Oscar-nominated ‘September 5’ missed out on Best Original Screenplay – perhaps because it wasn’t quite sure what story it wanted to tell, writes Dr Erin O’Dwyer
I went to see the movie September 5 to spend a quiet afternoon with the always brilliant Peter Sarsgaard. Sarsgaard is an actor who seems to pick his projects based on the quality of the scripts. Think Hulu’s incredible Dope Sick about the OxyContin pandemic in the US and the seat-of-your-pants Presumed Innocent on Apple TV. It was no surprise then that September 5 was nominated for a Best Original Screenplay. But in the end it fell short. Why?
Recreating a defining moment in media history
September 5 is very nearly an exceptional film. It tells the story of a group of TV sports journalists who found themselves covering a deadly terrorist attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics. It blends archival footage with dramatisation, reconstructing both the attack and the way it was reported by US TV network ABC News in real time.
Swiss director and co-writer Tim Fehlbaum, who studied film in Munich, went to great lengths to accurately depict the 1972 Olympics and the unfolding hostage crisis. The film was shot in Munich, where the Olympic Tower is still a strange and eery landmark, and Fehlbaum worked with set designers to create an authentic replica of the 1972-era TV studio.
The Munich terror attack was the first major global news event captured on live TV, playing out in front of 900 million viewers worldwide. The film captures both things well – the truly terrifying kidnap and killing of 11 Israeli athletes as well as the news coverage of an unfolding crisis. But what is the film really about? The Munich terror attack or the media coverage of it?
What is the film really about? The Munich terror attack or the media coverage of it?
Two stories competing for attention
Where September 5 falters is in its narrative focus. It presents both the hostage crisis and the media’s coverage of it as central themes but doesn’t fully commit to either. The result is a film that, while compelling, leaves the audience feeling uncertain about which story we should care about. A slight shift – placing the newsroom and its sports journos at the heart of the story, with the attack unfolding in the background – would have made the film stronger. As it stands, we are left wanting to know more about the journalists and more about the terror attack – a strange filmic limbo.
Missing element: the meaningless thing
Great storytelling always has a small, recurring detail that deepens the story – the meaningless thing. It’s always something completely random, that nonetheless conveys great significance. It’s the ED doctor’s orange pill bottles in House, the elevator in Severance, or the spinning wheel’s needle in Rumpelstiltskin.
Often not obvious until the story is over, the meaningless thing nonetheless reveals something significant about the characters or themes. It is also the point in the story that we realise the storyteller is watching us. We are asked: What is your part in this story?
The key theme in the TV series House is addiction. Dr House’s addiction could just as easily be porn or gambling – the point is that he is addicted and his life unravels as a result. And every time we see that orange pill bottle the audience is asked – what are you addicted to?
In September 5, the terrorist attack should have been the meaningless thing. In that way, it could have been any terrorist attack. Or any global news event. The point of the film is the way the media covered the story. The question then to the audience is – why are you watching? Are you complicit? Why sit in your loungeroom and watch people die? With devastating vision from both Gaza and Ukraine wars on our screens 24/7, it’s a relevant and timely question.
September 5 leaves us with unanswered questions – still brilliant but without the gut punch that we the media and we the audience deserve.
A strong film that fell just short
Ultimately, September 5 is a gripping film, but its split focus and emphasis on a specific moment in time – September 5, 1972 – weakens its impact. Had it centred on the newsroom, it could have been a sharper commentary on media ethics and audience complicity. Instead, it leaves us with unanswered questions – still brilliant but without the gut punch that we the media and we the audience deserve.
Questions for writers
If you are struggling to find the focus in your storytelling ask yourself:
1. What is my story really about? – Am I telling one clear story, or am I trying to balance competing narratives? What is the central idea or perspective that should drive the plot?
2. Whose story is this? – Am I focusing on the right characters and their journey? Have I chosen the best lens through which to tell this story, or am I splitting attention in a way that weakens the narrative?
3. What is the audience meant to take away? – What question am I leaving with them? Is there a unifying theme, symbol, or “meaningless thing” that gives my story a deeper resonance beyond the events themselves?
