IPOD
RADIO
Protocols of Zion director Marc Levin
By Daniel Robert Epstein
Oct 26, 2005
Filmmaker Marc Levin has always flitted back and forth from fiction to documentary films. Whether he’s examining the clandestine tactics of the Central Intelligence Agency in CIA: America's Secret Warriors or giving Danny Hoch a chance to shine as a wannabe hip-hop star in a virtually all-white Iowa town in Whiteboyz.
Now his latest film puts him in the forefront and examines the history of what could be called the Lords of the Rings of bullshit, the Protocols of Zion.
The Protocols of Zion is a Czarist Russian tract that was passed off in the late 19th century as the master plan for Jewish world domination. It has since been debunked hundreds of times. It still has its believers and has gained new strength since the horseshit idea that no Jews died in 9/11 because they were warned. Levin and his aged father take a hard look at anti-Semitism in America.
Check out the official site for the Protocols of Zion
Daniel Robert Epstein: I felt like Protocols of Zion and your previous film, Slam, had a lot in common. It’s both about outspoken people but this time you’re the outspoken person.
Marc Levin: That’s the big difference exactly. It’s not Saul Williams or Ray Joshua. Slam has a prison scene and in many ways the prison scene in Protocols is very surprising because a lot of people thought it would be a descent into hell with black power and white power together. What do they share? Blame the Jews for everything.
Slam was about using the creative spirit, instead of descending into violence and hatred. But I’m not the poet Ray Joshua is or the showman Michael Moore is. But I was out there trying to see if some kind of creative dialogue and engagement was a first step in a different way of dealing with these issues. So there is a similarity and I hadn’t thought about it.
DRE:
Some of the people you talked to that believe the Protocols is real seemed very intelligent. Can you believe that even such smart people would give credence to this asinine concept?
ML:
That’s a good point. Ignorance, fear and impotence, meaning powerlessness and humiliation, are all ingredients in hate, bigotry and tolerance. But it is surprising that there are intelligent people that buy into this stuff. It’s like saying intelligent people believe things about their religion and faith. This is faith-based and that’s what is so fascinating about it.
DRE:
I suppose it’s like the way one of Grandmasters of the Ku Klux Klan was Harvard educated but he believes that Jews and African-Americans are subhumans. How could any intelligent person believe that?
ML:
It’s mind boggling. How could anybody believe that no Jews died on 9/11? It makes no sense. It’s like what you’re saying. It becomes an article of faith and that’s one of the challenges. It’s not just intellect and reason. It’s why humor is a weapon. It’s why dialogue is not just debate. It’s not just argument. There are other things happening.
We screened the film in Berkeley and a music professor got up and said, “I’m a student of how listening changes the brain and when music and people really listen to music and not as background, their brain waves change. I think I saw something in this movie that real listening is the music of meaning. It changes. It doesn’t change your ideology. You’re not converted, but the atmospherics, the tone, the atmosphere changes.” I had never even thought about that in making the film, but my way obviously was dialogue, listening and preemptive engagement. People said, “You’re a fool. You’re expecting to convert these people? Are you giving them a platform?” The platform is a risk. I understand the risk and have taken the risk in many of my films so this is not alone there. No, I didn’t think they would be converted. Conversion? No. Conversation? Yes. I’ve seen the dynamics and the tone change. It’s incremental, but you can’t have anything else until you get that.
DRE:
Do you think this film could make Jews and non-Jews pay attention to this topic?
ML:
Sure. I have two children and I certainly wanted the film to be accessible to the younger generation. I didn’t want you to feel that if you weren’t an expert on the Torah or the New Testament or the Koran, you couldn’t participate. Or if you didn’t know about colonialism in the Middle East. This is a dialogue open to all and we’re all experts because all of us have some of these feelings inside us. I consciously chose to make it in what is I guess a more gonzo style. Joking around can often be a more effective way of deflating it. Larry David’s Curb Your Enthusiasm did a show three weeks ago on The Passion of the Christ and it was unbelievable. That show was just so outrageous; I was on the floor laughing. It certainly answered any questions that I ever would’ve had of him. He used humor. That’s what I’m saying. It’s not just getting a college professor to give you all the examples of how The Protocols is a fraud. Of course someone can say, “Oh. Turns out he’s a Jew too.” There’s a circular thinking and to break it you’ve got to use everything.
DRE:
If you do another documentary, do you think you’ll put yourself in it as much?
ML:
No, I’m working on two other documentaries I’m not in. It’s more my return to the documentaries I’ve done in the past. This is probably the only film I will be in.
DRE:
How did you like editing yourself?
ML:
That was the hardest thing because I started in the editing room as a kid. That’s always been my safe house.
DRE:
Now you had to say to “I sucked there.”
ML:
Exactly, I found it impossible. I love being irreverent in the editing room and seeing my own mug up there. Ken Eluto was my editor and he’s a brilliant guy. I had to really trust him because my instinct was to minimize me, but he had to make some of the calls. So I had to let go which was the hardest thing.
DRE:
What do you think when the marketing team at ThinkFilm comes up with a poster like that?
ML:
At first I was a little nervous especially in this city. It’s touchy. I hope that people understand. I think that it’s legitimate because that’s how I saw the return of the Protocols. It was wrapped up in this urban legend that the Jews were all warned and no Jews died on 9/11. Hundreds of Jews died. Then when the guy in the film says there were no Jewish funerals or services. Someone had had a service on the Upper East Side that [Governor] Pataki, [Mayor] Giuliani and all these celebrities attended. Hopefully if the film does anything, it will at least get that off the table and we can accept the Protocols as fraud. If you want to say there are certain things about Jewish power, about Israel, about American foreign policy, let’s move the discussion in that direction.
DRE:
You’ve been making documentaries for quite a few years. Since Fahrenheit 9/11 many of them have been doing amazingly well. When making this one did you notice a change in attitude regarding documentaries?
ML:
Oh yeah. This summer I remember walking down the street and there were like ten documentaries playing in theaters. That’s unheard of. I think what we’re witnessing is that you can’t just turn the indie spirit into a formula. In the fiction world a lot of great stuff is still being done, but it’s almost become like the minor leagues for Hollywood. Whereas with the documentary world, it’s tougher. Yeah you can get into reality TV, as Morgan Spurlock did with 30 Days. But it’s a much harder form to just commodify and to turn into formula. So you find in a time where you have 500 cable stations, you’d think the last thing in the world that would be making it in the marketplace would be documentary films.
DRE:
I never thought anyone would every see any documentaries ever.
ML:
But I think there is a hunger for, not only authentic and individual points of view, but people who are offering to make sense of it. The news bombards you with the so-called objective facts. “The Constitution was ratified yesterday in Baghdad.” There’s no “what does it all mean?” Then on the web it’s almost the opposite. It’s such an overload and there’s so much disinformation. Ironically the marketplace in theaters is open for filmmakers and new technology allows it to come from a personal perspective. Right before this I was doing a TV series in Canada for Showtime called Street Time. I directed the pilot and then ended up becoming the show runner. I had never done TV before, but I remember while I was doing that, I went and saw Bowling for Columbine in Toronto. I remember leaving with Richard Stratton, my partner, and saying “This is the moment for documentaries. This is fantastic. I got to get back in the game here.”
DRE:
Do you know what you’re doing next?
ML:
A bunch of things. Documentaries and fiction films. The thing that’s growing out of Protocols is a fiction film, which we sometimes jokingly call Jihad in Jersey. That came out of my encounters on the streets of Patterson New Jersey with some Arab-American kids. The collision of street culture, which is in Slam, with this new world of religious fanaticism. A law enforcement character, who is a non-believer in any religion, gets caught in the middle of that.
by Daniel Robert Epstein
SG Username: AndersWolleck
Filmmaker Marc Levin has always flitted back and forth from fiction to documentary films. Whether he’s examining the clandestine tactics of the Central Intelligence Agency in CIA: America's Secret Warriors or giving Danny Hoch a chance to shine as a wannabe hip-hop star in a virtually all-white Iowa town in Whiteboyz.
Now his latest film puts him in the forefront and examines the history of what could be called the Lords of the Rings of bullshit, the Protocols of Zion.
The Protocols of Zion is a Czarist Russian tract that was passed off in the late 19th century as the master plan for Jewish world domination. It has since been debunked hundreds of times. It still has its believers and has gained new strength since the horseshit idea that no Jews died in 9/11 because they were warned. Levin and his aged father take a hard look at anti-Semitism in America.
Check out the official site for the Protocols of Zion
Daniel Robert Epstein: I felt like Protocols of Zion and your previous film, Slam, had a lot in common. It’s both about outspoken people but this time you’re the outspoken person.
Marc Levin: That’s the big difference exactly. It’s not Saul Williams or Ray Joshua. Slam has a prison scene and in many ways the prison scene in Protocols is very surprising because a lot of people thought it would be a descent into hell with black power and white power together. What do they share? Blame the Jews for everything.
Slam was about using the creative spirit, instead of descending into violence and hatred. But I’m not the poet Ray Joshua is or the showman Michael Moore is. But I was out there trying to see if some kind of creative dialogue and engagement was a first step in a different way of dealing with these issues. So there is a similarity and I hadn’t thought about it.
Slam was about using the creative spirit, instead of descending into violence and hatred. But I’m not the poet Ray Joshua is or the showman Michael Moore is. But I was out there trying to see if some kind of creative dialogue and engagement was a first step in a different way of dealing with these issues. So there is a similarity and I hadn’t thought about it.
DRE:
Some of the people you talked to that believe the Protocols is real seemed very intelligent. Can you believe that even such smart people would give credence to this asinine concept?
ML:
That’s a good point. Ignorance, fear and impotence, meaning powerlessness and humiliation, are all ingredients in hate, bigotry and tolerance. But it is surprising that there are intelligent people that buy into this stuff. It’s like saying intelligent people believe things about their religion and faith. This is faith-based and that’s what is so fascinating about it.
DRE:
I suppose it’s like the way one of Grandmasters of the Ku Klux Klan was Harvard educated but he believes that Jews and African-Americans are subhumans. How could any intelligent person believe that?
ML:
It’s mind boggling. How could anybody believe that no Jews died on 9/11? It makes no sense. It’s like what you’re saying. It becomes an article of faith and that’s one of the challenges. It’s not just intellect and reason. It’s why humor is a weapon. It’s why dialogue is not just debate. It’s not just argument. There are other things happening.
We screened the film in Berkeley and a music professor got up and said, “I’m a student of how listening changes the brain and when music and people really listen to music and not as background, their brain waves change. I think I saw something in this movie that real listening is the music of meaning. It changes. It doesn’t change your ideology. You’re not converted, but the atmospherics, the tone, the atmosphere changes.” I had never even thought about that in making the film, but my way obviously was dialogue, listening and preemptive engagement. People said, “You’re a fool. You’re expecting to convert these people? Are you giving them a platform?” The platform is a risk. I understand the risk and have taken the risk in many of my films so this is not alone there. No, I didn’t think they would be converted. Conversion? No. Conversation? Yes. I’ve seen the dynamics and the tone change. It’s incremental, but you can’t have anything else until you get that.
We screened the film in Berkeley and a music professor got up and said, “I’m a student of how listening changes the brain and when music and people really listen to music and not as background, their brain waves change. I think I saw something in this movie that real listening is the music of meaning. It changes. It doesn’t change your ideology. You’re not converted, but the atmospherics, the tone, the atmosphere changes.” I had never even thought about that in making the film, but my way obviously was dialogue, listening and preemptive engagement. People said, “You’re a fool. You’re expecting to convert these people? Are you giving them a platform?” The platform is a risk. I understand the risk and have taken the risk in many of my films so this is not alone there. No, I didn’t think they would be converted. Conversion? No. Conversation? Yes. I’ve seen the dynamics and the tone change. It’s incremental, but you can’t have anything else until you get that.
DRE:
Do you think this film could make Jews and non-Jews pay attention to this topic?
ML:
Sure. I have two children and I certainly wanted the film to be accessible to the younger generation. I didn’t want you to feel that if you weren’t an expert on the Torah or the New Testament or the Koran, you couldn’t participate. Or if you didn’t know about colonialism in the Middle East. This is a dialogue open to all and we’re all experts because all of us have some of these feelings inside us. I consciously chose to make it in what is I guess a more gonzo style. Joking around can often be a more effective way of deflating it. Larry David’s Curb Your Enthusiasm did a show three weeks ago on The Passion of the Christ and it was unbelievable. That show was just so outrageous; I was on the floor laughing. It certainly answered any questions that I ever would’ve had of him. He used humor. That’s what I’m saying. It’s not just getting a college professor to give you all the examples of how The Protocols is a fraud. Of course someone can say, “Oh. Turns out he’s a Jew too.” There’s a circular thinking and to break it you’ve got to use everything.
DRE:
If you do another documentary, do you think you’ll put yourself in it as much?
ML:
No, I’m working on two other documentaries I’m not in. It’s more my return to the documentaries I’ve done in the past. This is probably the only film I will be in.
DRE:
How did you like editing yourself?
ML:
That was the hardest thing because I started in the editing room as a kid. That’s always been my safe house.
DRE:
Now you had to say to “I sucked there.”
ML:
Exactly, I found it impossible. I love being irreverent in the editing room and seeing my own mug up there. Ken Eluto was my editor and he’s a brilliant guy. I had to really trust him because my instinct was to minimize me, but he had to make some of the calls. So I had to let go which was the hardest thing.
DRE:
What do you think when the marketing team at ThinkFilm comes up with a poster like that?
ML:
At first I was a little nervous especially in this city. It’s touchy. I hope that people understand. I think that it’s legitimate because that’s how I saw the return of the Protocols. It was wrapped up in this urban legend that the Jews were all warned and no Jews died on 9/11. Hundreds of Jews died. Then when the guy in the film says there were no Jewish funerals or services. Someone had had a service on the Upper East Side that [Governor] Pataki, [Mayor] Giuliani and all these celebrities attended. Hopefully if the film does anything, it will at least get that off the table and we can accept the Protocols as fraud. If you want to say there are certain things about Jewish power, about Israel, about American foreign policy, let’s move the discussion in that direction.
DRE:
You’ve been making documentaries for quite a few years. Since Fahrenheit 9/11 many of them have been doing amazingly well. When making this one did you notice a change in attitude regarding documentaries?
ML:
Oh yeah. This summer I remember walking down the street and there were like ten documentaries playing in theaters. That’s unheard of. I think what we’re witnessing is that you can’t just turn the indie spirit into a formula. In the fiction world a lot of great stuff is still being done, but it’s almost become like the minor leagues for Hollywood. Whereas with the documentary world, it’s tougher. Yeah you can get into reality TV, as Morgan Spurlock did with 30 Days. But it’s a much harder form to just commodify and to turn into formula. So you find in a time where you have 500 cable stations, you’d think the last thing in the world that would be making it in the marketplace would be documentary films.
DRE:
I never thought anyone would every see any documentaries ever.
ML:
But I think there is a hunger for, not only authentic and individual points of view, but people who are offering to make sense of it. The news bombards you with the so-called objective facts. “The Constitution was ratified yesterday in Baghdad.” There’s no “what does it all mean?” Then on the web it’s almost the opposite. It’s such an overload and there’s so much disinformation. Ironically the marketplace in theaters is open for filmmakers and new technology allows it to come from a personal perspective. Right before this I was doing a TV series in Canada for Showtime called Street Time. I directed the pilot and then ended up becoming the show runner. I had never done TV before, but I remember while I was doing that, I went and saw Bowling for Columbine in Toronto. I remember leaving with Richard Stratton, my partner, and saying “This is the moment for documentaries. This is fantastic. I got to get back in the game here.”
DRE:
Do you know what you’re doing next?
ML:
A bunch of things. Documentaries and fiction films. The thing that’s growing out of Protocols is a fiction film, which we sometimes jokingly call Jihad in Jersey. That came out of my encounters on the streets of Patterson New Jersey with some Arab-American kids. The collision of street culture, which is in Slam, with this new world of religious fanaticism. A law enforcement character, who is a non-believer in any religion, gets caught in the middle of that.
by Daniel Robert Epstein
SG Username: AndersWolleck
by Daniel Robert Epstein
SG Username: AndersWolleck
loading your activity feed...