The Nazi Holocaust against Jews during World War II was a world of shock and anger, and 15 years later, the Nazis fell apart, and most of the masterminds of the year were tried, but there was no shortage of "disappeared" people. For example, the key figure in the holocaust who planned the "final plan" - Adolf Eichmann (Ben Kingsley).
The movie "Final Action" depicts the "final action" of Israel's intelligence agencies, mossad and the National Security Agency (shin bet), against the arrest of Eichmann on his way to Argentina.
The Jews' experience in World War II was extremely tragic, and they should have a strong sense of resentment and revenge against the Nazi killers who committed these actions.
However, at the beginning of the film, we can see that not all Israeli Jews regard this matter (the arrest of the Nazis) as a priority, and some even advocate that "the past is let it pass". Present a realistic and beyond our established impression.
Of course, for the Jews, who are strongly "national" and highly united by a common crisis, this is still an action that the majority of the people approve of, especially for the pursuit of so-called "justice", to "justify" the "trial" of those who planned the Holocaust.
However, justice is not only ultimate justice, but also procedural justice. This action, which is to fly halfway around the world and violate the sovereignty of another country to use state power to forcibly arrest "citizens" located in that country, is not procedurally correct or even "unjust".
To illustrate this reflection, it begins with another action against a Nazi officer in the film, a failed operation that left the Nazi "victim" in mourning because the Jewish agent "killed the wrong Nazi" without confirmation.
For peter Malkin (Oscar Isaac), a righteous but sane protagonist, this is not the right thing to do, but for his teammates who were with him at the time, it was the evil person who killed them anyway, and it made no difference.
Can wrong actions in the pursuit of "justice" be called "justice" or unjust actions used in the pursuit of justice? Is this justified enough?
There are many examples in history of the pursuit of the most vicious murderers, even if they cause destruction and harm, even if the lives of innocent people are endangered. "It is better to kill ten thousand by mistake than to let go of the case" is the most extreme presentation.
This film not only allows us to see a hidden historical process, but also to think about how "justice" works and its process.
In addition to justice, this film also says evil. Undoubtedly, Eichmann's plan for the massacre was a monstrous evil. Eichmann was primarily responsible for transporting Jews to concentration camps during the Holocaust, and consulting with local Jewish leaders was seen as the basis of the Holocaust.
In the film, Eichmann can be seen saying continuously, "I am just a small screw in a big machine", "I almost always work in the office", "I just do it to obey orders".
We can see in the movie that Eichmann's "human side" refers to the fact that it does not seem to be a vicious villain, but like a uncle everywhere on the side of the road, low-key, silent, and even plain.
The philosopher Hannah Arendt observed Eichmann's defense at the trial, as well as elaborate observations, noting that Eichmann's evil was "banal evil."
Mediocre evil, no matter who it is, as long as it gives up the ability to think about right and wrong and blindly obeys, it may happen. Even the most mediocre can commit the most evil deeds.
If Eichmann had really been, as he had said (some later historical sources have confirmed that it may not have been so "mediocre"), just an ordinary civil servant, in order to do his own thing and get a better promotion, then perhaps the signature and seal of the massacre of Jews would have been just an ordinary official document in front of his eyes.
The film can't be said to be "climactic", but "there is no cold scene". It doesn't have any big special effects, but it will make people inseparable, even if this is a historical fact that everyone knows the ending.
Ben Kingsley, who plays Eichmann, combines his "mediocrity" with "evil" so well that we can see the true face of this former Nazi high-ranking official beyond our imagination (ruthlessness).
Oscar Isaac, who plays the protagonist agent, is not a perfect protagonist aura, but through the "exchange" with Eichmann, he constantly resists the urge to retaliate, and finally wins the compromise and trust of the Nazi.
The characters in the film are not invincible, but real.
The main scene in the film is when the agents ask Eichmann to sign a document agreeing to be sent to Israel. Normal people can't sentence themselves to death, and Eichmann certainly knows that he will go to trial only to satisfy the anger of the Jews, and he will undoubtedly die.
In the process, Eichmann argued that if he were to be tried, he should be sent to Germany, where the incident occurred. Or the place where the Holocaust took place, such as Poland, not Israel. This is indeed a big problem, and it is worth thinking about.
Eichmann's facts about Jewish action are true, but this did not happen in the Middle East, but in Eastern Europe and other Parts of Europe, so why did he have to go to a place where he could never have been fair and where the incident occurred?
Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the film does not refer to who is righteous, but makes us think about justice. What we can see about Eichmann's "rescue" is that it was his son who acted actively. But it wasn't entirely out of resentment against the Jews.
For example, when he saw that his Jewish ex-girlfriend had been severely punished by the Argentine authorities for leaking Eichmann's location to Israel, he also intervened to stop it, saying only that he wanted to save his father, and that was it.
But Eichmann's eventual trial led to his son's deeper resentment of the Jews and the hanging of the Nazi flag in his home.
Who is righteous? And no one is completely righteous. Who is evil? Everyone is evil, but evil is big and evil is small. Of course, the nazi history of the massacre of Jews is what everyone believes to be evil, and we all agree. But what about Israel's neglect of the unjust process in the follow-up?
This film, which has no cold scene, allows us to see a piece of history and also makes us think. What is justice? What is evil?