Munich - Edge of War is a co-British/German production directed by German director Christian Schwochow. It's a work of historical fiction that attempts to explore the legacy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Jeremy Irons) and his ill-fated negotiations with Hitler in 1938 Munich over the fate of the Sudetenland, a territory in Czechoslovakia inhabited primarily by people of German ancestry.
The fictional aspect of the narrative concerns two former Oxford University friends (Hugh Legat, a Brit played by George Mackay and a German, Paul von Hartmann, played by Jennis Niewohner), who attended the school six years earlier. Now both are involved in the foreign service with Legat as personal assistant to Prime Minister Chamberlain and Von Hartmann, a translator in the foreign office in Berlin.
The two had a falling out right after graduation over von Hartmann's embrace of Hitler but now he sees the error of his ways and is bent on stopping the dictator at all costs.
There's a MacGuffin here-a report stolen by a female friend of von Hartmann's which supposedly chronicles Hitler's plan for world conquest. The idea is for von Hartmann to get the report to the British to persuade Chamberlain that Hitler's demands to annex the Sudetenland as his last territorial demand, is a pipe dream and that he is a "madman" (in von Hartmann's words) who has no intention of seeking peace.
Hitler's plans for world conquest were already drawn up in his autobiography Mein Kampf so for anyone to believe that some kind of general report would convince the British of Hitler's true intentions seems completely far-fetched.
What's more, a diplomat such as von Hartmann would not be so naïve to believe that Chamberlain would change his mind about negotiating with Hitler as it was quite clear that British public opinion demanded that the Prime Minister seek peace at any price.
Finally I question whether such a MacGuffin would have ever been drawn up in the first place. The upper echelons of the Nazi hierarchy were notorious for not committing any explicit (or even general) plans to paper-especially attributing those plans to "Der Fuhrer" who would never have had any of his subordinates suggest in writing that he was a warmonger and planning a campaign of worldwide aggression.
The mechanics of how von Hartmann goes about passing the secret report on to Legat seem utterly contrived. Why does he take him on that little trip through the streets of Munich, where the two could easily be spotted and end up in a bustling café full of chattering Nazis who could also notice something awry (especially when the two are occasionally speaking English)?
The actor playing Hitler, Ulrich Matthes, is 20 years too old for the part and is depicted as unpleasant and arrogant, in contrast to the charm the Hitler of history exuded when he was often in public. Hitler's vituperative antics-notable during the behind-the-scenes negotiations at Munich-are not dealt with at all here as the Munich Conference (which actually took place over a number of weeks in three different locations) ends up being depicted as a perfunctory one-time meeting.
The film also suffers from not having a significantly developed antagonist to keep things interesting. It's von Hartmann's childhood friend, the now SS officer Franz Sauer (August Diehl), who has a small part rummaging through the foreign officer translator's papers looking for the secret report as well as engaging in a short wrestling match with Legat, who manages to escape detection as a spy.
The narrative's contrivance extends to the nonsensical idea that a low-level foreign service officer such as von Hartmann would be left alone with Hitler while carrying a gun. What's more the two principals are not found out all due to the miracle intervention of typist Joan Menzies (Angli Mohindra), daughter of the British army colonel, tasked with looking after such an espionage neophyte (she saves the day by extracting the MacGuffin from Legat's hotel room).
More egregious is the focus on the sole redeemed German von Hartmann who somehow not only is presciently aware of what will happen in the future but is bent on being the one to kill Hitler himself. This is the usual trope often found in German cinema-the presence of the "good" German who is inevitably thrown in to counterbalance the reality of the mass complicity of the overwhelming majority of German citizens during the Nazi years.
If there's anything good about this film it's Jeremy Irons in the role of Neville Chamberlain. Not only is Irons a dead ringer for Chamberlain but he's completely believable as the "Great Appeaser" of history who naively believed that he could contain a criminal such as Hitler through offering him one ineffectual concession after another.
Director Schwochow attempts to rehabilitate Chamberlain's image somewhat by suggesting that the now universally condemned Prime Minister was aware that Hitler was a "gangster" and that he could only play the "cards that he was dealt with." He has Chamberlain state that even if his diplomatic efforts failed history would have judged him favorably as more time was bought for Britain to prepare for the coming conflict.
Schwochow seems to suggest that this idea of "buying time" was what happened. Of course he ignores the fact that Britain hardly was prepared at all and almost lost the war at Dunkirk along with all the "Blitz" bombings it endured. It was actually Hitler's ill-informed decision to invade Russia that turned the tide in the war for the Allies.
"Munich" is worth a look to watch Iron's performance. Otherwise the historical fiction leaves a great deal to be desired.
The fictional aspect of the narrative concerns two former Oxford University friends (Hugh Legat, a Brit played by George Mackay and a German, Paul von Hartmann, played by Jennis Niewohner), who attended the school six years earlier. Now both are involved in the foreign service with Legat as personal assistant to Prime Minister Chamberlain and Von Hartmann, a translator in the foreign office in Berlin.
The two had a falling out right after graduation over von Hartmann's embrace of Hitler but now he sees the error of his ways and is bent on stopping the dictator at all costs.
There's a MacGuffin here-a report stolen by a female friend of von Hartmann's which supposedly chronicles Hitler's plan for world conquest. The idea is for von Hartmann to get the report to the British to persuade Chamberlain that Hitler's demands to annex the Sudetenland as his last territorial demand, is a pipe dream and that he is a "madman" (in von Hartmann's words) who has no intention of seeking peace.
Hitler's plans for world conquest were already drawn up in his autobiography Mein Kampf so for anyone to believe that some kind of general report would convince the British of Hitler's true intentions seems completely far-fetched.
What's more, a diplomat such as von Hartmann would not be so naïve to believe that Chamberlain would change his mind about negotiating with Hitler as it was quite clear that British public opinion demanded that the Prime Minister seek peace at any price.
Finally I question whether such a MacGuffin would have ever been drawn up in the first place. The upper echelons of the Nazi hierarchy were notorious for not committing any explicit (or even general) plans to paper-especially attributing those plans to "Der Fuhrer" who would never have had any of his subordinates suggest in writing that he was a warmonger and planning a campaign of worldwide aggression.
The mechanics of how von Hartmann goes about passing the secret report on to Legat seem utterly contrived. Why does he take him on that little trip through the streets of Munich, where the two could easily be spotted and end up in a bustling café full of chattering Nazis who could also notice something awry (especially when the two are occasionally speaking English)?
The actor playing Hitler, Ulrich Matthes, is 20 years too old for the part and is depicted as unpleasant and arrogant, in contrast to the charm the Hitler of history exuded when he was often in public. Hitler's vituperative antics-notable during the behind-the-scenes negotiations at Munich-are not dealt with at all here as the Munich Conference (which actually took place over a number of weeks in three different locations) ends up being depicted as a perfunctory one-time meeting.
The film also suffers from not having a significantly developed antagonist to keep things interesting. It's von Hartmann's childhood friend, the now SS officer Franz Sauer (August Diehl), who has a small part rummaging through the foreign officer translator's papers looking for the secret report as well as engaging in a short wrestling match with Legat, who manages to escape detection as a spy.
The narrative's contrivance extends to the nonsensical idea that a low-level foreign service officer such as von Hartmann would be left alone with Hitler while carrying a gun. What's more the two principals are not found out all due to the miracle intervention of typist Joan Menzies (Angli Mohindra), daughter of the British army colonel, tasked with looking after such an espionage neophyte (she saves the day by extracting the MacGuffin from Legat's hotel room).
More egregious is the focus on the sole redeemed German von Hartmann who somehow not only is presciently aware of what will happen in the future but is bent on being the one to kill Hitler himself. This is the usual trope often found in German cinema-the presence of the "good" German who is inevitably thrown in to counterbalance the reality of the mass complicity of the overwhelming majority of German citizens during the Nazi years.
If there's anything good about this film it's Jeremy Irons in the role of Neville Chamberlain. Not only is Irons a dead ringer for Chamberlain but he's completely believable as the "Great Appeaser" of history who naively believed that he could contain a criminal such as Hitler through offering him one ineffectual concession after another.
Director Schwochow attempts to rehabilitate Chamberlain's image somewhat by suggesting that the now universally condemned Prime Minister was aware that Hitler was a "gangster" and that he could only play the "cards that he was dealt with." He has Chamberlain state that even if his diplomatic efforts failed history would have judged him favorably as more time was bought for Britain to prepare for the coming conflict.
Schwochow seems to suggest that this idea of "buying time" was what happened. Of course he ignores the fact that Britain hardly was prepared at all and almost lost the war at Dunkirk along with all the "Blitz" bombings it endured. It was actually Hitler's ill-informed decision to invade Russia that turned the tide in the war for the Allies.
"Munich" is worth a look to watch Iron's performance. Otherwise the historical fiction leaves a great deal to be desired.