'September 5 (2024)' is a thriller which focuses on ABC's unprecedented live coverage of the 1972 summer Olympics hostage crisis. Restricting its viewpoint primarily to the inside of a newsroom lends the picture an insular and immediate effect, capturing the chaos of the moment in a way that often has you on the edge of your seat. Although some of its control room sequences are far too dark for their own good, the feature ultimately crafts a palpably analogue aesthetic and puts you right in the centre of its action. By seamlessly interweaving archive footage with newly shot material, the picture continuously blurs the line between fiction and reality in a way that's often quite unsettling. I didn't know the footage wasn't just recreated until after I'd seen the affair, and the knowledge that it's the real deal certainly makes some of it even more disquieting. Perhaps that raises a question about the ethics of using said footage, even if it doesn't outright show any murders or anything like that, because it's arguable that the picture utilises these images as a shortcut to further its own power. You could take this further and say that the flick therefore exploits the real people involved in a similar way to how ABC potentially did the same thing for the sake of their viewing numbers. That's perhaps a little harsh, but it's difficult to know exactly what the feature is trying to do with its exploration of its true story other than use it to provide a thrilling and chilling experience for its audience, thereby sensationalising a tragedy and doing the same thing it at least partially seeks to interrogate ideologically. It's not like this is a new grey area for films which adapt true stories, and I don't think it totally derails the picture's general success or completely undermines its entire existence, but it's worth mentioning nevertheless.
Thematically, the film aims to examine the media's responsibility when it comes to covering tragedies, especially when doing so threatens to sensationalise the event and potentially give certain parties the platform their violent actions are designed to capture. Although it doesn't go all out in exploring this aspect, it poses interesting questions and presents a number of sequences in which the ethics of those involved are directly questioned (is ABC doing this because their audience deserve to know the truth or because it's good for their ratings?). Further to this, though, the feature aims to be as apparently apolitical as its focal news crew, following its story without specifically commenting on its implications. In one way, it is able to get close to achieving this, as this aspiration mirrors the information available at the time of the events it depicts. However, the film itself takes place well after the period it focuses on, and its decision not to contextualise itself from a retrospective point of view is somewhat problematic given the landscape in which it is realising. Although I think it's a stretch to say this is any sort of propaganda, I can certainly appreciate the fact that it's poorly timed at best and poorly considered at worst. While the series of events this follows did occur in real life and said events were undeniably tragic, there's an argument to be made that this contributes to the media's current positioning of Palestinians as a faceless threat to Israel rather than as people in their own right. Nobody is saying that what occurred in Munich in 1972 wasn't absolutely awful, nor are they saying that the hostage takers were in any way justified in their actions, but they are saying that releasing a picture like this today, when Palestinians are being forced out of their own country not just with unimaginable violence but also with potential forced 'relocation' from the US itself, without doing the work to convey the realities of the longstanding conflict underlying the situation or to separate it from modern history by taking a clear stance on the issue at hand piles on to the supposed evidence some people present when they try to justify Israel's actions in Gaza. I will clarify once more that I don't believe this to be intentional, and it's certainly not as strong a subtext as some reviews on here would suggest, but this is the sort of feature that has to be a bit more delicate in its presentation than simply taking a supposed apolitical stance if it wants to avoid being part of a conversation in which many people are condemning it. It's a case of bad timing, for sure, but the timing of a movie's release is part of how it's going to be received and there's no way of avoiding that.
Despite its controversies, this is ultimately a good movie. Its brisk pace, convincing performances, claustrophobic direction and tense atmosphere make it a really compelling experience. It's also really sad, and is able to affect you emotionally on occasion (especially if you don't already know the particulars of its situation). It's also a great time for anyone who wants to see the realities of analogue television, which somehow seem more impressive than their digital counterparts. You really get a sense of the raw engineering involved with live broadcasting, and details such as how superimposed titles work or how you can jack into phone lines to get them on the air are really tactile and intriguing. As a historical thriller with a purposefully limited point of view, this is really effective. It may struggle to balance its apolitical intentions with its subtextual realities, but it's worth watching if you can separate it from the time in which it was released. As one of its characters says early on: "it's not about politics, it's about emotion." That may not be entirely true (or, indeed, possible), but it's the spirit in which it intends to be taken. It's a solid thriller that's well-made and engaging throughout.
