Last night I went to see "Protocols of Zion" at the Detroit Jewish Film Festival. The movie is a documentary by Marc Levin. The idea for the file arose when Levin was riding in a New York City taxicab soon after September 11, 2001. His driver told him that no Jews died on that tragic day because a cabal of Jews were behind the plot and therefore told all other Jews to avoid the World Trade Center. The driver further told Levin that his source was the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a notorious forgery of the Jewish blueprint to control the world. The conversation prompted Levin to make this film about he origins book's origins and how it still has a life here in America one hundred years after it originated.
I really looked forward to seeing the movie. I had heard great things about it and how it addressed a pressing topic. I wasn't looking for anyone to convince me that anti-Semitism is still alive. I was at the same time still hoping for something that would evoke some emotion. I unfortunately walked away with nothing but disappointment.
The main aspect that caused the movie to come up short was its choice of interview subjects. With a few exceptions, most of the people who believed in the forgery or some other form of widespread Jewish conspiracy were unsophisticated and not very articulate. A common one-word description in my mind was "thugs."
Levin obviously wanted to show how ignorant people can be in their anti-Semitism. Even so, the scenes where Levin interviewed a skinhead who runs a mail-order Nazi paraphenalia or a white separatist who hosts a radio talk show host and an anti-Semitic website, both of whom were very articulate albeit misguided, came across as much more chilling and alarming. If Levin wanted to really inspire his audience to action, which was clearly his goal since he doesn't even feign objectivity or detachment from the debate, someone like David Duke would have been much more effective than some twenty year olds standing on a street corner in Patterson, New Jersey. Levin instead took the easy route.
Levin also coasted on getting the Jewish angle. For example, in the beginning of the movie, Levin approached a seemingly very religious man on a Boro Park street an asked him whether he knew what the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was. Levin expressed his shock that this fellow Jew had never heard of it. Of course, Levin took the easy route by asking this question of a person who lives in a sheltered community.
At the end of the movie, Levin did some more "Jew on the street" interviews with attendees of New York City's Israel Day parade. Of all the people there, Levin featured a kippah-wearing man, with a Meir Kahane poster directly behind him, yelling that all Arabs are evil.
Meanwhile, Levin failed to feature Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and director of the acclaimed Simon Wiesenthal Center and one of the most effective and respected opponents of anti-Semitism. It's not as if Levin didn't have the opportunity to interview Rabbi Hier. After all, Levin interviewed Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelical Christians at the Wiesenthal Center. Throughout the interview, Rabbi Hier was standing just a few feet away in the background.
Besides the intellectual shortcuts, my other issue with the movie was the prominent role that Levin's father played in accompanying his son throughout the film. Levin starts his journey by going to his father's house. Prominently displayed on his father's wall is a poster of Che Guevera, Fidel Castro's strongman and a socialist and communist icon in his own right. Later in the movie, Levin's father tells how he became an atheist at a young age. His father is still an atheist. While I respect the paternal bond, Levin's message about confronting anti-Semitism rings somewhat hollow when his mentor and partner in this very movie holds view that are quite corrosive to the Jewish people's survival, both physically and spiritually.
Levin had a great premise from which to start. He sadly had no shortage of material to use. It's just too bad he chose poorly.
8 comments:
Zwicker, I respect your viewpoint, but I probably couldn't disagree more.
To me, the movie is one man's personal exploration of anti-semitism. Key point: Levin does not presume to be making a scholarly documentary a la Ken Burns. To me, that's important, because it allows for, gives breathing space to, and excuses--if you will-- the subjectivity in the movie.
Let me clarify too: by subjective, I don't mean full of b.s. or that the movie is a crackpot-piece-of-crap documentary in the same genre as anything in whackjob Bart Sibril's ouevre. Rather, I simply mean that Levin is not an academic, doesn't purport to be one, and is not making an academic film. It's his personal journey.
With all those disclaimers out of the way, I'll start with where I disagree, and if I have time, get into why I liked the film:
1) You said, "The main aspect that caused the movie to come up short was its choice of interview subjects. With a few exceptions, most of the people who believed in the forgery or some other form of widespread Jewish conspiracy were unsophisticated and not very articulate. A common one-word description in my mind was "thugs."
Zwicker! I counter, "This was why the movie succeeded!" Your logic here seems to be that the movie would have succeeded or simply been better if the anti-semites weren't so...well...dumb!
But the fac that they are dumb is what's so scary and why it was so provocative! Unfortunately, a lot of "thugs" are or get swept up by streetside preachers who, sadly, probably have less credibility than David Koresh. When I saw those idiots (For those who didn't see the movie, a quote of one idiot streetside preacher in the film was railing against Jews running everything, including mayor Bloomberg of NYC, Levin countered, "What about Guiliani?! He wasn't Jewish!" To which the moron replied, "JEWliani"! The crowd of idiots thought that was such a zinger. It was real, it happened, and it was just pathetic, really.)
Moving on, you do argue that Levin did indeed talk to some "more articulate" anti-Semites, i.e. the leader of National Alliance and also radioracist Frank Weltman. But then you say, "If Levin wanted to really inspire his audience to action, which was clearly his goal since he doesn't even feign objectivity or detachment from the debate, someone like David Duke would have been much more effective than some twenty year olds standing on a street corner in Patterson, New Jersey. Levin instead took the easy route." Well, maybe he tried to talk to Duke, but Duke wouldn't go on camera! Nonetheless, were those guys not "articulate" enough for you to spur you to action?! They were for me.
I really just don't understand what it would have taken to move you to action and am, frankly, a little concerned about what I think your argument boils down to: Levin missed the boat and nobody will be spurred to fight anti-Semitism because he talked to some really dumb, as well as, granted, really articulate, racists, but they weren't articulate or famous enough.
That's kind of a scary way to interpret the film. I think the power of the movie was to see all different shapes, sizes, and stripes of racists, to recognize that these bastards are out there--dumb or smart, articulate or not, white or not--and to educate or fight (not physically) them tooth and nail, regardless.
Moving on to the "Jewish angle", I thought it was interesting to see the Haredim not knowing what the Protocols were. But I would argue that there were probably a bunch of people in our movie who, if polled, probably wouldn't know what it was. Frankly, on a side note, I thought Levin did a great job of explaining the origins and developments of the Protocols, as well as anti-Semitism in general, basically.
But as for your contention that he didn't talk to middle-of-the-road Jews, what about the woman in the parade? She wasn't an extremist like the Kahane-lovers you cite.
Here's one of the few places I agree: he should have talked to Rabbi Hier b/c I was thinking as I watched it, "who is that guy?! He looks so familiar!" Then you told me and I had an "oh yeah!" moment...and I do happen to agree that during that particular rally, it would have been nice to hear from him and, if Hier really indeed was asked but didn't want to go on tape, then Levin should have mentioned that in an aside.
Again, though, he's not an academician, so it was a little sloppy, but not a huge omission.
Finally, Levin's father. Bro, you have every right to dislike his atheism. But you missed the boat on the poignancy of including his dad: 1) again, the movie is a personal exploration, and including his dad wasn't frivolous, but had this important connection (2) Levin's dad, also in the film biz, lived in a time when anti-Semitism was "in the air" as he himself said. It was a different time. He cited the anti-Semitic barbs the neighborhood children threw at him daily, and it was really moving to see the visceral reaction he has to this day (and the guy was probably about 80 when the movie was made). It was also moving to see how his father had developed a relationship with a former anti-Semite who he (Levin's father) had interviewed in his own movie some years ago, but who is now born-again and not racist anymore.
I guess for the reasons you disliked it, I liked it. But more than that, I really do feel the movie has a lot of merit and validation in reminding us that Anti-Semitism is alive and well in numerous guises, and that we can do something...even if it's make a movie that not everyone likes!
Anonymous-
I guess it's just a matter of perspective and expectations. As someone who almost always wears a kippah and meets people from all walks of life and areas of Michigan, I often encounter questions about what Judaism is. There is a tremendous amount of ignorance in society about who we are and our history.
A few months ago, I was driving to Montcalm, Michigan, and stopped in a gas station half an hour north of Lansing. A man stopped me and asked I was Jewish. He said that he lived in Hillsdale, Michigan, and had no idea what a Jew looked like since he didn't think he had ever met any. His only point of reference was Barbra Streisand. He was very nice and wanted to know more about our religion and history. His ignorance was somewhat more extreme than I usually encounter, but it wasn't so atypical.
Coming from this perspective, I wanted to see in the film more of who are the people playing off this ignorance to spread anti-Semitism. The people who displayed ignorance in the movie just left me feeling that it was surely sad but nothing new. While Leving did a good job of explaining the origin of modern anti-Semitism, he didn't do enough, in my opinion, of investigating the modern day Father Coughlins and Henry Fords.
Maybe it was just my mark that I feel Levin missed. How powerful someone found the film depends on their experiences with anti-Semitism or just plain ignorance from Jews and non-Jews.
In any case, I appreciate your comments and hope that you'll post more again.
This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»
This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»
Very best site. Keep working. Will return in the near future.
»
I find some information here.
I say briefly: Best! Useful information. Good job guys.
»
Your are Nice. And so is your site! Maybe you need some more pictures. Will return in the near future.
»
Post a Comment