Our culture has become so fragmented and juvenile that it’s nearly impossible to conceive of a movie igniting serious, widespread discussion, as Stanley Kubrick’s work once routinely did.
We increasingly watch films in isolation on our couches, joining in the crowd experience mainly for eye-popping special-effects extravaganzas like “2012.”
Even documentaries, the time-honored province of journalists, sociologists, philosophers and activists, are now judged by their entertainment and dramatic value rather than on the bases of urgency and accuracy.
So I expect that a major opportunity will slip past when Yoav Shamir’s “Defamation” begins its Bay Area engagement Friday, Nov. 20 at the Roxie Theater.
Our humble burg is one of just a handful of American cities — New York, Los Angeles (well, Beverly Hills and Encino) and Boston are the others — where “Defamation” is opening, highlighting the rare and special nature of this run.
“Defamation” purports to be the provocative Israeli documentary filmmaker’s quest to understand anti-Semitism, a phenomenon unknown in his country while Jews in America and elsewhere obsess over it. His prefatory narration, though, slyly lays the foundation for a bait and switch: He’s not particularly interested in what our enemies think or plot, but he’s fascinated at how we have integrated anti-Jewish attitudes into our identity.
Now, one man’s due diligence (monitoring white supremacist Web sites, one of the tasks undertaken by the Anti-Defamation League) is another man’s genocide-under-every-rock paranoia. Shamir relishes that dynamic, and revels in giving an irreverent poke with a sharp stick to the viewer’s carefully cherished self-perceptions — whatever they may be — through extensive interviews with the ADL’s Abraham Foxman and radical author/loose cannon Norman Finkelstein, among others.
My intent is neither to review “Defamation,” which provoked ample controversy when it screened this summer in the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, nor defend it. My own sympathies or antipathies vis-à-vis Messrs. Foxman and Finkelstein are frankly irrelevant. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the content of the film is largely beside the point.
Sure, we can debate the opinions and conclusions expressed on-camera by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (authors of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”), as well as the shocking pronouncements of Shamir’s ultra-conservative Israeli grandmother. But debate will lead to argument, we’ll remain stuck in our positions and we’ll have missed that glorious opportunity I alluded to.
Shamir’s major contribution, see, is not to distill the positions of the Jewish left and right on subjects ranging from Israel to the Palestinians to the external and existential (or,
if you prefer, palpable) threat to Jewish survival — a thankless and pointless task if ever there were one.
He’s accomplished something even more valuable, and rare: He’s made a film that catalyzes people into talking. What I’m advocating, though, is a big-picture conversation that transcends defensiveness and anger to consider the meaning and possibility of Jewish identity going forward.
It’s almost 65 years since the liberation of the camps. To what degree should the Holocaust inform American Jewish identity in the 21st century? Is there an optimal midpoint between “Never again” and “It can’t happen here”? Or should we just split into two groups, one keeping a solemn lookout 24/7 while the other cheerfully and completely assimilates?
For the record, I am very aware of the lessons of history and the testimonies of those who saw themselves as German or French rather than Jewish, and endured the most costly and shattering betrayals.
But do we not occasionally rely on historic and contemporary anti-Semitism as a handy way of codifying our victimhood and proactively using it to justify every policy of the State of Israel, as well as to exert influence on our elected representatives at every level of government? There are no longer Jewish quotas in the Ivy League, on Wall Street or in the State Department, but we continue to trade on the specter of past discrimination to solidify our place in the American mainstream.
And we still fret, out loud or in private, whether the exposure of an individual or bit of pop culture — be it Bernie Madoff or “Inglourious Basterds” — is bad for the Jews.
This conversation is most relevant, I submit, to people under the age of 30. It’s no secret, after all, that many identify as Jews without a significant connection either to the Torah, the (to them) purely historical event of the Holocaust or the mix of contradictions that is Israel.
For the youth of American Jewry, as for any of us of any generation, Jewish identity is an act of creation. We might pretend that it is handed down or laid on us, but we cultivate our own relationship.
You may prefer that such questions be raised in a setting with more gravitas, such as from the bimah. Fine. I encourage every rabbi to see “Defamation,” presuming they’ve recovered from the affront of their last outing to the movie house to take in “A Serious Man.”
Both films, coincidentally and refreshingly, confront American Jews in ways that neither Woody Allen nor Adam Sandler ever have. Accept the challenge.
Michael Fox is a San Francisco film critic and journalist who has written for j. and numerous other publications since 1987. He is a member of the San Francisco Film Critics Circle.