As I mentioned in a previous post, last Sunday evening I got a sneak-peak at a new film that will be playing at the Boston Jewish Film Festival called Protocols of Zion -- a documentary examining the infamous forgery.

[Warning: If you haven't seen the film and intend to, it may be better if you stopped reading here. Bookmark this page, then go see the movie and come back and read what I wrote. Tell me if I've got it anywhere close to how you felt.]

The film's star and director, Marc Levin, travels the country interviewing subjects and tracking down some of the places The Protocols have worked their way into. The interviews are engaging, and Levin finds a terrific cross-section of people to get on the record -- from Palestinian American street kids in Jersey, to street vendors in New York, to Rabbis, Pastors and Church and Temple congregants. Even mid-western Nazis and anti-Semites make their appearances here.

Levin's interview style is appealing. He converses with his subjects, almost never arguing. No matter what they say, he let's them say it and allows the viewer to take it in. As a viewer, I like to hear what the subject has to say without too much interference on the part of the filmmaker. Levin has a lot of faith in the viewer. Maybe too much faith. While I found his style enjoyable, this brings with it its own issues as we'll see shortly.

Production values are good. This may be a low-budget format, but the feel of the production does not reflect that. The sound and visuals are clear and well cut. The pace holds the interest.

That's the good part. Now the rest.

Where to begin? Let's put it this way. If I were Shaun Walker of the Nazi National Alliance, or professional anti-Semite Frank Weltner of JewWatch.com, both prominently featured in the film, I'd be purchasing extra copies of the DVD to include with my Christmas cards. In 90 minutes, director Frank Levin does almost nothing to discredit them, in fact, he not only manages to pass on the message of the Protocols, but confirms many of the things about Jews that the racists despise us for.

Now maybe that's OK. Maybe there's no getting around it. Maybe some of the things they hate us for there's no doing anything about and we should be proud of it and be ready to fight over it -- our humanist impulses, our toleration of difference... But somehow I don't think this was Levin's intent. He doesn't seem to get, as he pleads with racists and Nazis that if they could just understand that Jews are really nice people, that we believe in universal brotherhood and peace, that, in fact, most of that weak liberal pleading is exactly what they hate about us.

I know I'm risking losing a significant portion of my readers making this point, but blogging is nothing if not being honest, and this is the most honest way I know to make the point -- Levin's problem is that he's a New York liberal who can't seem to figure out that people could actually honestly (and sometimes hatefully and sometimes lovingly) have a different view of the world from he. Levin thinks if he can show what a goodly person he is, the world will fall in line behind him. It doesn't work that way.

Not only that, but Levin isn't as pure as he thinks he is, as he displays some of that good old New York Liberal Jewish bigotry himself. More on that shortly.

All of this is assembled from my jotted notes and memory that's a few days old, so bear that in mind. I'm recalling as best I can. The film has an inauspicious start with an eyebrow-raising moment. In the description of the history of The Protocols, the voice-over mentions that they are "thought to have been" forged by the Czar's secret police. Thought to have been forged? This is a documentary exposing the fraud and we can't even say we know. This may seem like a small thing, but it bodes evil for what's to come. This is a film about one of the most damaging forgeries in the history of print, and it hesitates to take a side.

When we meet one of the film's other main characters, Levin's dad, we get a little more foreshadowing. It turns out that the senior Levin, now in his 70's, gave up religion -- and apparently the respect for it -- as a child. Where he gets his ethical base now isn't stated explicitly, but a good clue may come from the Che poster the gentleman still has hanging on his wall. Uh oh.

Forward now to footage of Sr. and Jr. marching together in a big New York anti-Iraq War demonstration back in 2003. Presumably this is to show that, indeed, Jews oppose war, unlike the horrible war-mongering Jews of Protocol legend, and current fantasy (Iraq being a war for Israel, after all). This threw me for a loop I must admit. I thought we were going to go to the parade and see footage of the ubiquitous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic posters, chants and displays that were being carried along there, as blog readers are well aware existed. Instead we see almost none of that. Dad marches along and lectures on civic responsibility, a Jewish protester explains how she's for peace, not war, and a perfect opportunity to demonstrate how real, pervasive and insidious Jew hate and conspiracy theory is goes by the boards.

This is a consistent problem with the film. Levin never demonstrates how serious his subject matter is, how immediate and dangerous it is. We have articulate Nazis, justice-seeking Palestinian-American street kids and cheesy looking clips from Arab TV. Somewhere in there the hate and the paranoia and the reality (in many minds) of The Protocols is diluted. We can laugh at The Protocols, but many, many, many people don't. Levin forgets that, because in the mind of the NY Liberal, no otherwise reasonable person could believe it. But they do. No fellow human could fail to love Levin once they get to know him. But they do. Director Levin doesn't seem to get this.

Levin missed the opportunity of the march -- other than a couple of short glimpses of hateful signage who's portrayal as a fringe of the main group serve only to blunt their effect -- for a couple of reasons. One, they were busy participating in the march, so they only saw what was right around them, and also, because Levin and company believe in the anti-War cause and didn't want to damage it. The entire work suffers as a result of this bowdlerization.

One interview Levin conducts is with an elderly and clearly eccentric Kabbalist Rabbi who warns him not to look too deeply into The Protocols. Why? Because "things happen" to those who do -- they turn up missing, get sick... So here's a Jew basically confirming there's something to it all. This is a film about a fraud? Oy gavult!

There's a lovely interview with Shaun Walker of the Nazi National Alliance. We get a tour of their mail order facility and Levin is polite and allows Walker his say. So far, so OK. Here's the problem. Walker is articulate and reasonable. Levin treating him politely and listening and not arguing (other than a very quick quip at the end) adds to the effect. And Levin never follows up on any of Walker's assertions. He leaves it all hanging and assumes the viewer knows that Walker is full of it. Bad assumption. And like the good liberal he is, Levin assumes that by spending the rest of the film showing what a guy he is it won't matter. Even a Nazi can be converted if we just get to know each other. It doesn't often work out that way.

Another segment is a day spent with Frank Weltner of the wildly successful JewWatch.com. Weltner is also articulate and treated respectfully by Levin. Appearing on Weltner's radio show, he debates Weltner and the callers. Here's another problem. He loses! He loses in that Weltner and callers are far more polished and well thought-out and prepared than Levin, who goes on with a spiel about universal brotherhood...he then tries to substitute his own theory for the "Jews run the world" one -- you see, it's really all run by big corporations, not Jews... This is your answer? Oy. Better to have left this segment on the cutting room floor.

Now, Levin could have used this as a teaching moment. He could have followed up and explained that what the segment demonstrated was that conspiracy theories are notoriously difficult to argue rationally against. Doing so is very dangerous.

But he never follows up. He leaves the segment to speak for itself. Not good.

By far the most painful segments in the film from my perspective are those where Levin goes out to interview American Evangelical Christians, particularly centering on the release of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and many other anti-Jewish conspiracies do indeed have their origins in the Christian Church. Levin, however, never manages to draw any connection between the Christians of the Eastern Church and American Evangelicals. He never manages to because there isn't one. This is Levin's liberal anti-Christian bigotry on display. Clearly we are meant to view these people with their smiles, their rhetoric of love, their pollyanna views...with contempt, and that's sad. Here again is where Levin's interview style comes back to bite. Levin treats these well-meaning Christians in exactly the same manner he treated the Nazi earlier! Rather than showing that these folks are potential Jew stoners or Protocol believers, he merely demonstrates to the bigots that Jews do indeed hold sincere Christians in contempt. Way to go.

Levin is clearly uncomfortable being told that he's being prayed for in the hope that he'll someday come to Jesus. Here's a clue for how to react next time someone smiles and says they're praying for you: Smile back and say, "Thank you. That's very nice of you." and leave it at that.

Passion Plays have been used through history to instigate violence against Jews but there is no evidence that Gibson's film has caused the type of Christians shown in this film to do anything of the sort. We're treated to audio of Mel Gibson's elderly and bigoted father spewing his nonsense. This comes off as a cheap-shot to me. Show me where that came out in his son's film. Show me where it's in the spirit or intentions of those other Christians shown in this film.

One of the most painful moments in the film is when Levin talks to two yarmulka-wearing Jews during the '93 protest march. These two religious Jews start ranting about how they'd rather not go to heaven at all if they have to be there with assholes like George W. Bush and company -- and this is a mild description. On and on. Their hateful intolerance stands in stark contrast to the unconditional loving kindness demonstrated by the believing Christians Levin chose to include in the film. I'll admit it. I was embarrassed.

Some of us Jews (particularly those on the liberal left) need to learn that if we want to get respect as Jews, we need to give respect in return. This film is disrespectful. It's a cheap shot and it plays right into the hands of the bigots.

In one series of scenes, Levin visits a large Passover Seder and interviews various folk. Reggae Hassid Matisyahu makes an appearance. Levin talks to Douglas Rushkoff and others, all of whom go on about Jewish compassion, worldliness, range of viewpoints and concern for everyone but themselves. Who does Levin think he's convincing with this? One interview is with a cross-dressing fellow, Rebbetzin Hadassah Gross. Look, I want to tell you, it doesn't bother me at all. I'm sure the guy is a great fellow, a good Jew, whatever. And I don't believe in bowing to the haters. All I'm asking for is a little common sense. You haven't responded directly to anything in the movie, and all Ms Gross's presence does here is give more ammo to the haters -- "You see, the Jews don't stand for anything. I told you they were degenerates. Look at this!" Much love to Hadassah Gross, but better to have left him for the next film. Not a wise inclusion for this one.

Alright, I've gone on beating this poor dead, skinned horse long enough. Just bear with me for one more sequence, and it brings us right in to the end.

It's the time of the IDF's assassination of Hamas-leader Sheik Yassin. As per the established pattern of the film, Levin provides very little context to describe why the Israelis would have wanted to Tomahawk the wheelchair-bound "holy man." He does, however, flash a picture of Yassin's corpse, and it is shocking -- head open, brains oozing out.

Straight from that "background" to an Arab-American community meeting to discuss the event. In the context, the complaints and heated ranting of the Arabs presented is quite rational, their anger completely understandable. If only we could all sit down and discuss it, one might think, we could possibly work it out. After all, aren't we all after the same thing in the end? No, we're not. But don't tell Levin.

Switch then to a cut-scene, one of many in the film, provided by MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, of various Jew hating "entertainment" products based on The Protocols and other anti-Semitic canards broadcast on television throughout the Middle East. The selections are shocking -- scenes of plotting Jews, a graphic scene of a boy's throat being opened to use his blood for the baking of matzo...

But here's where the film fails again. DIrector Levin hasn't provided any context for these cut-scenes. He hasn't reminded the audience that they are viewed by millions and millions and millions of people, and worse, believed to be true by them. The production values of these Arab and Iranian TV shows are very low -- cheesy looking -- especially compared to the slick production of Levin's film, so by this point it's simple for the audience to no longer take it seriously at all.

Next scene, two religious Jews, this time right-wingers who certainly don't have peace in their hearts for the Arabs. After the righteous indignation of the Palestinian-Americans for whom Levin provided the full measure of context for their views, these guys look very bad indeed.

Finally (yes, getting there), we have Levin filming himself sitting down to watch the video of the Daniel Pearl murder. Finally, I think, maybe Levin will get it. No such luck.

The camera is on Pearl in the initial moments, but then turns away to film only Levin's reaction as he watches. We hear Pearl describing himself as a Jew, a Zionist...but his screams, and the viciousness of his murder, those are cut out.

Levin tells us (paraphrasing very widely from memory) that he intends to carry on Daniel Pearl's work. He wants to reach out, learn about others and help them learn about us. That, he hopes, will bring us all together.

But Levin took away exactly the wrong lesson from the murder of Daniel Pearl. Pearl did think the best of people. He was by all reports a nice fellow. And that niceness and projection of his own motivations on others caused him to let his guard down. He didn't follow basic safety precautions and he was taken away by some very bad men. His parents couldn't understand how anyone who got to know their son, as his murderers undoubtedly did, could not see his basic goodness. How could anyone who got to know him, murder him? But they did. They did because all the internal goodness and healthy self-image on the planet cannot protect you from such evil. Show them the real you all you want, they'll saw your head off just the same. In fact, it's what they hate you for.

This film does nothing to discredit its subject -- The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. It does nothing to communicate the real threat posed by it and the other conspiracy theories it addresses. In fact, to the contrary, it actually helps to reinforce some ugly stereotypes amongst the uninformed. I'm sorry to say that the main message I took away from this was how clueless a certain segment of the American political spectrum really is.

Can a movie that misses the mark this badly actually be dangerous? When it disrespects the power of its subject as badly as this one does, it can.

The film will be showing as part of its Film Festival run at the Coolidge Corner Theatre in Brookline, Mass. this Sunday at 4:30. Director Marc Levin will be in attendance. I intend to go and give it one more try. I sincerely hope my initial reaction to the film was totally off base. The subject is too important to screw up.

Update: More here.