Film Title: September 5
Director: Tim Fehlbaum
Writers: Moritz Binder Tim Fehlbaum Alex David
Production Companies: BerghausWöbke Filmproduktion, Projected Picture Works, Constantin Film, Edgar Reitz Filmstifung
Release Date (USA, broad): Dec. 13th 2024
Capone's Rating: 4⭐ out of 5⭐
This is a tough one to write about for I'm certain is one of the reasons (among their multitude) it was a tough film to write and produce. There's no getting around the association this film will have with Spielberg's Munich (2005). It's a counterpart, in terms of storytelling. In Spielberg's film, we get a quick synopsis of the travesty that was September 5th 1972, and then we get the full and drawn-out aftermath-the hunt for its perpetrators. In Fehlbaum's, we are wrapped up in the news of the day-quite literally, as the film tells the story of the hostage crisis from the perspective of the ABC film crew trying to cover it effectively. So knowing that much about how the films relate, I'm going to set aside the 2005 film and focus on the new movie with its new take on that awful event. The movie deserves its own treatment and respect.
Let's start with all the film has a lot going for it.
Reminiscent of 12 Angry Men (1957), September 5 was very nearly a one-room film. All of the action of the movie takes place in the ABC studio looking at the world outside from behind a television camera or from the patio outside the door (for extremely brief moments). After we get underway, at no point does the narrative lens shift to a long shot of the studio building, flyovers of the city, or offer any other perspective other than that which can be gleaned from and with the crew manning the station during one day at the Munich '72 Olympic Games. It's all inside a few rooms: the control center, the film lab, the caption room, the playback and film cutting room, and maybe one other spot in the building. 80% of it probably takes place in that control room. (Even 12 Angry Men has its courtroom scenes.) By itself, the impact of this choice is to put the audience right where the production team sits, from the perspective of what is known and knowable. That ratchets up the tension-but not as a plot device-as an emotionally effective rendering of the reality of those circumstances. Combine this with the handheld camera work and the fact we can't hear the other end of calls that aren't broadcast to the room, along with other directorial and editing choices, and we get a very limited scope of what we, the audience, can understand about the world outside that television studio. These choices impacted this viewer strongly and clearly.
The performances, all around, were top notch in this film. I appreciated the scoring, most but not all of the handheld-vs-steadicam choices, and the positioning of the camera in relation to the actors and action. These directorial and acting elements lent an undeniable strength to the screenplay, which itself shone through as a powerful and thought-demanding (not just provoking) story.
Next: Two complaints. Sort of. "Missed opportunities," call them.
One. There's a bit of explicit exploration of the optics and their real collective emotional impact on a country and its people who have failed to protect Jewish visitors during a time when international camaraderie is the sentiment of the hour and the opportunity to "make good" (though making good for the Holocaust, as any German or Jew will tell you, is not possible) on an interaction between the former oppressor and the visiting escapee. Things move pretty fast in the film, and there's insufficient time to explore the impossible questions around this issue with any depth. The most powerful moment in the movie comes when the question is given air. And let's grant that, while the action was happening during the actual event, it's unlikely folks in the studio were philosophizing-they were trying to get the story and to communicate it with empathy and transparency. But there were, in fact, a lot of down hours during the crisis, and at some point it might have worked narratively to have inserted some of the heavier conversations that might have taken place in those slower moments. We're not looking for The Final Account (2020) here, but some more explicit treatment of the questions that were on everyone's minds would have had a profound impact on the audience.
The second concern is related to the first. The film felt much too short for the content it covered. One hour, thirty-five minutes, including credits, just wasn't enough time even with the "slow parts" cut out. An example: At one point during the film, we get news that "the noon deadline has already passed," while the initial demands were only laid out in the prior scene, seconds before (for us). This kind of cutting is jarring and rendered a disservice to the story being told. I have a feeling that this movie probably ran longer at one point, and then someone gave notes requiring the dramatic film be turned into a thriller for wider appeal... and then someone felt compelled to take that note. I wish the team wouldn't have caved to that demand. The jarring cuts that disappear multiples of hours make September 5 seem less drawn-out than it must have been for those on the ground and in that studio (let alone in Building 31). So in representing what it might have felt like to be in that studio-for all the pressure the film communicated at many points-I felt short changed overall. Narratively, too, the cuts didn't allow for any breathing to offset the heated beats, thus weakening the potential impact of each and all of those more intense moments. Chasing the high-impact scenes by cutting out the slower bits was self-defeating, for this film.
Altogether, this is a film I'll see again and that I'd recommend you see, as well. And it's worth talking about.
