One Day in September (1999) User Reviews

A Fine Documentary

[canadude · 9/10 · 22 May 2004]

"One Day in September" is a phenomenal documentary. Its focus is on the hostage situation during the 1972 Munich Olympics when Palestinian terrorists took Israeli athletes prisoner. The film does something which I think any great documentary should when it covers or explores historical events. It frames the entire hostage crisis in a larger context. Yes, the film covers 21 hours of September 5th on which the hostage situation commenced and (one could say) resolved itself. However, in order to understand the reactions of the German government, the Israeli government, the media and the Olympic Games' fans and participants, the film discusses the German desire to create the atmosphere of peace to erase the stigma of the 1936 Olympics, then full of Fascist propaganda. It touches on the ongoing Israel-Arab conflict. It touches on the meaning of the Olympics.

"One Day in September" never strays from its focus, however, which is to document the hostage crisis and what it meant. What makes the film great, aside from its intelligent approach to the subject, is how well the atmosphere of the hostage situation is carried across. By the end of the film you do feel like you've watched the news for a day, glued to the TV screen hoping that the people will make it out alive. Watching it, you are reminded of how ill-prepared states are for terrorist attacks (still rings true even recently) because of the ulterior motives of statesmen. A lot of what happens at the state, political level, happens because it has to look good. The Germans were unprepared for the terrorists because they thought that extreme police security would welcome images of pre-War Olympics in Germany. They wanted to appear a certain way. The same went for how they handled the crisis.

The film, like many terrorist crises, ends with a tragedy. What remains with the viewer is not only the deep sadness at how one of the most peaceful world events turns into one of the most hateful, but also how incredibly contemporary those events from over thirty years ago still seem.

I remember...

[dbborroughs · 9/10 · 1 March 2004]

One of my strongest memories of my grandparents farm was of watching the 1972 Olympics on their TV while vacationing there. I have faint memories of the tragedy that transpired thirty odd years ago and watching this documentary brings it all back for me.

This is one of the best documentaries out there. It tells simply and clearly what happened and why. Using both news footage of the event and interviews conducted recently, amazingly the interviews include one with the only surviving terrorist who is now in hiding, this story tells the tale completely and compellingly. You get sucked into it even though you know whats going to happen, or think you do. The amazing thing about this film is that even if you know what happened it still manages to surprise you with new information that wasn't available before.

This is a sad story told compellingly.

A Solid Documentary, and response to some criticism

[quest-21 · 8/10 · 22 December 2005]

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

Don't watch this just before bedtime!

[claudecat · 17 January 2002]

Watching this documentary is a harrowing experience. I think the DVD version is unique in that even its menu page looks terrifying. By the end of the film, however, I was more angry than scared, because of the amazing level of incompetence German and Olympic officials showed in handling the hostage situation. The media also behaved abominably, broadcasting play-by-play accounts of the police's plans right into the ears of the terrorists. It made me think that the Bush administration might be partially correct in keeping the media in the dark about American military activities in Afghanistan.

I don't understand why some people felt the film didn't give the "context" of the kidnapping. I think Jamal al Gashey, the only kidnapper left alive now, explained quite clearly why he did what he did. But if the film had spent an extra hour discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would that have made a difference? In my mind, nothing justified the kidnapping of athletes who by their very presence at the Olympics were trying to further world understanding. I can't think of many things that do justify holding innocent hostages for ransom. The director seems to feel that way too. Apparently that makes the movie too biased for some viewers.

As for the comment that the movie "demonizes" the kidnappers, I don't agree. The filmmakers include a German official's statement that, if he had met him in a different situation, he would have liked the terrorist spokesman, Issa. al Gashey tells some very human stories, such as an ironic account of getting into the Olympic village with the help of American athletes out after curfew, and he insists that the plan was never to murder the Israelis. And al Gashey's brief but affecting account of being exiled from his childhood village does a lot more to argue the Palestinian side of the conflict than any brutal hostage-taking scheme. Too bad he never has realized that.

Interestingly, filmmaker Kevin MacDonald wrote that in Israel he has been accused of giving too much time to the Palestinians. He also notes that Simon Reeve wrote a companion book to the movie, because "there were many aspects of the story we could not include in a 90-minute film." It's a pity the existence of the book isn't publicized more (assuming it's any good).

I do wish the film had spent more time discussing the aftermath of the tragedy, and that MacDonald had used his incredible opportunity of interviewing the last remaining terrorist to ask him some more hard-hitting questions, instead of being satisfied with a step-by-step account of what the kidnappers did that day. (However, I just read that it was extremely difficult for MacDonald to get al Gashey to talk at all.

I wasn't completely convinced that the Germans colluded with the terrorists in the Lufthansa hijacking, and would have liked to see evidence for that. I would also have liked to learn more about the Black September group. Basically, I think the film should have been longer. If it was kept to its current length for some marketing reason, I think the sponsoring studio should rethink that rule.

However, the only choice I really wish the filmmaker had not made was to accompany extremely gruesome shots of bodies with loud psychedelic music. It would have been more respectful to show the images in silence.

Watching the film in light of the events of a day in September of 2001, and after, makes me think that the world hasn't come very far since 1972, in terms of solving the Middle East's problems.

Tremendous research and footage of an unspeakable act.

[grandcosmo · 10/10 · 6 November 2001]

As someone who was glued to ABC in 1972 during the entire terrorist act this very well done documentary brought back horrible memories. But the memory of these murders must be kept alive because they obviously are not being taught to our children in school as the comments by someone who had never heard of the Olympic massacre point out.

The director pulls out all stops in presenting the story using archival footage, computer models, musical montages, film of the present day sites and interviews with the participants with the most noteworthy one being with the sole surviving murderer. The only criticism I have of the film is that the flashy editing sometimes works to trivialize the incidents.

It is very illuminating to read the prior comments made about this film. It is also very sad to see the morally bankrupt calls for putting the murders "in perspective" as if anything could justify the cold blooded massacre of innocents. But of course we hear those justifications today over the most recent massacres.

Captures the feel of an era

[manuel-pestalozzi · 9/10 · 28 April 2006]

I remember the 1972 Olympics from a kid's perspective (with no TV set at home). American swimmer Mark Spitz was its big star, everybody knew him. It really was the most modern and most hip event ever planned in Europe. The best architects and the best artists and designers of Germany were employed to build an Olympic village that still reflects the openness and optimism of the era. Even the logo, a kind of a spiral made of rays, is unforgettable. (The original movie Rollerball was largely filmed in the Olympic village).

One Day in September catches the atmosphere that preceded the terrorist attack perfectly, in that sense it is an accomplished exercise in style. I think there really was a kind of innocence connected with it, people truly believed that sports could be a means to bring enemies closer and that the Olympic area was regarded as something like a sacred ground which everyday worries couldn't penetrate. I assume that explains very much the clumsy reaction of the German authorities when they were faced with the act of „desecration" that constituted the callous act of the Palestinian terrorists. (I think the German officials who were ready to be interviewed for this documentary are unduly criticized for what some call indifference. Must have been hard enough for them to reminisce about something terrible for which I believe they feel at least partly responsible).

The spirit of the Munich Olympics ended with that tragedy, and the Yom Kippur war the following year with the ensuing oil crisis changed the outlook on the future completely. Somehow I feel we still suffer from the shattered hopes of 1972. And where are the Palestinians now? Terrorism doesn't pay.

Strong, Powerful Documentary

[Cheddar · 10/10 · 12 September 2000]

One of the most vivid memories of my youth was seeing Jim McKay in his yellow blazer, announcing, "They're all gone" as news broke of the deaths of the Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972. I was a 10 year old who loved sports and the Olympics -- it was the first time an international news event touched and upset me.

Watching "One Day in September" brought it all back. Any documentary about this horrific event is bound to upset and stir emotions, but this is wonderful filmmaking, including some blisteringly well-done editing and use of music of the day.

It is not easy viewing but it is well-worth the time and emotion you will spend. Don't miss this.

A Nutshell Review: (DVD) One Day in September (1999)

[DICK STEEL · 9/10 · 25 December 2005]

With the word and controversy out on Steven Spielberg's Munich, instead of settling for a Hollywood drama of the terrorist event that faithful day of the Olympics, you might want to learn more from this Oscar winning documentary.

This documentary uses real footage throughout, with archived news reels, pictures, photos (of the dead, shot, burnt, otherwise), and interviews with family members. But their real coup would be to have interviewed the one and only surviving terrorist who partook in the horror against the spirit of the Olympics.

It also provides those born after 1972, or too young to remember, a look at the events surrounding that day - from the Olympic organizers who are too arrogant to suspend the games, the indifference of the athletes in the Olympic Village, the lack of adequate security (as compared to today), to the politics behind the entire affairs.

Perhaps what will rile you are the West German's botched attempt to rescue the hostages.

They were surprisingly ill-prepared, deploying untrained teams, lack of proper equipment, and had to recall countless of attempts, before the final embarrassment at the airport, which exposed their severe weakness at handling terrorist incidents. All the hostages were killed in the confrontation, when the terrorists threw hand grenades and emptied bullets into the helicopters they were in. It's only after this that the Germans formed their anti-terror squad, the GSG9 (Counter-strike players will be familiar with this term).

To make matters worse, there was a cover up and collusion between the Germans and the terrorists when the latter apparently hijacked a Lufthansa flight (with only 12 passengers on board, and no women and children), and the former handed over the 3 surviving terrorists of the Munich incident in exchange for safe passage of the flight.

Which is where Spielberg's movie comes in, following squads of Mossad agents hunting down and assassinating those 3 (1 managed to survive countless attempts on his life), together with others who are implicated or involved in the planning of the Munich operation.

This documentary provides an excellent and compelling background, preparing you for the Munich movie coming soon. Watch this.

Code 1 DVD features a relatively barebones version, containing the usual scene selections, subtitles and bonus trailers. But the documentary itself is worth it.

Contentious, exciting and full of dread.

[alice liddell · 7/10 · 7 June 2000]

In Britain at least, this film has been strongly criticised by hardly disinterested intellectual heavyweights like Edward Said and Tom Paulin. The main argument against the film is that it takes place in an historical vacuum, that it shows members of the 1972 Israeli Olympic team being taken hostage by Palestinian terrorists, but it does not explain the political reasons why this happened. This is largely true - although there is brief mention at the beginning of the horrific camp conditions Palestinians suffered in their own homeland appropriated by Israel, it says nothing about this highly contentious appropriation, about the natural urge to struggle against it.

This is underscored by a blatantly manipulative structure - while the representative of the hostages is (necessarily) solitary, anonymous, in hiding, talking in shadows (the other surviving terrorists were murdered by Israeli assassination squads; this information is recorded in a coda that

seems like some kind of chilling reward for the audience); the dead men are shown as almost saintly - pictured getting married, with babies, smiling, honest, healthy, sporty, part of a community and tradition - one story talks about the high-minded ideals of one coach who fraternised with his political enemies from Lebanon.

Aside from the dubious shamelessness of this manipulation, I don't really have a problem with the film's focus. Coming from a country where political terrorists have, for thirty years, been slaughtering wholesale largely apolitical citizens in the name of justice, who have used bogus political ideology as a front for gangsterism, I am somewhat out of sympathy with anything that proclaims humanitarian motives and leaves innocent people dead. Critics complain that ONE DAY ignores the story of the Palestinians, their feelings of repression and injustice - and it is unlikely a film on this subject will have a voiceover from a powerful Hollywood player, and win an Oscar - but to do this would abstract the event, would turn it into a political chess game, and not a ghastly abomination where real people, far too young, with families, are unaccountably murdered. It is the stuff of paranoid modernist literature - you wake up one morning with all your friends, and by sheer random chance, you're held hostage and killed.

So if we agree that the film is fatally biased, we can see that it has many virtues. ONE DAY has been called a thriller - it was literally so for me because I'd never heard about this atrocity - and the techniques used (the pounding score, the edgy editing, the foregrounding of clocks and deadlines, the withholding of explanatory, hindsight information) all contribute to a sense of almost unbearable tension. I don't know how this is for people (the majority) who know the story.

About half way through, as you begin to realise how things will probably turn out, the film stops being a thriller, and becomes an exercise in dread: time contracts, and you hope the film goes on forever so that the intolerable denouement is postponed. It is unbearable. But after the film you begin to question the ethics of all this. One of the themes of the film is the media treatment of the crisis, the reprehensible desire of the Olympic Committee to get it out of the way as quickly as possible - one victim's wife accuses the media of turning the crisis into a 'show'. But this is precisely what Macdonald does, turning human tragedy into an entertainment by turns kinetic and visceral.

Other plusses are the revelations of shocking, farcical German incompetence, desperate to reveal deNazification by having no security whatsoever; the callous, indifferent face-saving here by representatives of the police is the film's true, sickening, achievement. The brief montages of the sporting events, the whole point of the Olympics, are exhilirating, soundtracked to an uplifting Moog Bach, making you wonder why people can't make better sports movies.

ONE DAY has been compared to Errol Morris's documentaries, and you can see, superficially, why - the Phillip Glass score, the distortion of footage and time, the letting authority hang itself. But Morris, in a film like THE THIN BLUE LINE, is concerned not so much with presenting a truth as destroying the official version, exposing its weaknesses, repressions, lies. His recreated scenes, heightened images, distancing effects, all point to the artificiality of the official 'truth'. Morris uses documenatary's claim to authenticity and truth, to expose the inauthenticity of 'truth'. His is a critical cinema.

MacDonald, however, IS offering official truth here - there is no real difference between what he says and the ABC news reporter. This is not a critical film, pandering to firmly entrenched ideologies. Further, the documentary as a genre is limited. It can tell us about facts, analyses. It can reveal witness. There is an astonishing frisson in being able to see these terrorists walking and talking on the big screen, that projection of fantasies, like people, not mythical constructs. But documentary can never get at people's inner lives, and as this is what real life really is, documentaries seem thin and superficial, a betrayal of life. And so, finally, ironically, the victims DO become abstract - simply that, victims. We know there is more to people than a handful of photographs and highly partial witness.

Documentary Doesn't Compromise

[cstotlar-1 · 8/10 · 9 November 2012]

No, I don't think this remarkable documentary was pro- anything. The Israeli team during the Munich Olympics was featured because they were on the all-star list. In fact all the contenders were stars as they always are during these world competitions. Of course we know their names. We have access to the names of every contestant and finally, every winner and loser. The fact that they come with biographies certainly isn't any surprise. That's the nature of the Olympics. We don't know much of anything about the terrorists. They weren't the athletes in the competition. Why should we know about them? This excellent film does not take sides, as hard as it must have been to avoid, or make any overtly political statements and this has been criticized in some quarters. Instead of presenting a political diatribe or a hate machine or a propaganda film, this documentary sticks to the facts, presented chronologically for the main part, and leaves the viewer to draw any conclusions. There are some conclusions we can hardly avoid but the film doesn't abet in trying to sway us. This is simply a tragedy reviewed and the inability to deal with the circumstances leading up to it in any practical way. The film whizzed by, as painful as part of it was to watch. There wasn't much to see about the personal reactions. That wasn't the purpose of this fine piece of work.

Curtis Stotlar

Amazingly moving and irritating.

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 22 December 2013]

When the massacre of the Jewish Olympians occurred back in 1972, I was only 8 years old and it's a rather vague memory. Because of this, I looked forward to seeing "One Day in September". However, even if you remember the events rather clearly, you should still see this exceptionally well made film--mostly because the epilogue is rather sad and alarming.

This documentary is narrated by Michael Douglas and consists of many interviews (one of which, inexplicably, is with the surviving terrorist), contemporary footage and a few re-creations using computers. It explains step-by-step how the incidents occurred as well as the aftermath. It's all naturally very sad but also frustrating because the German authorities were so very incompetent--blowing so many opportunities and allowing LIVE news feeds which showed the German policemen sneaking up to the apartment where the terrorists held their victims! Duh. In fact, it's one screw up after another and it is both sad and maddening--especially the epilogue. I'd say more but I don't want to ruin the film. The bottom line is that this is the best look at the events of the time--and is a must-see for anyone wanting to learn about this tragic episode.

Works as a thriller, fails as a documentary

[ShortestFrame · 5/10 · 27 April 2005]

I can only agree on what most of the user comments here have pointed out: Notwithstanding the thrilling and gripping style - great editing for instance - in which the events are presented, the film as a whole is fairly questionable because of its undeniable intention to bash the Germans and their police force for what happened while at the same time refusing to investigate into other directions. Furthermore, it gives us little more than a glimpse of the terrorists' motivations, feeding the impression that we're watching a piece of propaganda that is - without a doubt - well executed. The probably most unbelievable faux-pas is that at no time during all the interviews the name of the witnesses are shown. Very amateurish! 8/10 for film-making, 2/10 for subject treatment. See it, but be aware of its slanted view!

Bias in the film?

[LonesomeDove · 28 October 2004]

I feel compelled to reply to the many people who say the documentary was completely biased toward Israelis. True, its focus was on the Israelis and their lives, and how they were killed by "evil" fundamentalist Palestinians. However, if you say the film is biased, then you're saying that maybe it should lean a little bit the other way, and tell more about the Palestinian terrorists and their personal plight in the conflict. But how can anyone be sympathetic to terrorists? The point has been brought up that both sides of the conflict experience terrorist attacks, so why should a filmmaker focus on one side more than the other; however, I think the fact that this attack took place at the Olympics, an event that represents the unity of the world and its people, is what makes the attack and this documentary so important. Therefore, Kevin MacDonald, in my opinion, has license to be as biased as he wants toward the Israelis, because they were the focus of this terrible event that occurred during a time that people around the world should have been united under the Olympics banner.

Intriguing, Tense, Compelling

[michaelf · 9/10 · 11 December 2000]

"A Day in September" is a compelling and intriguing documentary on the 1972 Munich Summer Olympics in which Arab terrorists took 11 members of the Israeli team hostage. Although we know in advance of the outcome in which all hostages die, the film still keeps the tension high by giving us previously little know and new information and imagry. Shown chronological, the events speak for themselves.

We see West German officials as being too naive and incompetent to handle the crises. Still they refused help from the Israeli government which could have saved lives. Furthermore, we find out that in a half-hearted attempt to cover up their incompetency, they actually conspired to use a fake hijacking to free the surviving terrorists.

We find out that the terrorists had help from East Germany.

We see the terrorists as being as naive as the Germans by actually thinking that their actions would gain them a long term victory. Even when given the chance to justify their actions, the lone surviving member of the terrorist squad reveals these people as basing their value of human life in terms of political necessities.

We learn that arrogant Olympic officials considered the games more important than the lives at stake. The terrorist action was more of an annoyance or inconvenience.

Finally, we see the international media reaction as if this were one big show. One police attempt to free the hostages was aborted because preperations were being carried live on television, thus alerting the terrorists!

But above all, A DAY IN SEPTEMBER serves as a timely warning of the dangers of those to whom the ends justify the means, regardless of the outcome.

Very well made but not for the fainthearted

[njmbo · 10/10 · 20 September 2006]

This documentary is simply one of the best I've ever seen. The build-up is brilliant, the interviews with relatives are gripping and often heartbreaking.

The laughing German general (Ulrich Wegener), who oversaw the worst terrorist rescue attempt in history, is just unreal. As was the entire operation. I knew something about the botched attempt but had no idea how bad it really was. If it happened like it did in a movie, you'd say it was rather far-fetched.

The music, especially Moby and the Chronos Quartett is quite haunting and just stays in your head. The soundtrack was actually the reason I bought it on DVD, after first seeing it on the BBC.

This piece of film is about One Day In September. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet obviously some people still don't get it. Blabbering on about the "social context of the Palestinian plight" or-what-have-you. Please go and watch Michael Moore's Waste o'Celluloid.

You want to throw something at the TV

[blanche-2 · 9/10 · 3 October 2015]

What a frustrating experience.

Interesting today, when you see a documentary entitled, "One Day in September," one thinks of 9/11.

In fact, this was another September in 1972 with other innocent people killed.

In 1972, Palestinian terrorists appeared at the 1972 Munich Olympics and took Israeli athletes hostages.

Contributing to this documentary is one surviving terrorist, Jamal Al Gashey, who is in hiding. If you saw the film "Munich," which I recommend, you will see what happened to the other terrorists at the hands of the Israelis.

This is a particularly anger-provoking documentary. There was minimum security at that Olympics so as not to upset the athletes. Okay. The Germans, of all people, did not have an anti- terrorist group, and their police were Keystone Cops.

Israel offered to help, but they were turned down.

In other words, any rescue attempt was ruined before it started.

The Germans made lots of plans to rescue the athletes, and these were dutifully reported by the television press. Unfortunately, all the rooms holding the hostages had televisions, so the terrorists could see and hear about the plans before they happened.

I did not feel that this documentary took sides, except in showing the incompetence of the Germans and the Olympics administration. The interview with Jamal Al Gashey was extensive, giving a play by play of what happened. He claimed there was no intention to kill the athletes. Well, they're dead.

Worse yet, everyone was told that the final rescue attempt was successful and all of the hostages were alive, only for the families to find out later the news was incorrect.

I can't get into a discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I also have absolutely no intention of putting this heinous act into perspective, although the Palestinians have a viable point of view. I just don't think that was the way to address it. There is no perspective that justifies killing innocent people and holding them for ransom. The Israelis weren't going to give them anything -- if they did, no Israeli anywhere would have been safe.

The Olympics make an attempting to further camaraderie among nations and bring people together. The wife of one of the victims gave a very poignant recitation, as did her daughter, who never knew her father.

Sadly, in this world, there are many children who never knew their fathers, thanks to years and years of Middle East conflict. What's the answer? I don't even know the question.

Excellent in every aspect

[spuddcw2000-1 · 9/10 · 1 October 2020]

There is one major flick flub that is a spoiler. The nature of it is such that it sort of makes me wonder about the authenticity of the entire film. You never see Peter Jenning's face but his voice is in the film filing reports. At about the 1:05 mark, he reports that in the transport of the hostages from the apartment to the bus to the helicopters, it was learned that there were 8 terrorists. At 1:05 he says, "there are only 5 police men (snipers) waiting at Ferstenburck (sp?) airfield. Then literally a minute later when the helicopters take off, Jennings again says that they do not know where the helicopters are going.

Now I understand that you can get audio clips out of sequence but I don't understand how Jennings can first say there are 5 snipers waiting at the airport (and how he would know this intricate detail--the number of snipers???) and then say that he didn't know where they were going.

I can only conclude that someone impersonated his voice for one or both of the sound bytes.

There may be a logical explanation for this but if there is....it is not immediately apparent.

As for the other 99.5% of the documentary, loved every bit of it. The build up was logical and well paced. You're not thrown right into the action, characters are developed in terms of the hostages. They don't delve too much into the terrorist's families but the plight of Palestine and it's people was discussed.

The documentary does get to the attack at the 20 minute mark. It is revealed that the East Germans provided logistical support to the terrorist. At about the 25 minute mark, you get a taste of just how nakedly chaotic it was. Nobody knew how many hostages there were. Nobody knew how many terrorists there were. Later it was highlighted that the press reports--newspapers--said that all hostages were safe.

As for production values, a red digital clock highlighted what time it was during the day when major events came and went. I think they could have used some more diagrams detailing how they moved from the apartment to the bus; the bus to the helicopter and the helicopter to the airfield.

At 1:30, the documentary is pretty short. I think they could have pushed it a bit further. As with other documentaries there was an epilogue that tied up some loose ends. One glaring loose end that still remains (maybe for good reason) is this: What would happen in 2021, 2022, 2024 if there was some sort of major disruption by criminals at the Olympics. In the documentary, a lot is made of the bizarre (in my view) decisions to continue events, decisions to pause the games after pressure was exerted, and then resume the events after the gunfight at the airport was over. I would imagine that the International Olympic Committee has a plan in place to not repeat this sort of thing.

I am both happy and a little melancholy that they didn't turn it into a "E True Hollywood Story" where they talk to random celebrities about the attack. But I think they could have used some heft in the area of 'What does this say about the Olympic ideal?'. Jennings was still alive at the time it was released; as was Jim McKay. They would have more altitude than someone like Bob Costas or Tom Brokaw.

Aside from the continuity issues, I highly rate this documentary. I wish that the director would do similar projects for subsequent terrorist attacks.

A powerful and well-researched documentary

[tomgillespie2002 · 7/10 · 5 October 2015]

Kevin Macdonald's Oscar-winning documentary One Day in September tells the story of the 1972 Munich Olympics, an event that turned quickly from an attempt by Germany to show the world that it had moved on from the events of World War II, welcoming athletes and fans of all races from all countries, to one of the most notorious incidents of terrorism in recent history. It's an enormously thrilling and informative documentary, and Macdonald covers the event in meticulous detail, but it also plays out like a music video, with hit songs playing over footage of bloodied dead bodies and little attention given to the background of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

The film opens with an Olympic promotional video which the Germans no doubt hoped would help banish the world's memories of concentration camps and mass genocide, in favour of a more welcoming, laid-back Germany. Though documentaries on the whole are supposed to be objective, it's clear that Macdonald holds disdain for the German authorities, who bungled the entire operation from start to finish. Rather than a tight security force, the Olympic committee opted instead for a dressed-down and unarmed group of workers who strolled the Olympic village with no idea of the horrors to come. With heavy news coverage of the incident from journalists around the world, the terrorists were able to watch as volunteers armed themselves for a rescue operation on the TV in their room, and thankfully warned the authorities of this before the inevitable blood-bath occurred.

While the idea of efficiency is something that would normally go hand-in-hand with Germany, the only thing efficient about the whole saga was the quickly-handled release of three captured terrorists, who escaped custody when some Palestinians hijacked a plane and demanded their release. In a film chocked full of startling revelations, the most damning is the reveal that the Germany authorities arranged the entire thing. Questions were raised after it was discovered that the plane contained only a small number of passengers, of which none were women and children. Of all the incidents they should hang their in shame for, simply wanting to wash their hands of the whole ordeal at the expense of justice is unforgivable. Macdonald doesn't just rely on conspiracy theories either, with first-hand accounts from police, ranking members of the army, journalists, family members of the victims, and most startlingly, Jamal Al-Gashey, the only surviving member of the Black September group to take part in the events at Munich.

It was a tragedy from start to finish, and along with the bumbling behaviour of the Germans, was doomed to disaster from the very start. Macdonald builds up this sense of inevitability, and the horror climaxes with ABC anchor Jim McKay's live report after it emerged that their worst fears have finally been realised, and that the Israeli athletes held for less than 24 hours were "all gone,". Had Macdonald offered some background into the origins of Black September and the tensions between the Israelis and Palestinians, this may have been a masterpiece, Also, the massacre at the closing stages would have been the all more heartbreaking were it not for Macdonald's rock and roll style and gratuitous imagery. Still, this is powerful, well- researched stuff, and should be watched by anyone interested in this avoidable act of horror as the definitive account of that one day in September.

Revisiting The Nightmare In Munich

[virek213 · 10/10 · 17 September 2012]

Whether winter or summer, the Olympic Games are meant to be a place where the world comes together for the ultimate competition in athletics. It is the ideal that dates back to ancient times when the Greeks themselves invented the Olympics.

But on September 5, 1972, in an ordeal that lasted into the early morning hours of the following day, the Olympic ideal was brutally attacked when members of a shadow Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September hopped over the fence at the Olympic Village in Munich and killed two Israeli athletes, holding nine others hostage and threatening to kill them unless their demands for freeing two hundred political prisoners were met. With Israel point-blank refusing to negotiate, and having to take responsibility for this, a rag-tag German hit squad unleashed their firepower on the terrorists at the Furstenfeldbruck airfield just outside of Munich; and although three of the eight terrorists were eventually captured and the other five died in the mêlée, so too did the remaining nine Israeli athletes. It was the first act of terrorism ever televised to an international audience; and in 1999, it was the focus of the Oscar-winning documentary ONE DAY IN September.

Narrated by Michael Douglas, ONE DAY IN September examines, in a span of only ninety-one minutes, the way the 1972 Summer Olympics were laid out, and how it led to what took place. Munich was, just four decades before, the epicenter of the Nazi movement; and when it was awarded the '72 Games, memories of Hitler's 1936 Berlin Games, as well as the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust, were still fresh in the population's memories. The organizers of Munich '72 were determined to make it as different from "Hitler's Games" as was humanly possible; and while theirs were noble and good intentions, it turned out to be their undoing. The perimeter of the Olympic Village was a mere rusty fence, as opposed to sturdier materials like barbed wire (so as not to look like a concentration camp like Dachau, which was only seven miles away), and the security guards not only had no visible firearms on them, they didn't even look like security guards to begin with. This was how the eight Black September militants scaled the fence, with the unintentional help of drunk American athletes, and broke into the Israeli apartment at Connollystrasse 31. A great deal of negotiating between West Germany and Black September ensued, and the world was transfixed to their televisions, as they watched what had been up to that moment a peaceful Olympic celebration suddenly turned into the most overt act of terrorism the world had seen to that point.

Attempts by the West German government to end the standoff by force were totally unsuccessful (the country had no counter-terrorism force of its own, and relied on municipal cops); and when the terrorists and the hostages were transported by helicopters to Furstenfeldbruck, the situation took the ultimate horrifying turn. A whole horde of untrained German snipers unloaded on the airfield; and over the next forty-five minutes, all hell broke loose. Once the mêlée was over, officials of the West German government and the Munich Olympic Committee had stated that the terrorists had been killed, but the Israelis had been saved. Later on, of course, it was revealed that something totally different had transpired. It was up to ABC sportscaster Jim McKay to deliver the terrible news to the world: "They're all gone." People who remember those terrible two days in September 1972 will certainly be reminded of them again when watching ONE DAY IN September; and those who only know of 9/11 will be reminded of how terrorism can turn good things bad in a hurry. The whole ordeal, down to the last horrifying battle at Furstenfeldbruck, was an act of well-meant but painfully inept West German planning; and while the decision to go on with the Olympic Games after the deaths may have been a way of both paying tribute to the murdered Israelis and thumbing its noses at terrorists, it was also extremely controversial. Scenes of athletic competition, including those of U.S. swimmer Mark Spitz and Russian gymnast Olga Korbut, are interspersed with the horrific events at Connollystrasse 31 to emphasize the tragic turn Munch '72 took in the span of only eighteen hours. The mood is emphasized further by Heffes' modern score, with contributions by Glass, and a performance of the Funeral March of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony, as performed by Rudolf Kempe and the Munich Philharmonic at the memorial for the athletes. In the end, ONE DAY IN September was richly deserving of the Oscar it got, and it should remind us all of how political terrorism not only poisoned the ultimate sporting event, but also led to far worse things to come.

Events Are Meticulously Recounted But Where's The Insight?

[Bill357 · 7/10 · 30 May 2009]

Having watched the film 21 Hours At Munich the day before, I expected a little more from this and was slightly disappointed. It recounts the actual events very well but little more. Very little time is spent digging into the thoughts and emotions of the principles involved.

I learned a little more about a few of the Israeli athletes but the interview with the only surviving terrorist was actually quite pointless. Nothing much was gained from talking to him except the fact that he's still quite proud of the atrocities he committed against innocent people. I seriously hope a bullet finds this man before he is allowed to die of natural causes.

I agree with other reviewers that blasting Deep Purple's "Child In Time" while showing a slide show of the burnt and shot corpses of Israeli athletes and their captors was very gratuitous. It would have been more effective and more respectful if that scene were silent.

The most disturbing claim of the film (narrator Michael Douglas could hardly hold his disgust) was the charge that Germany colluded with Black September to have the three surviving terrorists released under false pretenses. It's quite ironic that what started as an attempt to clean up the stain of six million murdered Jews ended up not only with more murdered Jews but Germany denying justice for their murders. Hypocrites!

Now what I'd like to see is a documentary about the reprisal killings. The fiction that was Sword Of Gideon and Munich will not suffice.

On par with When We Were Kings - a resounding ten out of ten

[darmar · 10/10 · 30 October 2000]

I watched this movie, in Sydney, the day before the opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympic Games. How quickly we forget events from our recent past. If the authorities response to the terrorist situation wasn't so tragic, it would be laughable. I thought the shooting of JFK was a monumental government debacle and cover up - well there is another to rate on a par with that. What a scoop for the makers of the documentary to snare the one surviving terrorist - it certainly added to the chilling effect of the documentary. I give it a rating of ten, and on par with the only other documentary I have given, a ten, When We Were Kings.

Network TV newsmen in old footage

[jjrous · 6/10 · 21 April 2014]

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."

Are you kidding me?

[Raoul-16 · 3/10 · 20 February 2003]

I just watched this movie last night and frankly think it's terrible. I can't believe this won the Oscar for Best Documentary in 1999. Is the director the nephew of someone at the Academy? If the subject itself weren't so interesting (and he has picked a great subject, make no mistake), this movie would be unwatchable. OK, before I get carried away with invective, let me back up my dismay with some actual observations...

For starters, from a directorial point of view, this is one of the most ineptly put together films I've seen in a long time. McDonald pads his film constantly with highly stylized filler, throwing in Godfrey Reggio-inspired time-lapse photography of traffic (just as one example) in places where it does absolutely nothing to advance the story or give us more info. It's as though he doesn't trust the subject itself to be interesting enough, like he feels he needs to hold our attention with cinematographic tricks. Hey, Kevin--it's distracting and annoying. You've got a great subject here--just let it speak to us. There are points, too, where he lets grainy footage of certain tense moments roll on for much too long, in ways that get a little dull and also don't advance the story. Could've been tightened up a bit...

He also clearly thinks the sun shines out of Errol Morris's anus. He may even be right, but copying that style doesn't help his film, either. He isn't creating a character study of oddballs and social outcasts who will end up telling us unexpectedly profound things about life (Morris), nor is he making some grand visionary statement about the world (Reggio)--he's ostensibly documenting a real historical event, and I think he would've done a much better job by just presenting the facts and letting the audience take it all in. He seems to trust neither our patience nor our intelligence. Blah...

On top of all that, he uses music that is so wholly inappropriate for the scenes over which it is laid that the juxtaposition ends up being laughable. The use of music in this film is in such poor taste that it can't help but be further distracting. It's even music that I really like, but used in such completely terrible ways that I couldn't let this review go by without commenting on it. Just awful...

Finally, and most importantly, McDonald just doesn't seem to have put together his film in a way that says anything. He flirts with making some sort of political statement but either pulls his punches or just botches it so terribly that I'm not sure what he's trying to say. The human drama he tries to portray is somehow not nearly as affecting as it could've (and should've) been, in large part because the elements commented on earlier keep inserting themselves loudly and obnoxiously in between the viewer and the subject. He does virtually no job at all of putting these events into any sort of historical context--if you come to this film without an understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict then everything that happens seems random and meaningless. Lastly, and perhaps most egregiously, the film just seems awfully unfulfilling. As it ends one has the sense that one has just watched an incredibly important historical event presented in a way that makes it seem confusing and boring. It seemed I should perhaps feel angry about something or sad about something but all I could do is marvel at what a horrible job was done with this movie.

OK, to balance things a little I'll say this. There are some interesting factual revelations in the film--in particular the much-commented-on West German cover-up of their horrible mismanagement of the whole affair and their conspiracy to release the three surviving extremists. In general, in fact, I'd say this movie is a decent (though by no means good) presentation of the facts in the case. If you don't know anything about the kidnapping, this is an OK enough place to start in terms of understanding the progression of events.

On the other hand, where it fails miserably is in terms of giving those facts any weight or dimension. You will not walk away from this movie with any depth of understanding of the events, and that is the greatest crime a historical documentary can commit. Too often Kevin McDonald tries too hard to make slick, entertaining Hollywood-style drama out of this incredibly sad story and commits the "Hey, Ma--look at me! I'm making a movie!" error of drawing attention to himself and his film, interfering with the film's capacity to reach out to the audience. Sad and bungled, though more or less well-intentioned...

commentary on commentary plus

[salparadise6 · 30 September 2001]

First I would like to point out that for me, a 21 year old, One Day was my first exposure to the events, therefore it was informative, for myself atleast. As for the complaint about dehumanizing and downplaying the Palestinians' plight, I believe that argument is garbage. You would have to be LIVING in a vacum not to know their plight, and it's hard to argue that terrorists are human. Besides, the surviving terrorist spoke about talking and joking with the prisoners, a momentary respite for the viewer as it must have been for those involved. As far as absolving the Israeli gov't, the point was obvious and well made, no Israeli and even Jew for that matter could feel safe if the demands were met. And none of criticisms state provide any evidence for their complaints I might add.

That being said, as a Historian, there are some rather speculative aspects to the documentary. For example, Douglas states that the East Germans helped the terrorists scope the place out before hand, but it is unclear whether they knew of their intentions or not (ala the americans helping them in), which is a major fault in the fact presenting. Also rather curious was how Douglas tells how the plane hijacking was a scam, and then states the surviving terrorist confirmed this, which to me indicates they set up this scenario for the interviewee and he merely said 'yes.'

The main point of this documentary is for the viewer to ask how, not why. How could everything fall apart as it did? I left wondering how in Cold War Europe, an extraction team from East Germany, England, France, Russia, ect., could not have been employed within hours and how much did Cold War politics played into that factor. Despite its flaws, One Day is an excellent documentary, as riveting as it is depressing.