MovieChat Forums > Kike Like Me Discussion > OK, this was not THAT bad

OK, this was not THAT bad


I have been reading posts slamming this documentary, calling him offensive, anti-semitic, another Michael Moore, etc.

First of all, yes, this is not the most masterful documentary either. It IS unfocused and tries to do too much in too little time. Not all the points he bring up link to his thesis. I think each of his locations (U.S., Paris, London, Berlin, Auschwitz, etc) should each have taken at LEAST an hour. This would have been much more intriguing, and affective.

However, I think that people are either not comprehending him or are looking for reasons to get mad when they act so offended by him in this movie. He makes glib remarks, and pushes the envelope, but, at least to me, he never comes off as Anti-Semitic. Really, to me, he is a little harsh on the other side. He pretty heavily critizes your average person who is trying to deal with the reality of the recent catastrophes.

But, again, I understand. His remarks on the tourist aspect of the Holocaust bring up a good point (and would also make a good movie by themselves).
And those saying that he is not being respectful to the dead; I think that selling hot dogs at Auschwitz is disrespectful to the dead. That is what he focuses on in his trip.

I think that he would have been a bit better recieved if he had combined his black humor with some retrospect. Yes, he was horrified at the time, and turned to humor and sarcasm. This is REAL, it is his reaction. But if he would have come up with a more eloquent way to express his feelings later, I think his point would have come across better.

Overall, there were some interesting points brought up in the film (why do we want to know if he is Jewish?), but it really seems more like a beginning to me. His job was too big; you can not try to find all of your cultural identity and history in one hour.

reply

Not bad, but not great. Certainly too disjointed and no clear focus.

His sarcasm and attitude were a turnoff in some areas of the film. His reaction to the Polish woman working at the Synagogue was demeaning and disrespectful. In fact, I found that to be the most offensive piece in the film. As long as she was Jewish, it was OK and good to give her money for the yarmulke, but if not, he treated her rudely and with disdain. Maybe he was trying to make a point about the commercialization of the sites, but how does he think these sites get maintained? Why is it important that she is Polish when not long before this he was asking the German woman why she needed to know if he was Jewish? He kept trying to make a point about why was his Jewishness relevant and then takes offense that the woman at the Synagogue was Polish. Why was that important if his Jewishness was not supposed to be? Was he trying to make her feel as he does? Interesting that no one in the film who asked if he was Jewish was as rude to him as he was to her. His guide in that section seemed very interested in showing him the sites, but then looked disturbed and a bit unsure after that altercation.

His attitude at Auschwitz was poor, but not surprising by that point in the film. I often find that sarcastic people are trying their best not to feel anything and his inability to go into the gas chambers and see anymore death and destruction sure showed his wish not to feel too much. I understand his offense at the commercialism as living in NYC I find the little stands selling World Trade Center photos, etc. a bit too much. But then again, what kind of food would be good to sell at Auschwitz? I am sure people get hungry, should they be made to not eat to get more in tune with the starvation of the prisoners? Memorials will always be somewhat materialistic as they do have to be maintained, people get hungry and thirsty, etc. His wish to raze the whole thing would just allow people to forget the whole thing happened.

I do think there were other areas where the film was effective. The scene in the Paris suburb was interesting for its drama and raw discussion.

reply

I agree... It appears as if this film was just completely made on-the-fly. It seems disjointed because it was just a series of events that just fell into place a certain way. He went on a journey, and it wasn't a smooth one. As far as his attitude in some of the film, I agree with the guy above. It was a bit of a turnoff. It seemed as if he'd wanted to find semitism at every corner. Maybe for the good of the movie? I don't know. It seemed as if he went into this in a certain mindset and it never altered throughout the entire thing. While he did find semitism, I don't believe he didn't find nearly as much as he'd thought he would. Especially in the U.S. It just really made it seem like he'd already had a chip on his shoulder, and that turns me off in a lot of ways. But in the end, I really did enjoy this movie. For all the pitfalls, I did enjoy the movie. It's hard not to learn anything from this, especially seeing the memorial portion of the movie as well as the interviews on the streets of a Paris suburb.

You always knew there was semitism, but if you look for it, it's not as hard to find as you'd think. What the creator was aiming to do here, however, remains a mystery to me. Maybe it's exactly that. There is a lack of focus. Maybe you could say it's a very generalized, blurry perspective. You're getting a look at something the director wants you to see, but you're not sure what EXACTLY is there to be seen.

I do have one question, though... Was the hot dog at Auschwitz kosher? lol

Just one of those dark humor things you'll catch in this movie. It's a good watch, but don't expect to come out of this thing feeling like a changed person.

reply


You certainly hit the nail on the head for me.

His motivation for creating the documentary pretty much disappeared at about ten minutes in the damn thing. Horrible.

reply

i really hate jamie...he is an obnoxious *beep*

reply