Today I’ll be discussing with my keyboard the movies “Syriana” and “Munich.”  Both have one word titles.  Both deal with political doings of terrorists and the like.  Both are filmed with an overall documentary feel.  Yet one was greeted with praise by my fellow movie going audience and the other with ire.  Why?  Is it because people recognize the name Spielberg and not the name Gaghan.  Perhaps.  Is it because Jews are more lovable than Arbas.  Maybe.  Is it because an audience is less inclined to enjoy a movie which employs story telling methods a bit more alien to them?  That’s the point I will argue here.

            You might not recognize the name Stephen Gaghan, but more than likely if you’re reading this you’ve seen the movie “Traffic”.  Gaghan employees the same character developments methods in “Syriana” as he did in “Traffic.”  The story is told through singular decisions that each of the many characters must make.  Each decision reveals much about that character and affects other characters thus propelling the story.  Plot is of almost no consequences as little actually happens in the movie which amounts to anything at the end.  There is no superhero to save the day from evil.  There are no crusading astronauts to pillage the space pirates and marry the space queens.  No houses of wax in which to terrorize teenagers, only characters written with overwhelming shades of humanity who must deal with their personal devils.

            The film does smack of liberalism.  I can see how it might offend your sense of political “rightness.”  If you are going to the movies to have your political affiliations stroked affectionately you should probably just stay home.  While I’ll say that the movie slants to the left it certainly does not preach from either end.  This film leaves everything open to interpretation.  If you agree, grand.  If you don’t, grand as well, but at least you were moved to think for a moment.  You can not sit through this movie with your mind on autopilot.  If you don’t want to be actively engaged with the movie then it will offer nothing for you.  The people who got up and left after thirty minutes, the people who declared it the worst movie they’ve seen on the way out the door, these people wanted to be entertained.  They wanted to sit back and see evil punished, good triumph, America win the day, and all the pretty people fuck at the end of the day.  And why did they want this?  Because they’ve come to expect it from Hollywood.  If that’s what you’re force fed then that’s what you develop a taste for.  I say bravo to Gaghan for giving us something different to snack on.

            “Munich”.  The nation of Israel has already come out and said that because of this movie Spielberg is no longer a friend of the Jews.  First off he IS a jew.  Second, did they forget “Schindler’s List?”  What more do they want?  I will readily admit I have very little historical knowledge of the actual events the movie depicts.  I must take the film at face value and believe the facts the movie presents while also realizing much of it is of course a dramatization.  Looking at it in that light I cannot see why they are angry.  It seems proper weight and care is given to the subject matter.  Perhaps they are upset that nothing is sugar coated.

            Despite all of that “Munich” is similar in many was to “Syriana” both thematically and in form.  Both involve political intrigue and governments acting as terrorists.  Both are frightening reminders of the power of governments.  Both made me wet my pants to think that if I and others don’t pay more attention to the world around us that some shit is gonna happen.  Bad shit.  Eloquent?  Anyway, “Munich” employs the same sort of character development features while giving the audience much more plot and archetypal emotion to hold onto.  I think this is the main reason any given audience might be more willing to accept “Munich” over “Syriana” as a viable film of great stature.

            As a final note I’ll mention that neither film pulls any punches.  As the budget of one allowed for far more punches to be thrown, one certainly overtakes the other with its rawness.  Both films bring an element of realism through violence which did a fantastic job of moving what is normally “hey cool explosion” to “holy crap lots of people just died.  That’s horrible.”  Well done.

Henry Alex Rubin and Dana Adam Shapiro's MURDERBALL is an inspiring documentary, which proves that physical limitations are no match for the human spirit. For the determined quadriplegic men who participate in the dangerous sport of "quad rugby," it's more than just a game: it's a chance to prove themselves in a much bigger way. With armored wheelchairs and enough macho energy to overcome any challenge, the players engage in a violently physical game. The charming but intimidating Mark Zupan was angry and suicidal after a car accident relegated him to a wheelchair. He regained his confidence and spirit by becoming both a player and the spokesman for quad rugby's Team USA. Zupan's militaresque rival, Joe Soares, is a former star for Team USA who headed north to coach Team Canada when he was cut from the US team in 2000. Concentrating on the buildup to the 2004 Paralympics in Athens, the film introduces other awe-striking figures--young men who have risen to the challenge of the game time and time again. As the days build to the inevitable showdown between Team USA and Team Canada, Rubin and Shapiro fill the screen with story after story, prodding the audience to swallow their own individual stereotypes and appreciate the efforts of these extraordinary men. The magic of MURDERBALL is that it never feels preachy. Rather, it entertains as much as it enlightens.

Murderball’ is a documentary about a futuristic sport where celestial mutants are pitted against each other for human enjoyment.

The film follows the 2004 US Paralympic Rugby Team through their legless journey towards the gold in Athens, Greece. ‘Murderball’ is a super exciting and well-put together documentary. Before I go any further, I would like to clear up what I believe to be a completely fucked public perception of what documentaries are. And I apologize for how I’m about to explain this, because I do not condone it, but it serves my purposes. WEBSTER defines a documentary as a ‘film using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual record or report.’ Now Webster, who murders homosexuals, also defines a fact as a ‘thing that is indisputably the case.’ So by these definitions, if you are documenting an event or a person, only indisputable facts should be used to portray your subject. You CAN editorialize in your “documentary,” but then it ceases to be a documentary, so in reality, you cannot. Okay, so now everyone in reading land knows what a documentary should be. For this exercise, I have put every documentary ever made on a piece of paper and put them in a hat and now I will pick one out and we will analyze it’s documentary-ism. Here I go. I am blindfolded. Reaching in. Shuffling around. Pulling out. Reading. Oh, how appropriate. I picked Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11.” This, in all possible contexts, is absolutely NOT a documentary. This is a biased editorial on the Bush administration. Just like “Bowling For Columbine” is a biased editorial on gun control. Which is fine. I don’t care what movies Michael Moore makes. What I care about is that “Bowling For Columbine” somehow managed to win the BEST FRIGGIN DOCUMENTARY AT THE 2003 OSCARS. This is the same as “Gone With The Wind” winning Best Live-Action Short. Watch both of these Michael Moore films and try and explain to me how these films are films using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual record or report using evidence that is indisputably the case. If you can do that I’ll give you 20 bucks, or maybe I’ll give you a Best Documentary Oscar, cause I guess they’re just passing them out to anyone.

Murderball is a good documentary. It depicts the actual events leading up to the Olympics and provides insights into the characters through interviews and candid photography. Murderball is a documentary. Murderball is a good documentary. A huge part of the film is the US Rugby Team’s brutal rivalry with Team Canada. Joe Torre, a former star of the US Paralympics Rugby Team, eventually got cut from the US team because he got too old. He was furious, so he wheeled on up to Canada and became their team’s coach. A lot of the fun in Murderball is seeing your perception of handicapped sports completely change. When a normal person thinks of something like wheelchair basketball, an image of lots of hugging and people saying “Wow! Great try Otto! You’ll make the shot next time! I know you will!” But no, this game they play is ridiculously intense. And in Murderball the players explain this, that they get pissed when someone asks if they’re in the Special Olympics. They say that the Special Olympics are for retarded people and at the end everyone gets a medal for participating. MURDERball involves paraplegic people slamming chariot-type wheelchairs into other paraplegic people, sometimes knocking them over but most times just knocking the hell out of their legs. Which is okay because they can’t feel shit in them. An able-bodied person could truly not play this sport and not get hurt. And this makes Murderball fun to watch. The documentary makes the players out as guys who simply have nothing to lose. They can’t really get hurt any worse and it gives their lives more meaning than figuring out how to maintain a job handicapped. This game is everything they have and it is almost a blessing to most of them that they became handicapped. In the movie they explain the grand selection process where they narrow down about 1,000 guys to about 12. And I don’t think I nor FDR would have made it.

The film begins with a powerful depiction of a major Paraplegic Rugby Tournament in which Canada beats the US Team for the first time in history. After that the film becomes more about the players and their stories and how they have adapted to being paraplegic. All of the players are constantly cracking jokes about their condition in the interviews and it’s stressed by an educational sex video for paraplegics. The highlights of the film for me were every scene involving Joe Torre, the US Paraplegic traitor. Probably the worst paraplegic traitor in history. Joe is a very grumpy paraplegic. I think he wishes he had his legs, just so he could kick his family as you can tell in the film. He uses the F-word a lot (fuck) and is the sort of paraplegic that makes people who are not paraplegic feel uncomfortable. He’s the most dynamic person involved in the film and the most fun to watch.

You can’t really give a special rating to the end of a documentary. But I really liked how everything unfolded in real life and how it was shown in the film, so I’m giving the ending a high 2 _ stars. I’m giving the entire film 4 stars. Murderball was one of those films that when it’s over, everyone just sits there for a second and doesn’t talk. I really liked it. If you like documentaries, you’ll like this one. And after the film, I jumped out of my seat, skipped down the stairs to the theater’s exit, ran all the way to my car, all on my great working legs.

Webster defines ‘wiener’ as 1 another term for weenie. 2 abbreviation of German Wienerwurst ‘Vienna sausage.’ & 3 See table at sausage.