GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

TheDocHierarchy The son of Holocaust survivors and the talisman of those opposed to the policies of the state of Israel, Norman Finkelstein is a divisive figure, and both camps will probably get what they want out of this film.To his supporters, who see in him the courage of a Jew willing to take a stand against the policies of the Israeli state, Finkelstein appears a dedicated and well-read scholar. His academic positions are not esteemed (and indeed, the more controversial his views, the faster his universities seem to want rid of him), but he can call on the likes of Noam Chomsky as supporters, the likes of Oxford University are willing to host his talks, his students adore him and his books continue to hit the top of best-seller lists.To those suspicious of the origins of his views, the film illuminates his mother's pacifism and liberalism in the wake of surviving the Holocaust as formative on Finkelstein's worldview, whilst his opposition to the Lebanese War and time spent living in the West Bank with the Palestinians act as the catalyst to spending a lifetime exposing the 'crimes' of the Israeli state.The problem with Finkelstein, and the reason why many see in him nothing but a 'self-hating Jew', is the manner in which he picks his fights. There are many scholars at respected institutions who are critical of Israeli policy, particularly in Europe, but they aren't releasing books called 'The Holocaust Industry' and taking their book tours to Lebanon, or publicly accusing the Harvard professor Alan Dershowtiz of fraud and plagiarism. Even Chomsky, who has never had an issue taking contrarian positions, appears to take issue with the figures Finkelstein decides to focus his efforts on.There is surely room in the debate for a Jew who is willing to take on the Israeli state, even for one who is admittedly pro-Palestinian; in 'Budrus' we have seen the potential of Jewish citizens to shift perspectives on both sides of the wall. Yet there are surely better ways for Finkelstein to direct his energies than through arguments and acts that only exacerbate antagonisms in the region and act as diversions to the actual debate, which must be undertaken civilly.Concluding Thought: Find it really difficult to pass judgement on Finkelstein without having personally read his books and weighed the arguments against the likes of Dershowitz'. As such, I found this enlightening, but ultimately restricted in scope.

njmollo American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein (2009) is the story of an honest man in an inherently corrupt society.Norman Finkelstein sees the solution to the Palestinian/Israel conflict as a simple one but the issue has become one of revenge. How can the Palestinian ever forget or forgive the daily atrocities committed on mostly innocent people by Israel?The term "holocaust industry" is perfectly applicable to the methods used by Israel to frame themselves as the victims in this particular conflict. Literally millions of dollars every year is paid to firms and media outlets to shape the message, create propaganda and stifle criticism of their unmitigated barbarism on the Palestinian people.What is surprising is that the Jews having suffered so greatly under Naziism would allow themselves to be hijacked into emulating their oppressors rather than becoming an enlightened power for world peace. American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein (2009) shows clearly the irrational and dishonest behaviour of many spokespeople in support Israel. These talking heads, that included the crudely dishonest Alan Dershowitz, ignore utterly Israel's relentless crimes against humanity and paint a picture of Israel based more on a hyper-reality propagated by the corporate media rather than empirical evidence.Alan Dershowitz's blatant dishonesty and surprising ignorance does not bode well for the future of American academia. His bitterness at being so thoroughly bested and exposed as a fraud by Norman Finkelstein on the program "Democracy Now" resulted in a vile yet successful campaign to ostracise Finkelstein from the American educational system.Norman Finkelstein does only one thing, he tells the truth. The trouble with Finkelstein, is he is able to express his message eloquently and succinctly. In times where Truth is rapidly becoming unknowable due to disinformation, lies and insidious forms of corporate propaganda, Finkelstein and his message is, as he himself states, "a painful pill."

John Dewey The movie reveals that he has not had an easy life in the world of doctrinal academic rewards. Every time he tries to enlighten and bring logic and truth to the academic world, he is punished with lesser teaching load and hence a diminished association with the school. This ultimately leads to his defeat by the president at DePaul Univesity blocking of tenure (Faculty overwhelmingly supported his tenure). This documentary exposes the power play that is very real in the academic world. One would believe that this only exists in the corporate sector of the economy, but future academic beware! To answer the question in the subject line that made you read this review, he was paid $18,000 for his teaching course load after finishing his PhD. From Princeton and teaching at Hunter college in NYC. The administration at this college reduced his teaching hours further effectively ending his academic life there. Make no mistake, we live in a doctrinal world where you need to know that if you don't follow a certain level of subservience to power, you will pay!?! Great documentary...watch it and make up your own mind and leave a review here.

karimguy This is a film that is long overdue. A film about a great ordinary man. A man of courage,a man of deep honesty and integrity.A real Mensch.A person with all the human troubles,failures, successes and doubts that make a principled individual so precious. Sadly this film,though well intentioned,does not do neither Norman Finkelstein nor his cause justice.It superficially follows his career and his various speaking tours, showing the strong emotions that the Israel Palestine conflict can raise,while interviewing friends,critics and family.What emerges is never fully rounded, giving only a glimpse and never explaining to those unfamiliar with both the Israel Palestine conflict or Finkelstein what his work is about. Those familiar with Finkelsteins careers are mostly aware that nothing he says is actually controversial. The recent Goldstone report only cemented this fact.In fact what distinguishes Finkelsteins style is that he is in reality extremely moderate,rarely venturing outside the safe territory of internationally accepted and undisputed law, even refusing to consider the more and more popular One-state solution. Radical is only a description, as Finkelstein explains in the film,of someone seeking radical justice in a radically unjust world.There is nothing really radical about that.Another problem of the film are the uncommented interviews with his critics,especially Dershowitz. In a rather humorous scene Dershowitz suggests that Finkelstein probably has a deep-seated problem with his Judaism.Unlike Dershowitz of course.Gulp. Another rather strange candidate to interview is a childhood friend, who from the comfort of her Telaviv home seems perplexed why Finkelstein,as she puts it,chose Jewish lawyers as the target of his"strange hate".Poor Jewish lawyers.Needless to say, the value of her opinions are rather questionable. To come to the point, nothing short of the Nobelpeace price could do this man justice. We are all in your debt Norman.Obama you sucker, move over. Here is a real Mensch.