Though this column delves into topics as varied as society, economics, and politics, on occasion topics of entertainment sufficiently bleed into the issues of the day as to warrant comment. One such work is the recently released film, "V for Vendetta." Though somewhat flawed, "V" presents issues from terror, factionalism, and repression to the dangers of liberal democracy devolving into authoritarian fascism. Presented in a near-futuristic dystopian genre, the film consistently entertains, offering a thrill ride of drama, subterfuge, action and as the title suggests, vendetta.

After an almost hopeless year in film in 2005 that offered virtually no reason to go to the movie theater (let alone view a cloyingly depressing Oscar slate), "V" finally provides a reason to go to the movies again. Released in both the standard 35mm format, as well as a stunning 70mm IMAX cut, the movie quickly draws you in to its Orwellian world of governmental dominance. Produced by the same Wachowski brothers that brought us the Matrix series of films, you know you're in for some stunning sights and sounds.

"V for Vendetta" is, at its heart, a revenge thriller based loosely on "The Count of Monte Christo." It is set in a post-apocalyptic London, sometime in the 2020's. The title character "V," played by a fabulously masked Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith from the Matrix) sets out to exact vengeance on senior members of a repressive government regime while in the process, setting the people of England free from a tyranny of their own creation.

The film begins with the nursery rhyme "Remember remember the fifth of November gunpowder, treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder, treason should ever be forgot." As a frightened Natalie Portman is preyed upon by government enforcers known as fingermen, the Guy Fawkes masked "V," comes to her rescue, instantly sealing his hero credentials. We soon learn that "V" likes to set things on fire, and like his historical alter-ego, plots to destroy the houses of parliament with large amounts of gunpowder. While the new "gunpowder plot" makes up one of the film's primary threads, we seem to forget that Guy Fawkes was not the hero of November 5th, but rather the villain. The original Fawkes was a 17th Century Catholic mercenary hired to kill the protestant English King James I and his assembled parliament. His capture and execution are celebrated on November 5th, not the gunpowder plot itself.

Much like depression-stricken Weimar Germany of the 1930's voting for Hitler, a terror ravaged Britain voted for its own brand of fascists vowing to restore "order and security." The protagonist "V," soon to be joined by the ever talented Natalie Portman as "Evie" remind us how quickly we can lose the freedoms and liberties we enjoy if we fall prey to fear and mistrust. Unfortunately, the Wachowski brothers chose to put the source of the fear and mistrust that drove Britain to fascist madness as -- have you guessed it yet? -- the United States. America is shown (briefly) in the film to be in the midst of a bloody civil war rendering us impotent to do anything for our erstwhile cousins in Britain. The reason for all this global uneasiness? "America's War," mentioned as background images of the US Military in Iraq flash by, created a world of utter chaos and terror causing Western society to all but fall apart.

"V's" vendetta against the government for what they have done to him personally, as well as society at large, turns him into a rather likable terrorist. Therein lies the other problem with this film. As the New York Times wonders, "Is the man in the mask who wants to make Parliament go boom Osama bin Laden or Patrick Henry?" The audience find themselves rooting for "V" as he kills and maims both the guilty alongside the innocent in plenty of wanton violence designed to "wake up" the people at large. One man's terrorist has always been another man's freedom fighter, however the distinction always lies in the guilt of the targeted. The film, originally slated for a November 5th release, was ironically delayed because of the London tube bombings of the time.

Despite its obvious political overtones, "V for Vendetta" is recommended for its thought provoking themes, clever dialog, and stunning visuals. It is unfortunate, however, that the film's themes are often paradoxical and only serve to reinforce a uniquely Western self-loathing introspection. Following the movie I couldn't help but think that it was important for them to make the point that America was immobilized by civil war and therefore unable to come to the rescue. After all, the America of today would never stand idly by and allow Europe to fall into totalitarian chaos. Three times in the twentieth century we intervened to prevent just that.

One of the aspects that sets Western societies apart from the rest of the world is that we are able to look at our own faults and learn from them. To us, this is an integral part of our political and sociological heritage. To many others, notably in the Islamic world, admitting fault or internal problems is a loss of face and thus tantamount to suicide and loss of power. Let us not forget that combating intolerance and fighting for liberal pluralism is precisely how we must defend our way of life. "V for Vendetta" rightly points out that eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty (Thomas Jefferson), but gets lost in not recognizing that that is precisely what America is doing today.

Only the rare director or producer in Hollywood carries the weight necessary to be able to create the works he wants without a studio executive vetoing the prospect. One of the few, Steven Spielberg, struck a bargain years ago with Universal whereby he directed 'Jurassic Park' in order to be given the green light to make 'Schindler's List.' Twelve years later, in the last hurrah for his own Dreamworks studio, he does it again, with 'Munich.'

Munich, West Germany was host to the 1972 Olympics; an event best remembered not for great feats of human performance and achievement, rather for the depths of inhuman brutality and depravity. On the morning of Sept. 5, with six days remaining in the games, Eight Palestinian Black September terrorists infiltrated the Olympic athletes' village and killed two Israeli team members, seizing nine more as hostages. Germany had attempted to host an "Olympics of Peace and Joy" (ironically to differentiate it from the last German Olympics, Hitler's 1936 Berlin games) and found itself mounting a hostage rescue operation that ended in disaster. Those old enough may remember ABC news' Jim McKay uttered his infamous words "They're all gone," proclaiming to the world what the terrorists had accomplished.

Spielberg's 'Munich' is not about the terrorist attack on the games, rather the controversial (and unconfirmed) decision by Israel to launch a covert International operation to bring those responsible for the Munich massacre to justice. Based on George Jonas' book 'Vengeance' the story is about a young father who is asked to give up his identity and nationality in order to lead a team that will track and kill the leadership of Black September*.

The film, one of Spielberg's most gripping, is at once as disturbing as it is engaging. The central question in the movie is first brought up by Prime Minister Golda Meir when she states that "every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." Unable to go after Black September and bring them to trial in Israel, she decides to send special covert groups to hunt and kill them. You watch her wrestle with the decision and eventually decide that the terrorists can not go unpunished for the horrors at Munich. This central equivocation resurfaces often in the main character, Avner, who at first enthusiastically embraces his mission only to later question his actions and their inevitable results.

Spielberg famously stated, in the only interview he gave prior to the opening of Munich, that "We don't demonize our targets, they're individuals. They have families." Therein lies the central quandary of both the director and the film itself, a quandary that mirrors itself on the International stage as responses to terrorism continue, whether the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001 or the bombing of a Passover Seder at the Netanya hotel in Israel on Mar. 27 2002. If we try and understand the perpetrators of terror, view them as human with families, and try to understand their causes, all we are doing is legitimizing their tactics and that is something we can not afford to do.

It is a peculiarly Western trait to agonize over one's actions and debate the effect on one's soul. This particularly Judeo-Christian value system rears itself often among the central characters of the Israeli hit team in Munich. Interestingly, the same self reflection, the lamentation of losing one's soul over the potential immorality of one's action is absent from Spielberg's "humanized" terrorists. The Palestinians lament the loss of "home" often, but never seem troubled that their actions might bring about the loss of soul or morality. If Western society is to overcome the current "Age of terror" then it is imperative that we delegitimize terror in whatever form it embodies. We must make clear that for a cause to be legitimate, its proponents must be non-violent; anything less will only propagate terror. Moral Equivalence between terrorism and justice, bomber and soldier can not be tolerated. This is the point that Spielberg's film seemingly misses as it struggles with the righteousness of its cause.

Perhaps the only terrorist planner of Munich not to make it onto the assassination lists is none other then Yassir Arafat, whose group Al-Fatah (the same Fatah that runs the Palestinian Authority to this day) provided both the funding and the orders to Black September. Can Arafat be blamed for continuing the tactic of terror until his dying day? After all the embattled Palestine he lead was no more then a dream until terror made it a reality. While terror continues to be an effective way of propelling a cause onto the world stage it will forever tempt those who wish to die for what they believe.

Perhaps Spielberg should have used another famous Golda Meir quote: "We will someday forgive the Palestinians for killing our children, but we will never forgive ourselves for killing their children."

Munich is a well done film that holds its audience spellbound throughout its 148 minutes, leaving your neck and shoulders sore with non-stop tension. The film is worth seeing as the questions it asks are some of the most poignant of our times. While watching, it is worth asking yourself however what kind of a world we would be living in if terrorists were not brought to justice.

-------------------------

*Black September was named for the events of September 1970 in which Jordan's King Hussein decided to once and for all end the Palestinian violence in his country and brutally expel the PLO, killing 10,000 to 20,000 Palestinians in the process. Prior to this event, Palestinians were fond of remembering the Palestine of the British mandate of 1922 which encompassed the whole of what is today Jordan and Israel. Following Black September, the Hashemite king proclaimed once and for all a separate Jordanian identity that would hear nothing of "Palestine" and sent the problem to exile in Lebanon, thereby exacerbating that Civil war. Only in the 1995 Oslo accords was a resurgence of the idea of "Palestine" brought back to the world stage when Israel agreed to let the Arab refugees of 1948 rule themselves in parts of the West bank and Gaza.