Finkelstein review 3/4/10 5:45 PM Page 60 began courting controversy by exposing went on with business as usual: at this very American Radical: shoddy scholarship in Joan Peters’s best- moment, I thought, Vietnamese are being The Trials of Norman Finkelstein selling book, From Time Immemorial, in murdered. It was only many years later after Produced and directed by David Ridgen and which she uses a spurious demographic reading Noam Chomsky that I learned it Nicolas Rossier; edited by Cameron argument to dispute Palestinian claims that was possible to unite exacting scholarly rigor Clendaneil; cinematography by David Ridgen Jewish immigration had overwhelmed the with scathing moral outrage; that an intelli- and Nicolas Rossier, original music by Judd native population. Others would also dis- gent argument didn’t have to be an intellec- Greenstein; including Norman Finkelstein, credit her scholarship, but, as Noam Chom- tualizing one.” Noam Chomsky, Musa Abu-Hashhash, sky remarks in the documentary, Finkel- While viewers of the documentary may Avi Shlaim and Alan Dershowitz. Color, stein’s forthright critique of the book and have heard of Finkelstein on the basis of his 84 min. A Typecast Distributing release, his critical perspective on Zionism did not numerous publications—books such as http://typecastfilms.com. win him many friends in academic life. This Image and Reality of the Israeli-Palestinian experience set the stage for larger battles Conflict (1996) and The Holocaust Industry: Few scholars have achieved the notoriety concerning academic freedom that would Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suf- of Norman Finkelstein. Vilified by many for plague him for the rest of his career. fering (2000)—in recent years much atten- his harsh critique of Israel’s human rights The documentary convincingly shows tion has come from his public dispute with record and his contempt for those who have how Finkelstein’s personal background, par- Alan Dershowitz and his failure to receive profited from the “Holocaust industry,” ticularly his relationship with his mother, tenure at DePaul University in Chicago. The Finkelstein also has been praised by others has influenced the content and the con- film includes sections of the infamous for his unflinching support for Palestinian tentious style of his scholarly work. Both his Democracy Now debate where Finkelstein rights, his meticulous research, and commit- parents survived the Warsaw Ghetto upris- skewers a squirming Alan Dershowitz for ment to applying international law to ings and knew firsthand the horrors of “concocting a fraud” in his book, The Case understanding the Israeli-Palestinian con- working as slave labor in Auschwitz and the for Israel. While Dershowitz appears to have flict. Filmmakers David Ridgen and Nicolas Majdanek concentration camps. As Finkel- lost the televised face-off, his retaliation Rossier’s understated and revealing feature- stein recounts in an interview, while his against Finkelstein’s accusations of inaccu- length documentary, American Radical: The father remained silent about much of what racies and apologies for Israeli human rights Trials of Norman Finkelstein, presents a he had witnessed, his mother related the abuses (later documented and published in humanizing portrait of a complex and prin- experiences of living through the oppression Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah: The Abuses cipled individual who has all too often been of the camps to almost every aspect of their and Misuse of Anti-Semitism) and his partic- demonized for his views. Rather than delve daily lives. One of the most revealing aspects ipation in the organized campaign to influ- into the difficult history of the Israeli–Pales- of the film is the way in which Finkelstein’s ence the DePaul tenure decision, in particu- tinian conflict or the politics of the “new working-class Jewish background and his lar, seemed designed to settle the score. anti-Semitism” (recently examined in Yoav relationship with his mother influenced not In the documentary, Finkelstein comes Shamir’s film Defamation), the documen- only the subjects of his later academic work across as far more introspective and emo- tary keeps its focus sharply on Finkelstein, but also his tone and style of expressing tionally open than readers might assume the committed activist and scholar. Through himself. Finkelstein speaks of his mother’s from his aggressive and sometimes arrogant a combination of interviews with Finkel- hysterical ranting against the Vietnam War public persona. He’s visibly moved in speak- stein, his critics and supporters, as well as and other social injustices, openly admitting ing not only of his mother and familial footage of his many public appearances, that the memory of his mother is one of the memories but also of the plight of his Pales- from Canada to Beruit, American Radical reasons he continues to speak out against tinian friends who must live under the bru- crafts a sympathetic profile without glossing the oppression of the Palestinians, despite tality of occupation. As the film reveals, the over the polarizing effect he often has on the toll it has taken on his personal life and many sides of Finkelstein need to be consid- people, even those who agree with many of career. According to an excerpt from his ered, especially for those eager to discredit his views. unpublished political memoir (available on his passionate involvement in his scholar- Of course, other scholars have criticized his Website www.normanfinkelstein.com), ship. Is the emphasis on the personal too Israel, including Finkelstein’s friend and as a teenager, “I couldn’t comprehend how much, as some critics of the film have mentor Noam Chomsky, but very few have people compartmentalized the carnage and argued? Even Finkelstein believes that his received the level of invective that has been used against Finkelstein. Called a “despica- ble self-hating Jew” and a “lunatic” because of his intemperate language and unpopular views, Finkelstein is equally harsh in his assessment of “hucksters,” thieves, and gangsters he believes have profited at the expense of those who suffered the most dur- ing World War II as well as in the contem- porary conflict between Israel and the Pales- tinians. Not shy about naming names, Finkelstein has taken on some of the most well-known public supporters of Israel— from Elie Wiesel to Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Alan Dershowitz. The blogosphere is filled with rants and diatribes both in support of and denouncing Finkelstein, so this nuanced documentary comes as a welcome addition to the heated debate. As a graduate student writing a disserta- Norman Finkelstein (center) accuses Alan Dershowitz of plagiarism in his book, A Case for Israel, tion on the history of Zionism, Finkelstein during a Democracy Now! broadcast, in American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein. 60 CINEASTE, Spring 2010 Finkelstein review 3/4/10 5:45 PM Page 61 prompt audiences to make up their own minds. While this may be slightly disingenu- ous, the inclusion of critical commentary from Dershowitz and others ensures that the documentary is not a simple puff piece. That said, however, the film could be strength- ened by the use of footage showing the con- ditions in the occupied territories or refer- encing the most recent attacks, beginning in 2008 in Gaza, known as Operation Cast Lead, providing viewers with a stronger con- text for understanding Finkelstein’s outrage. It would also have been useful for the film to include a more thorough discussion of the accuracy of Finkelstein’s scholarship by those supporters included in the film, such as Chomsky or the eminent Holocaust his- torian Raul Hilberg, especially since that Author and activist Norman Finkelstein speaks to a student at one of his college-speaking scholarship has come under such severe crit- appearances in the feature documentary, American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein. icism. American Radical joins a group of recent identity issues as a Jew should not color the that accused Finkelstein of violating acade- documentaries about leftist figures with veracity of his claims. Still, they give an mic standards through ad hominem attacks strong moral positions and whose contro- important context for understanding his rather than scholarly proof in registering versial views or actions were later vindicated motivations for doggedly pursuing the truth opposition to other views. The three depart- in whole or in part. (These films include regardless of the consequences. ment members who voted against him dis- Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith’s The The documentary follows Finkelstein on tributed a dissenting opinion with which the Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel a Canadian speaking tour where he is greet- Dean and University Board on Promotion Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and Emily ed by both ardent supporters and hostile and Tenure agreed, thus overturning the and Sarah Kunstler’s film about their father, critics. At the University of Waterloo, he tenure recommendation. Despite consider- William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe). seems surprisingly dispassionate, even when able student protest and an international Perhaps Norman Finkelstein’s positions on angry demonstrators disrupt his talk. It’s outcry, Finkelstein was forced to resign, Israel and Palestine also will gain wider only when a young woman breaks down in although not without receiving (and distrib- acceptance with the passage of time, or at tears, upset by his equating Israeli with Nazi uting) a letter from the DePaul Administra- least will not be so easily dismissed. In the behavior, that we get a sense of the tone that tion citing him as “a prolific scholar and an meantime, American Radical deserves to be has enraged so many of his critics. Rather outstanding teacher.” seen widely as a fascinating introduction to than try to appease the student, he launches To many in the academic community, the man and his views.—Susan Ryan into a shrill tirade and berates her for shed- the case was not only a personal tragedy for ding “crocodile tears” over his remarks.