One Day in September (1999)

Great Film overall

Good start, but then it gets ruined

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

It's quite striking in watching documentaries with newsreel footage from, say the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s that the people who look the most outdated (ridiculously so!) are American network television newsmen. With other people in old footage, fashions and haircuts may change over the decades but no individuals appear clownish in outdated somewhat clothes or grooming.In any given period, though, network television newsmen are always exaggerated comic caricatures of that period's look.Another documentary I saw recently in which this was apparent was "How to Survive a Plague."

This is a top class documentary, telling the story of the events surrounding the murder of Israeli athletes and coaches in Munich in 1972. There is an interview with the last surviving Palestinian who took part in the attack. He describes being picked for the mission and the specific training undertaken. He is not remorseful in any way for the deaths that took place. There are also touching interviews with family members of the Israelis. Most damningly from the German point of view local police and politicians describe honestly how confused they were in trying to settle the crisis.The film sets the scene of the Munich Olympics, describing how anxious the organisers were for the games to be as carefree as possible leading to minimal security in the athletes village. Using remarkable news footage the film gradually builds up the tension as the Israelis are taken hostage. Negotiations with local politicians and police take place. A planned rescue by police is cancelled at the last minute.Eventually the Palestinians are offered a plane and a rescue mission is planned at the airport. This is a disaster for all kinds of reasons and all the hostages are killed. The surviving Palestinians are arrested.Even more chilling is the tacit admission by the Germans that the captured Palestinians were released deliberately by way of a "mock" hijack some months after the massacre.An amazing piece of living history.

"One Day in September," the companion film to Simon Reeve's book of the same title, is a shocking and gripping account of the Palestinian terrorist siege that took place at the 1972 Olympics at Munich. The film mixes archival footage, still photographs, interviews with survivors, and, in one instance, computer imaging (to show the layout of Furstenfeldbruck airport, where snipers were positioned to take out the terrorists) to tell a tale that is still as shocking and relevant today as when it initially happened. Along with Steven Spielberg's more embellished docu-thriller "Munich," "One Day in September" is an impressive documentary that chronicles despair and terror, but also quietly graceful uplift (as shown in a reflective conclusion).7.5 out of 10

It would appear that many people believe that the documentary format should be held to some sort of objective, news-gathering standard. Whenever two clips are spliced together, regardless of the content there is some editorializing. A documentary is an editorial. If you want nothing more than unopinionated truth, than the only avenue open to you is uninterrupted security camera footage. You can, and sometimes should, disagree with the opinions offered by the documentary filmmaker as a critical viewer, but one faulting the filmmaker for offering an opinion is like criticizing water for being wet. The line that must be discerned is whether the filmmaker is overly deceptive or insidious in trying to convince you of his or her opinion. This is a line that can be very difficult to draw.Mr. Ruvi Simmons of London does not seem to realize these basic tenets of documentary film-making: "One Day in September, however, concentrates more on the human interest of the event itself, neglecting background information in order to convey a one-sided and grossly biased perspective on a tragic occurrence." I am a filmmaker, and I know that as such one must choose a theme and a perspective for a feature length documentary. The main problem that this person has with the film is that he is "that it neither explores the underlying issues behind the Israeli-Palestinian tensions." This is a 2 hour film, not a 40 hour mini-series. There is no way that the filmmaker could have adequately explored the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and still told the story that he or she intended: the story of the hostage crisis at the Games of '72. Mr. Simmons also took offense at the filmmaker for vilifying the terrorists who perpetrated this plot. I do not need to offer a critical retort as any logical person can understand why this statement is foolishness. It sounds as though Mr. Simmons feels as though the terrorists were justified in hurting innocent athletes a continent removed from their conflict. Obviously, this person would dislike this documentary (although he does not mention that the documentarian interviewed one of the terrorists to present his side of their story).If you want to have a solid introduction to the acts of terrorism at the Games of '72, then this is a good work to watch. It is true that the thriller-style is a bit gimmicky, but it does add somewhat to the suspense if you do not know the outcome. If you are intending to see the film, "Munich," then this is probably a good primer (I have not yet seen it as it has not been released). Just remember, this film is just as much an editorial as Spielburg's film will be.~C