The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The persuasive power of most documentaries lies in their one-sidedness. This is not like most documentaries. The filmmaker has a point of view, but he does not jam it down your throat. He humanizes the people he disagrees with, while exposing the flaws of those he does agree with. He presents the issue of perceived anti-semitism in all it's complexity but still draws the viewer to a real conclusion.I thought the narration was a bit distracting because the filmer has a strong Israeli accent. Also, it was difficult to understand a few of the exchanges between he and his interviewees. Still, it was fine work.

This film really hits the mark with regards to anti-semitism. For all intents and purposes, it does not exist. Racism against Jews is nothing compared to racism against blacks, Latinos or Arabs.The Anti-Defamation League really show their true selves in this video and do not even seem to notice. Complaints sent to them seem to be largely about Jewish folks not getting days off for holidays. That is not anti-Semitism. That is a work policy.Interestingly, Norman Finkelstein is shown raw here, too. Finkelstein is a great scholar and critic of the Jewish lobby. Here is shown making statements that do not present him in a favorable light. While his underlying point is correct, he comes off like a ranting lunatic, which hardly helps his cause.

So, Yoav Shamir wants to get to the bottom of anti-semitism. Does he go undercover with the KKK or the neo-Nazis? No. Does he examine Turkish TV dramas that promote the Blood Libel? No. Does he take undercover video of Friday night sermons in Palestinian mosques? Nope. Or examine Palestine school books or any of the Saudi funded programs in mosques all over the world? No. Or the speeches by Hamas and Hizbullah about killing Jews (not "Israelis", but "Jews")? No. Does he discuss the United Nations, which has passed more resolutions against Israeli than on any other topic, including genocide in Darfur, genocide in Tibet, mass murders in Congo, oppression of Christians and Hindus in Pakistan? No, no, no. And he is totally silent about Iran which (a) wants to "erase" Israel from the map and (b) is busily building atomic bombs with which to get the job done.Instead, our brave Yoav looks for anti-semitism in New York City, the cultural capital of Israel's only friend on earth and a city that holds more Jews than any city outside Israel itself; he looks for it among a group of Israeli teenagers on excursion to Auschwitz; and he examines his own grandmother for anti-semitism.Why do you think Yoav did not find anti-semitism?Another reviewer thinks "Defamation" is "Moore-esqe", i.e., that it has the qualities of a Michael Moore documentary. He sure got that right.

'Hashmatsa' ('Defamation') by Israeli director Yoav Shamir dares to attack one of the sacred cows of Israel and of the Jewish people thinking - how it reacts to antisemitism around the world, how it looks at the evil of the Holocaust, and how young generations are being educated in Israel with respect to these painful and fundamental issues.The result is mixed I must say. Without emulating completely the Moore style (he appears seldom on screen for example) Shamir uses the same approach - picks a number of characters and interviews them longly until they lower guard and reveal their weaknesses, which then are used as part of the demonstration of the thesis.There are actually two slightly different themes in the film, although they are related and interleaved in the presentation. The first deals with the definition of antisemitism and the question whether real antisemitism exists in the world today at the scale claimed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and some of the Israeli and Jewish press. Here the director presents two leading characters, one on each side of the dispute - Abraham Foxman, one of the leaders of the ADL and Norman Finkelstein, Jewish thinker, author of a book that argues against the exaggerated usage of the Holocaust on political purposes by Israel and Jewish people. None of the two get a very clean image in the film, both have arguments that sound valid at some point, but show weaknesses and ideological bias in other moments. The weakest part of the argumentation is however the one that tries to argue that antisemitism does not exist, and the method used by the film is flawn, as the issue of antisemitism is not acute at all in the US where the director investigated most of the time, but has deep and specific aspects in many countries in Europe for example.I did like more the approach being taken by the film relative to the education in Israel of the young generations about the Holocaust, about antisemitism and how to cope with these phenomena. Here the film does succeed to raise valid questions and the success of this part is due mainly to the fact that he lets the images and situations on screen speak more for themselves. The questions asked in the final sequence of the film - 'does this type of auto-victimization, of fear and lack of trust for anything that is foreign educate well the younger generations, or even give them the right approach to address real antisemitism and to cope with the horror of the Holocaust?' 'is this type of education better fit for the past or for the present and future?'- these are indeed valid questions which I would love to see being addressed in a public debate at prime time, not at late hours as the ones this documentary was broadcast by Israeli Channel 2 yesterday.