Fundamental flaws

I watched this tonight at a special on campus screening w/the filmmaker present - and while it was interesting and raised a good point, there were several flaws with it that I thought to be too big to ignore.

For starters, the entire film was made from an American perspective despite the fact the filmmaker is Canadian. And yet - Canada is not represented at all in the documentary. Worse still, during the Q&A session after the screening tonight, the filmmaker remarked that Canada is an "oasis" for multi-culturalism and that he, as a Jew growing up in Toronto, has not experienced anything remotely approaching the hatred that was portrayed in modern day Paris or otherwise. Why then is Canada not represented in this examination of western prejudices? It is, after all, the home to the Jewish person in question here. Could Canada have been left out for reasons that didn't fit into the negative leaning thesis?

Second - the film's ending was flawed in that the filmmaker obviously did not give us the "entire story" about what he experienced and felt about the visits to Germany and Poland. The memorial in Germany appeared interesting to see, but the filmmaker had already decided it was worthless and attempted to present it as such - despite the fact that a)he obviously felt differently about Germany after visiting Poland and how they dealt with the legacy and b)despite his best efforts, the memorial still was intriguing and moving even when covered by narration suggesting it wasn't.
His attitude at the Auschwitz memorial was deplorable and only worthwhile in that it showcased how little he understood about the problems he was attempting to confront and the serious magnitude of the history behind it. A Jew who claimed little to no Jewish upbringing or heritage was suddenly caught with the brutal realities of the (recent) history of his people and could only muster pathetic attempts at poorly chosen black humor jokes in his defence when faced with the ultimate horrors of anti-Semitism run amuck - even if it was laced in kitschy souvenirs and hot dog stands. He ended it saying he wanted to blow Auschwitz up as it was a terrible place and should never have been reduced to a tourist attraction but the power of the place (which I've never been to) obviously is present in the film, even if he denies it - it reduces our narrator into a pathetic sarcastic jerk who can only fiend the attempt at apathy when faced with the real realities. The unfortunate part is that he can't admit it in the film - and should have, as he admitted after the screening that he "winces" every time he sees that part. Which goes to show pride is the only thing that kept him from adding additional narration commentary of what he TRULY felt and raise a point of why he couldn't include this in his film, despite the fact that he is doomed to be forever haunted by the fact he acted like a complete fool there and couldn't bring himself to admit as much even after the fact. That, for me, was the most powerful part of the film - it's too bad the filmmaker couldn't expand upon it to make something more meaningful out of it.

I gave it a 6/10 for, despite it's major flaws, still raised a great point - that prejudices that we think we've dealt with in western culture have only been given a shiny coat of gloss and a smiling mask to cover some real problems that continue to exist and are likely going to get worse with the passage of time, unfortunately. By including himself, he should have dealt with the issues of where he was from and he should've added the perspective that was gained only by listening to the Q&A afterwards into the film's end to make for a more interesting conclusion - but a worthwhile effort by a genuinely funny guy who should maybe think about writing comedy instead of making documentaries.