Munich - The Edge of War (2021)

 

            Now playing on Netflix is the movie “Munich -  The Edge of War” which is based on the novel by Robert Harris.  Harris used the Munich Conference as the backdrop for his espionage tale.  The movie was a joint German / British production and was directed by Christian Schwochow. 

            The movie begins in 1932 Germany.  Paul (Jannis Niewohner), Lena (Liv Lisa), and Hugh (George MacKay of “1917”) are friends at a wedding.  Although the music is swing, the talk is of the “new Germany” promised by the Nazis.  Paul is enthusiastic about the future, Lena and Hugh not so much so.  Six years later, Hugh has returned to his native Great Britain.  A barrage balloon serves as the symbol of British preparation for war over the Sudetenland crisis.  Hugh is secretary to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Jeremy Irons).  Paul is an interpreter in the Foreign Office in Berlin.  He has become disillusioned with the Nazis and is involved in plotting against Hitler.  He is assured that some German generals will oust Hitler if he goes to war to acquire the Sudetenland.  Perversely, the conspirators need for war with Britain to break out.  This is a dream because Chamberlain is determined to avoid war over Czechoslovakia, even though England is allied with it.

            When the Munich Conference is agreed to, Paul is concerned that Chamberlain will appease Hitler (Ulrich Matthes -  Goebbels in “Downfall”) and the opportunity to remove him will be lost.  His trump card is a purloined document that outlines Hitler’s plan to continue his expansion despite his pledge to be satisfied with the Sudetenland.  Paul needs to slip the secret document to Hugh who will show it to Chamberlain, thus torpedoing the agreement.  This will not be easy as a member of Hitler’s bodyguard (August Diehl – the crafty Nazi from the bar scene in “Inglourious Basterds”) is suspicious of the duo.  If you are historically literate, you know Chamberlain is going to return to Britain holding the Munich Agreement, not the Hossbach Protocol.  The movie is not an alternative history, it is a what if.

            I am skeptical whether this is a war movie.  I usually do not consider pre-war movies to fit into the genre, unlike post-war movies like “The Best Years of Our Lives”.  But let’s stretch the genre to include it so I can justify this review.  I would not suggest war movie lovers watch it.  But history lovers should.  It is a good history lesson about the Munich Conference, but to get beyond a documentary, you have to watch a tepid espionage tale.  The screenplay must negotiate through several unrealistic developments to make spies out of Paul and Hugh.  But show me a realistic fictional spy story.  There aren’t any.  This movie is certainly not as reality-challenged as a film like “Foreign Correspondent”.  And thankfully, it pulls back from the brink of ridiculous in the end.

            The movie is well made.  Although it does not roam around a lot, the sets and costumes do fit the period.  It uses music as a symbol of the changes in Germany.  The wedding party has the swing music that will be banned in Nazi Germany.  A later scene in a tavern has traditional German music playing in the background.  The acting is a lure, especially with Jeremy Irons playing Chamberlain.  He polishes the image of the poster boy for appeasement.  Chamberlain is an appealing figure and comes off as a statesman who saved his country from a war it was ill-prepared for at the time.  Matthes is middle of the pack as Hitler.  We seldom see the pre-war Hitler in war movies.  He is in his prime at this time, not the doddering, drug-addled ranter of “Downfall”.  Here he is more malevolent.  The movie makes a point of emphasizing his ability to read people (which is going to cause some anxious moments for Paul).  The central trio of MacKay, Niewohner, and Lisa are adequate in unchallenging roles.  MacKay and Niewohner are playing bureaucrats playing spies.  The poker faces necessary for their non-James Bond roles does not make for emoting.  And to tell the truth, since the movie does not push the limits of historical license, their characters are kind of boring.  Even Diehl does not get a big showdown like he did in “Inglourious Bastards”.

            If you want more excitement than this movie delivers, go to a London pub and loudly proclaim that “Munich -  The Edge of War” has rehabilitated the heroic Neville Chamberlain.  I have not read Morris’ book, but I will assume he had a mission to bring the real Chamberlain to his readers.  The movie does a good job of pointing out that Chamberlain was popular at the time and that his avoiding war was the wish of the British public.  There is no Churchill carping from the sidelines.  (Speaking of which, this movie is a nice companion to “The Darkest Hour”.)  Chamberlain’s motivation for going to Munich is historically accurate.  Unfortunately, when Chamberlain arrives in Munich, the movie shifts focus to Paul and Hugh.  We do not go into the conference room to see the interaction between the democrat and the dictator.  If you are trying to make Chamberlain look better than he was, this was probably a conscious decision.  As was the dubious post script that Chamberlain actually saved Great Britain by postponing the war until Britain was ready.  This is the big rehab that the movie attempts.  I think I’ll stick with my image of Chamberlain as a wimp who sold out an ally because he wasn’t willing to fight a bully.

GRADE  =  C

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Although a work of fiction, “Munich – The Edge of War” has some historical accuracy to it.  Paul von Hartmann is based on Adam von Trott zu Solz.  Trott joined the Nazi Party to work from within to stop Hitler.  He was a conservative and a racist, but he was serious about ousting der Fuhrer.  He had attended Oxford, but had no friend equivalent to Hugh Legat.  He did meet Chamberlain, but it was after the Munich Conference and nothing came of it.  He and other conservatives, including a few German generals, did plan an insurrection.  However, the plan depended on Hitler being humiliated by the European leaders standing up to him over Czechoslovakia.  The document Paul tries to pass to Chamberlain is based on the Hossbach Protocol which was a summary of a secret meeting between Hitler and his henchmen in November, 1937.  Hitler outlines his plan to get lebensraum (“living space”) through expansion.  This was later expanded into Generalplan Ost which called for the conquest of Eastern Europe with its corollary of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and slave labor.  All good reasons to stop him at Munich.  However, there was no attempt to stop him by having Great Britain declare war because of what might be.  Trott did continue his anti-Hitler plotting which eventually led to his involvement in Operation Valkyrie and his resulting execution for it. 

            Hitler is accurately portrayed in the movie.  He did have a strong aversion to smoking and at this stage of his career he was on a roll when it came to judging his opponents.  The movie tries to show this by way of his creepy suspicion of Paul when it would have been better to show his mastery of Chamberlain.  And Chamberlain was easily mastered, unlike the movie Chamberlain.  The movie’s attempt at revisionism when it comes to Chamberlain is way out on a limb.  While it is accurate to depict the popular support he had, he is not the heroic figure of the movie.  He was actually a poor politician who did not know it because of his excessive hubris.  He arrogantly felt he could take the measure of the Fuhrer.  It is a stretch to lead the audience to believe that he was thinking ahead when he gave Hitler the Sudetenland.  While it is true that Great Britain was given an extra year to rearm (and he did initiate some of that rearmament), Hitler was also given an extra year of momentum and the English Channel was more a factor than Chamberlain’s appeasement when it came to England’s survival. 

            Throwing out the machinations of Paul and Hugh to get the purloined papers to Neville, the conference is a good tutorial.  It was even filmed in the actual building where the conference was held.  Not enough is made of the stabbing of Czechoslovakia in the back by Great Britain and France, however.  Since we don’t go behind closed doors, we do not get to see the intimidation that Hitler used against Chamberlain and Daladier.  This would not have fit the narrative of Chamberlain bravely postponing the war.  Chamberlain did return to give a speech on the tarmac that promised peace in our time.  The movie depicts this as ultimately a triumph for him historically when in fact it shows how naïve he was.  The revisionism of the movie is unwarranted, but perhaps we should reflect that Chamberlain was a typical politician who sacrificed principles for what the crowd wanted.  This makes Churchill’s stand in the 1930s even more remarkable.  Churchill is not as great as the movies depict him, but Chamberlain is not as good as this movie depicts him.