September 5 (2025) - 6/10
This film not only received an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay, it had a near-perfect sweep at the German Film Awards, including Best Film, Directing, Writing, Editing, Acting, Cinematography, Sound Design, Production Design, and Hair and Makeup. Why, then, such a low score? I think that ultimately, while the film is an incredibly tight and focused historical drama, it is a bit hampered by its own fixation. The score, then, is less about anything the film does particularly wrong and more about my own personal preferences.
1. Acting
The film is predominantly anchored around four leads: Peter Sarsgaard, John Magaro, Ben Chaplin, and Leonie Benesch. Each actor does solid work, with Chaplin and Benesch carving out a slight edge over their castmates. I would normally go into a little more detail on each performance, but the characters aren't really the focus of the film. Instead, the ensemble is here to serve the story, and the actors are mostly proxies for the audience watching events unfold.
2. Cinematography
I really like the look and feel of this movie. Many films take different approaches to recreating the era they depict, and this one leans heavily on its visuals to do the work. In particular, the film has both a modern and historical feel at the same time. While the clarity of the photography benefits from modern equipment, the look of the movie has a vintage aesthetic. To achieve this, Markus Förderer (the DP) opted to film with 8K digital cameras but used vintage lenses to create a softer look. At the same time, he would film shots on set using a 16mm film camera, which he could later use as reference when altering the color grading.
Lighting was also a major part of getting the look right. Much of the interior studio footage would have taken place in windowless rooms, so much of the key and reference lighting was designed as if it were coming from the TV screens in the studio. This intentionality pays off and really elevates the look. I also noticed a few scenes featuring exterior shots of the studio or the Olympic Village that were extremely bright and oversaturated. Not only does it fit the look of the movie, but it reflects how the news team is often operating in the “dark” while chasing the story. I might be reading a bit too much into that, though.
Lastly, the film smartly utilizes archival footage from the 1972 Olympics, including anchor Jim McKay’s actual live coverage of the unfolding events. This lends a great deal of authenticity to the story and the visual experience for the audience. It’s also worth mentioning that any shots featuring the terrorists are not archival footage. Rather, the filmmakers recreated those images and limited their use to spare the surviving families from having to relive the trauma (as much as they could).
3. Production/Costume Design
Much like the cinematography, the production design looks great, and I had no issues feeling immersed in the recreation of the ’70s-era TV studio. The sets, costuming, and makeup teams all did fantastic work here.
4. Writing
As for the script, the writers did a great job crafting an accurate recreation of that day while also taking time to dramatize it for the screen. The film often feels like it has the accuracy of a documentary but with the sensibilities of a drama or thriller. It’s a fun mix that keeps things interesting throughout.
The team also seems interested in some of the more abstract issues that the events created—namely, what are the ethics of real-time reporting during a terrorist attack? This crew was put in the near-impossible position of capturing live footage of the first terrorist attack broadcast on TV. What responsibilities do you have in that moment? What do you owe the viewers? The victims’ families? What are the legalities? What if your broadcast makes the situation worse? Many of these questions are raised, but the film doesn’t seem willing to take a firm stance on any of the answers.
Ultimately, whether due to an unwillingness to commit harder on the ethical questions or a choice to remain fully within the POV of the studio crew, the film sacrifices some of its power. Whether that was the choice of the writers, the director, or someone else is unclear, but the stakes feel too low at times considering the importance of the event.
At the same time, that may be the point. This was a group of people in Munich to cover the Olympic Games. They were not a seasoned international news team backed by years of experience or knowledge of the nuanced relations between Israeli and Arab nations. This was a group of ordinary producers and support staff thrust into extraordinary circumstances with no safety net or roadmap. And while that is intellectually interesting, it is so specific to a news studio worker’s experience that it may not resonate with general audiences.
Overall, I think the script is smart, tightly designed, and focused on its goals. The only problem is that I wonder whether it’s compelling enough for a broad audience.
5. Sound Design
The original score for the film is quiet and contemplative, featuring heavy tones that match the proceedings well. It won’t stand out much, but being unobtrusive is probably the right choice here. Outside of that, we get some contemporary tracks that help anchor the film in its era, but nothing too fancy is happening.
As for sound effects, I like the design and incorporation of the sounds around a studio: TVs powering on and off, film whirring in a camera, the graininess of archival footage. All of it helps sell the setting. More importantly, the sound does a good job of amplifying the tension. The chaos of phones ringing, people shouting, and noises all around increases stress levels and sets up quieter moments to hit harder.
6. Editing
This film clocks in just over the 90-minute mark and is very efficient with its storytelling. The pace is often frenetic but has a good rhythm. It makes effective use of the natural ebb and flow of the actual event. Things start slow to set a baseline of an ordinary day watching the Olympics, then tension builds with the uncertainty of gunfire. As the realization of what is happening sets in, we hit a peak and chaos unfolds. As the team settles into their coverage, things slow back down as the terrorists enter a holding pattern. This pattern repeats several times, and the edit seems to know when to lean into that rhythm and when to pull back. Really nice work.
7. Visual Effects
I don’t imagine there was a ton of VFX—perhaps just some additional touches here and there to sell the story. Wherever CGI was used, it was implemented very naturally.
8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation
There have been a few movies and documentaries that have touched on this particular terrorist attack, but this film certainly has its own spin to differentiate itself. I can’t say it’s the best, having not educated myself on the others, but it is a worthwhile inclusion released at an interesting political time.
9. Stunt Coordination
Nothing noteworthy.
10. Direction
Tim Fehlbaum is a Swiss director I know very little about. Nevertheless, I’d say this is a good introduction to a promising director we’ll hopefully see more from.
Legacy / Final Thoughts
As I mentioned earlier, the review score for this movie is less about anything being technically wrong or subpar and more about my inability to connect with it on the level I think it was aiming for. The stakes feel too low, and its unwillingness to dig deeper into some of its more interesting elements makes it an overall miss for me. Nevertheless, there are a lot of great things happening in individual parts of the film, and I will definitely keep my eye out for more work from the people who put this together.
Comments
Post a Comment