September 5 - La diretta che cambiò la storia

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.

'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 love authentic historic dramas. Especially, in eras in which I have lived. This seems authentic. It's a story of which I am familiar and have seen told in various formats of film through the years.

As stated in the above title, I found this telling most interesting of all.

I saw Spielberg's Munich in the theater years ago and I remember still feeling that it was a bit overlong and bloated. Even boring, I hate to say. And metaphorical to a fault.

This version of the facts is more taut, the run time for this film is shorter, and the clock is ticking in the movie, and the lives at stake.

Also, airtime. You are in the control room of ABC's Wide World of Sports when the tragic terrorist events occur during the Olympics in Germany in 1972.

Cigarettes are smoked. Rotary dial telephones are used for communication.

And there is a major crisis unfolding in the Olympic village.

It's a good history lesson for Gen-Z.

Even appropriate for grade level history in classrooms, middle school and up, I would think but it's rated R, so no.

But history is hardly ever pretty.

John Magaro and Ben Chaplin shine most brightly with their stellar performances.

This is worth a trip to the cinema.

It wouldn't be a terrible idea to bring your high school aged child to the theater with you for this one.

They could stand to learn a little history.

They'll walk out with you afterwards and say, Did that really happen?

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.

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.