waves away some errors.

Tim Fehlbaum's direction mostly keeps everything contained in the studio to increase the chaos since all the information comes from outside and adds a layer of disconnection. Markus Förderer's tight and mobile cinematography is unwavering which is then combined with Hansjörg Weißbrich's meticulous editing to move at a high speed throughout and ensures the pacing is as airtight as humanly possible.

'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.

I'll keep this review simple because this film deals with a tragic situation that I won't be able to do justice with words. It deserved a Best Picture nomination over "Emilia Pérez," that's for sure, and I don't think I'd mind it winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar.

Going off that, Alex David, Moritz Binder, and Tim Fehlbaum's screenplay are excellent. It creates an intense atmosphere and compelling narrative against the backdrop of the 1972 Munich Olympics, even though the primary focus is on the ABC News team covering the story. Said atmosphere, which is also claustrophobic, almost rarely ceases to intrigue. While I don't think it's as strong as "Anora" or "The Substance," and its other competitors I either haven't seen ("The Brutalist") or don't think will win ("A Real Pain"), the screenplay stands as a remarkable accomplishment.

It helps that all the actors delivered strong performances as their respective characters. John Magaro, Peter Sarsgaard, and Lorine Benesch were especially memorable as Geoffrey Mason, Roone Arledge, and Marianne Gebhardt. I appreciate that the rest of the cast makes their characters equally believable. A film that mainly revolves around dialogue needs the talent to make it work, and I'm happy to say that's where this film succeeds.

Additionally, I was amazed at how the film portrayed the ABC News crew. Aside from a few members, the entire crew focused on covering the story first. I know that it's their job, but something just felt off. It seemed like their primary focus was to be the first to broadcast the events to further advance the station without thinking about the consequences of their actions.

For the last positive, Markus Förderer's cinematography is wildly stellar. Förderer's work contributes to the tense environment while making the film feel like it's one from when it takes place. The film looks like one shot on 35mm, and it's all the better because of it.

However, one thing stopping me from calling it one of 2024's (it was on limited release on December 13) best films is some stretches drag more than I thought. It never ceased to be vital, but I didn't entirely feel the suspense. I expected to be fully immersed and gripped by its story and the horrific events that happened during it, but I wasn't 100% invested. Don't get me wrong, it's still investing and doesn't ruin the film, but I wish I engaged more with the experience.

Overall, I enjoyed "September 5." Some pacing issues aside, it's a unique, mostly enthralling film that, if you're interested in seeing a different perspective on the events of September 5, 1972, it's definitely worth your time.

Technically, the acting, directing, cinematography, and Oscar-nominated screenplay make for an easy 10/10 technical score.

Now for the enjoyment score: despite some pacing issues, it was a great suspense film, making for a 10/10 enjoyment score. It may not be one of the best 10s for 2024 releases because of said stretches, but they're not enough to destroy the remaining eighty minutes of genius storytelling. Be sure to give it a watch!