L'Étau de Munich

I am all for revising understanding of history for the better as we learn more. But this film, like the novel it is based on, is not that at all, but rather an apologia and whitewash of Chamberlin's very real, naïve and ghastly mistake at Munich.

Robert's Harris' novel, Munich, on which this film is based isn't simply somewhat wrong, it is totally wrong. In fact Chamberlin was not thoughtful, and was NOT a skilled diplomat. He was a vain, pompous and petty dupe. The idea that he somehow outsmarted Hitler is ludicrous, Hitler got everything he wanted.

We even see in the crawl text at the of the film the claim that "The extra time bought by the Munich agreement enabled Great Britain and her allies to prepare for the war and ultimately led to Germany's defeat." Errr.. no. That is completely wrong. All the data on industrial capacity trends, submarine production, armored vehicle and aircraft production tends, as well as oil and other fuel reserves, shows that the UK and France were in a stronger position in 1938 than in 1939. The Munich agreement also had a massively deleterious effect on both strategic and popular views in the US and the USSR. It convinced Stalin to ally with Hitler. Which was the only way Hitler could invade Poland. The delay of the inevitable war resulted in the annihilation of Poland, the actualization of Japan's closer and more effective alliance with the Nazi's, and by all analysis made the holocaust 3x more effective by allowing the Germans to ally with the Soviets giving the Nazi more control of more of E. Europe where they mass murdered the Jewish populations. American isolationists got a massive boost from the blunder at Munich as well.

We know from Hitler's "second book" (go to youtube and search "Gerhard Weinberg Hitler's second book. For an excellent panel talk on it) we know that Hitler for considered the United States as the ultimate enemy of Nazis. He thought Great Britain would fold (and it initially did due to Chamberlin), that France would be easy to defeat if the war with them started in 1939 instead of 1938 (and it was), that he could fool the Soviets (and he he did for several key years). He thought the non-racial based nationalism of the US, which is to say the US's people's love of democracy, was the ultimate threat to the Nazis.

So in "Edge of War" we are left with a film that has some nice period elements, certainly fine acting, but is also severe disinformation on what went on at Munich. We know for a fact that Goering wrote the agreement, that no British changes were accepted, and that Chamberlin signed off without an argument which stunned even the Nazis.

I read Robert Harris's novel, about the 1938 Munich Agreement, and I loved it. Harris is a very good writer and I love historical fiction. Of course, I was well aware that Harris was trying to alter and improve Chamberlain's image and place in history, with which I vehemently disagreed. Chamberlain's egotism and stubbornness blinded him to the fact that you cannot appease or negotiate with a madman, as Churchill intuitively and correctly realized.

I read the book a second time and thought it would make an excellent film. Of course, I thought, the film makers should not make Chamberlin the hero of the piece in any way, shape or form. I even cast Jeremy Irons, as Chamberlain, in my head.

Irons is, of course, excellent, as are the two young leads played by George MacKay and Jannis Niewöhner. Niewöhner is especially one to watch. The film has enhanced the roll of Helen Winter (Sandra Hüller) I suppose for woke purposes of having a women in a central supporting role. I thought Hitler was miscast. Again, when I cast the film in my minds eye, after reading the book, I thought Steve Buscemi would make a great Hitler.

I said to myself, when I read the book, that the scene they must cut, if the make a film, is the midnight drive to see the old girlfriend. My instincts were 100% correct as it kills all the tension that has been building. They could have trimmed the running time and improved the film.

The film, as does the book, completely downplays the very inconvenient declaration, by Chamberlain at the airport, of "peace in our time." The film also posits, as does the book, that Chamberlain bought time to properly prepare for war when it did come and this contributed to the German defeat. This is an absolute lie. When Churchill took over, as PM, the army was woefully underprepared and under equipped. In fact, had the Allied Forces acted forcefully in 1938, Hitler might have been stopped by an internal coup from the German Army.

"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." -Winston Churchill.

Well hopefully not - I did not think of the Russia/Ukraine conflict when I watched this (a few days ago), but thinking about it now ... and it is quite eerie to be honest. Let's hope there is not really a connection there or a repeat to be more to the point.

Having said that and while I reckon we can argue about how one feels about Putin (and a comparison to Hitler that I sort of did above), the second world war and certain things that led up to it ... seem almost inevitable. Or are they? If you know history, you know what transpired overall and where or rather how the movie ends. So there should not be a big surprise there. Still the movie is tension filled and even when you know that certain things could not have happened ... you kind of still expect (hope?) for something different to happen ... don't hold your breath though.

The acting is more than solid and you see historical figures doing their thing ... trying their best to be either as diplomatic as they can or hammering a point across (warning or whatever one wants to call it). There are other comparisons one can draw here - but I'll leave them up to you. I'll just tell you that this movie is very well made ... although I guess you kind of expected that anyway.

I realise that historical events can only be reflected to a limited extent in feature films, especially when real people are brought to life by actors 80 years later. The question then is, do I play this person as he was or do I create my own character? In the case of "Munich", however, I didn't care, because I was enthusiastic about the ensemble performance as a whole, more than about the script, but that's why I give it this rather high rating. Jannis Niewöhner and George MacKay as friends on different sides grabbed me right at the beginning because they are very different actors and I have to admit that I have been a fan of Niewöhner for a long time. Ulrich Matthes Hitler scared even me. I know Matthes from the stage and like him a lot, his portrayal here gives you an idea why so many Germans were fascinated by him. Jeremy Irons may have played Chamberlain too positively, but that doesn't detract from his performance. And yes - while watching I was also preoccupied with the current Ukraine war and the parallels to Hitler's war preparations, which are very clear. Let's hope that it will turn out better this time...

The final lines of the movie, saying that the time won by Chamberlain enabled the allies to prepare for the war and defeat Germany, spoiled a bit an impression of the film. The fascism was stopped at the cost of millions and millions of Russians killed (incommensurable losses: they were practically cannon fodder) in the first place. Nowadays it's convenient to forget it.

Overall, the movie is produced very well. The leading actors were great.