Watch Among the Believers

Among the Believers

Among the Believers is a movie starring Abdul Aziz and Pervez Hoodbhoy. An unsettling and eye opening exploration into the spread of the radical Islamic school Red Mosque in Pakistan, which trains legions of children to devote their...

Other Titles
Jihadistskolan, Miedzy wyznawcami, Jihadistien koulu
Running Time
1 hours 24 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Documentary, War, Biography, News
Mohammed Naqvi, Hemal Trivedi
Jonathan Goodman Levitt
Abdul Aziz, Pervez Hoodbhoy
Pakistan, USA
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

Firebrand cleric Abdul Aziz Ghazi, an ISIS supporter and Taliban ally, is waging jihad against the Pakistani government with the aim of imposing Shariah law. His primary weapon is his expanding network of Islamic seminaries for children as young as four. Among the Believers follows Aziz's personal quest, and charts the lives of two of his teenage students who are pawns in his ideological war.

Comments about documentary «Among the Believers» (22)

Tyler photo

It is obvious, from the trailers and early press releases, that the documentary will make an interesting look at the career of Kurt Cobain. However, this documentary was far better than I expected, and it provides much information on the subject matter. It also gives a good overview of the life of Kurt Cobain, and a lot of information about his music career, while at the same time trying to tell the viewer the story of his death. While the first 20 minutes is mostly about his music, it does take a while to get to the story of his death, and the two films together don't have that much material to talk about. However, they are not bad documentaries, and I can see that they will be worth your time. In particular, the first half of the documentary is quite good, though. Also, it is nice to see a documentary, made for both fans and non-fans, and it is nice to see a different perspective on Kurt Cobain. Overall, I would recommend this documentary, and I will probably watch it more often. It is worth your time, and I hope to see more films like this one in the future.

Lawrence photo

For a story about a war that took place over 40 years ago, this film is very good. I loved seeing the camaraderie between the soldiers. It was very fascinating to see all the stories that were told to the camera. This is a film that should be seen by anyone who is interested in the war.

Catherine C. photo
Catherine C.

This is a fascinating film, which tells the story of the Holocaust as it unfolded in Jewish and non-Jewish Palestine. It gives a fascinating glimpse into the psychology of the surviving Jews, and of the people who fought against the Nazis, as well as of the attitudes that the survivors had to face, whether they wanted to or not. In the film's most compelling moments, the film cuts back to people inside and outside the camps, and then to the actions of the Germans themselves. This documentary is a very important one. It should be seen by anyone who wants to learn more about the atrocities committed during WWII, and also by anyone who is curious about the modern-day experiences of the Jewish people.

Phillip photo

This movie follows the journey of a group of Southern Vietnam veterans who participated in the Tet Offensive of 1968. Some of the veterans were born and raised in the South and they do not really know where they came from. Many are somewhat ashamed of what they have done, but they all want to go to Vietnam to tell the world about what they did. One of the veterans is a physician who just became a grandmother and wanted to get her story on the big screen. She did not want to make it a propaganda movie. The Vietnam War is no longer talked about but it is still being talked about in the media. This film is the real story of the veterans. There is not much violence and no nudity, but it is not a normal documentary. We are not told what happened to the veterans but we do see the interviews and hear their stories. This is not a picture that shows us the horrors of the war but it does show us a perspective from a veteran and his family. This is a very compelling movie. The narrative style was done well and the presentation was well done. There were many powerful scenes but most of the scenes did not really add to the movie. The main argument that the veterans were not really that good because they were not really there. There are many times when we saw the images from the perspective of a viewer. One time the viewer was a Vietnamese woman who had lost her son to the war. She was not sure what to think and felt guilty for what she had done. There were other scenes of people who were friends of the veterans who were very upset with what they had done. The movie also had several other Vietnam veterans who were very depressed and did not want to go. There were scenes of people in a coffee shop talking about their experiences in Vietnam and how they felt. There were also many scenes from families of the veterans who had died in Vietnam. Some people were still grieving when they were back in the South. They were very conflicted about what they had done. There was also a segment from a Vietnam veteran who was in a wheelchair who was giving a message to a young child and he talked about how he never really felt like he was in Vietnam. The movie left out all the atrocities that the veterans had been through and just showed the process of the veterans going to Vietnam and then the journey of what it was like to be in the army. We do not see the atrocities that the military did or were supposed to do. It is hard to really know how it was and the Vietnam War still is. This movie is about the journey and the struggle that veterans went through to make it to Vietnam. This is an important film and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the Vietnam War. 7 out of 10 stars.

Olivia W. photo
Olivia W.

A little history lesson to boost your patriotism for my fellow comrades. But how is it? Is there a war in the Balkans? Yes there is a war between Serbia and Macedonia. But if you just have a "history lesson" with your fellow Americans, do not forget to watch the movie, too. "American Sniper" just released to the cinemas of America, and yet it is not mentioned. "American Sniper" is a movie by award-winning film director Clint Eastwood, whose life is filled with great achievements. And he will be sadly disappointed with this film. It's not a documentary, and it is not about the Balkans war. It's about the legendary actor, who served in the US Army during the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq. And it's about how he prepared himself for war to take place in Iraq, to become a "American Sniper", but the war never took place. "American Sniper" will make you think about your country and war in your country, and about what your country is fighting for. It is just a very good movie. But it is not a documentary. It is a great movie. And it deserves an Academy Award, even though it was just nominated to the Academy Award. Of course, there are many inaccuracies. But the most important is, of course, that this is a movie. It is a movie. Clint Eastwood gave a great performance. And you are good to see him. And in the movie, he faced the pains and challenges that were called "the real war". I think that it is an injustice that he was not given the award. And what a great director he is!

Juan photo

This documentary on the resistance of the Japanese soldiers at the time of Pearl Harbor is a well-directed film. There are a number of strong personalities in the film - as they were at the time - including the likes of Japanese immigrant Choiseul Masuda, filmmaker Kenji Mizoguchi, author Doris Lessing, and author Michael Dorsey. They discuss their experiences as soldiers and the nature of the Japanese experience in the Pacific theater. Much of the film was devoted to the experiences of the Japanese civilians that faced the Japanese soldiers. Masuda is interviewed about the Pearl Harbor attack and about his concerns about the future of his family. The overall feeling is that much of the film was from Masuda's perspective and he seems quite at ease with that fact. The film is edited well, with good access to important historical material. The color photography is very effective and especially helps the viewer see what Masuda saw in the city of Manila. Much of the film focused on Masuda's relationship with his family, which I found was much more interesting than the Japanese experience at the time of Pearl Harbor. The film is a bit slow moving and very poetic. However, the film is worth seeing because of the strong performances by its cast, especially by Masuda, Doris Lessing, and Mike Dorsey.

Ethan photo

While the movie "The American Dream" was really about America, this documentary was really about the followers of religion, the truth about it. I really liked this movie and can't wait to see it again, probably in 2 days time. I liked this movie a lot because it was realistic, it's not like the Hollywood movies, which try to make it like a Disney movie, and that's not fair. It was a good movie and really the most informative of it's kind. It shows the inner-tragedy of it's followers, because people used to believe that it was a good thing to follow, until it turned out that this religion had really wrong ideas. This movie also explains what the so called "Christians" have done to our country. I'm really glad I saw this movie, because if I didn't I would have never know what was going on in this country. I also think this movie is very realistic, because it shows it's followers in a lot of ways. Not everyone is bad, everyone has the same fate and we all have to face our own troubles, although this is the most realistic of all the documentaries. It's a good movie and a must watch.

Jessica Banks photo
Jessica Banks

As we all know, the story of Joseph Smith (among other Mormon luminaries) is not in our control. The story of Mormonism was forged by a generation of Church officials who were influenced by their leaders. These were not your ordinary folks. It is not my intention to deny that Joseph Smith did a tremendous amount of work for the Church, and even his detractors acknowledge the tremendous work of his associates. We only wish that they would give us a few facts that might mitigate the possible offense that comes from holding a person responsible for their personal choices. This film does not attempt to present Joseph Smith as a saint or prophet. It is a film that presents Joseph Smith as a flawed human who made poor choices, but it is not an attempt to castigate him. It is simply a movie that is intended to present the personal stories of the Saints who were Mormon and to demonstrate how LDS scholars and other historians in the field of Mormon history interpret the story. If you are a Mormon and have already read the book of Mormon, you might enjoy this film more. For the rest of us, it is probably the most important film that we have ever seen. With that, we can see how Joseph Smith's biography, both in its time and in our own, is so often taken out of context. The story of Joseph Smith is not only one of prophet-ship and history, but it is a story that is closely linked to his personal life and his personal struggles. We learn of his struggles with alcoholism, his brushes with demonic threats, and his struggle with family members in the aftermath of the first Mormon Prophet's death. In this respect, the film is very relevant today. The film makes no claims that Joseph Smith was a saint or prophet. However, it does attempt to give a perspective from a historian and a Mormon scholar, showing the personal stories of a group of LDS Church leaders and Church historians, as well as LDS historians in general, in their interpretation of the Joseph Smith story. I highly recommend that people see this film. It is a powerful, beautifully made, and provocative piece that is very well worth seeing.

Pamela photo

After the documentary, I was ready for a very sobering documentary but, actually, the documentary became much more interesting than it had been. What surprised me most was how much the producer had managed to get inside the minds of these war victims. He had managed to make a very powerful documentary out of a story that could not have been so great if it was not for the "Blacklist". One should not underestimate the importance of the Blacklist in the German and Yugoslav wars of the 70's. In the same way that American politicians were concerned about the social and political situation in the 1930's, Blacklist members were concerned about what their country would do in the future, if it were attacked by an enemy of the Soviet Union. Both countries created and implemented such measures, until they eventually went on to create the "War" of the 70's. I strongly recommend that those interested in the subject of the Blacklist should see this documentary.

Jane W. photo
Jane W.

This was, I think, an okay movie. The documentary-style photography was interesting. The interviews with the remaining victims and survivors were also very informative. It would have been nice if the directors had done a bit more research on the persons who died on D-Day and how they managed to live through the horrors of combat. It would have been great to see a more emotional representation of the same. It would have been even more effective if the filmmakers had discussed the French-Canadian friendship. I'm sure that a couple of the War Criminals did have family members in Canada and, as the filmmakers point out, a few people from other countries as well. However, this still wouldn't have been a very compelling documentary, since they all basically talk about their experiences, rather than recounting the history of their fellow soldiers.

Barbara M. photo
Barbara M.

In early 1945 the Reich leader, Adolf Hitler, was made head of state in a brutal occupation of the country. Then he had a final showdown with an isolated group of resistance fighters, led by his own personal minister, Hermann Goering, and a small band of well-armed, disciplined and very efficient Nazi soldiers. This film was created by the British journalist Ian Kershaw, and this film he said was the first to "look into" the Nazi war crimes of the Third Reich. It also was the first film ever made to feature interviews with all of Hitler's closest advisors. This documentary seems to be very balanced and mostly based on archival information from the war. Kershaw did an excellent job of telling a gripping story of the trials of those accused of the crimes, as well as of the real trial. The film offers a historical account of the trial of Adolf Hitler, his five associates and their captors, their supporters and the jury members. Kershaw explains that the five men and the eight Nazi leaders were captured in May 1944 and were set free by Goering's death in November 1945. The trial of the six accused was then held in April 1945, but Hitler was not found guilty of the crimes. Kershaw also interviewed six of Hitler's closest advisers: Goering, who was executed shortly after the war's end in August 1945, Hermann Goering's wife, Franziska Braun, an Austrian Nazi sympathizer and prostitute, Leopold Wolff, the leader of the Nazi party and party leader in Germany, and Goering's confidant and bodyguard, Friedrich Roettgen, who was shot and hanged in July 1945. Kershaw also interviewed the British ambassador at the time, Lord Oxford, and Oxford's assistant, William Sommerville, a Briton who was a close associate of the British prime minister, Winston Churchill. The film makes clear that these five men were hanged for crimes of murder, murder of a certain assistant SS officer, and murder of others in Hitler's own army, even though they had been acquitted by a single verdict in the trial. Kershaw said the evidence of this conviction was not strong. The film also says that in all of the trials in which these men were charged, only one was convicted and executed. Kershaw said the victims of these trials were not those convicted of the crimes, but rather the Nazi leaders and their supporters. Kershaw said that in the trials of Hitler's closest advisers and his own personal minister, Goering, Goering himself was not convicted, because Goering was executed just prior to the trial, as was Hitler himself. Kershaw also said that there were five other trials in which all the accused were convicted, but no one was executed. Kershaw said he did not know if this was true, but he said it seemed to me to be the case.

Rose photo

The Indian War is a very often mentioned in the history books of India. In the next one to few decades, this topic will be increasingly discussed in the Western Countries. The great majority of the discussion and studies on this subject in the West are very much biased. The most valuable feature of this documentary is the well-known scene of the whole 2nd World War being shown. This is an iconic scene which is about two and a half hours long and can be watched again and again. The other valuable feature is the perspective of each of the four main characters of the film. The historian P.B.S. Sir D.G.M.Firth, and the strategist K.S.K. Banaji, have all a very well articulated and detailed account of the "War". The historians have also said that in the second half of the war, India lost because it did not have any real enemy on its side. They have used this argument to justify the British government's decision to support the Hindenburg's decision to change the Indian military from an organization that was focused on the military to a military organization focused on the battle of other nations. Sir D.G.M.Firth, in his book "The Great War", wrote that India has no real enemy because it is not interested in battle. But K.S.K. Banaji, in his book "Fulfilling History", which I recommend to everyone, was the first one to point out that India is being destroyed by a mix of factors, mainly the British policy. In his book Banaji also pointed out that India is in the wrong. He used the phrase, "It was a crime, it was a crime, it was a crime." After watching the film, it has become clear to me why Banaji and Sir D.G.M.Firth made this film. It is because they know how important this film is and this film has a very strong, bold and compelling impact on the entire population of India. This film has two very important parts. One, the summary of the history of the two nations, in which each of the four character have summarized their views on the war. The other part is the film itself. The two parts are not so different from each other. The film itself is an important feature of this documentary because it focuses on the Indian War, and because it shows that the whole war was not just a battle between Germany and France. In fact, it has its own purpose. One of the most interesting features of the film is that there are no certain stories told. There are no interviews with the leaders of both countries or generals. In fact, the documentary simply tells the story of the war as it is seen by the people of India. There are no histories of British atrocities in India or of any other battles of the war. There are no facts about the numbers of casualties in India. There is no mention of the participation of India and Germany in the war. There is no mention of what made Britain and Germany hate each other, or of the British attitude towards India. There are no descriptions of what the Indian people thought about the war. All that we get is what the people of India think about the war. This makes the film very important. Because the entire history of the war is based on these two points. One, that the British government supported a change in the Indian military and an increase in British military presence in India. Two, that the entire war was in fact a war between two nations, Germany and India, who had a close friendship, and the whole war was really just a fight between two nations. This film does a very good job of taking these two elements and making it interesting. All of the four characters were very well portrayed and very well researched. The film also gives a very clear picture of the situation in India at the time. The four main characters were really unique. Each of them was very different and had very different views on the war.

Howard L. photo
Howard L.

I've read some of the other reviews of this film, and although I'm not exactly an academic, I do think I know what was going on. There were several key scenes that were depicted so clearly, that it seemed that they were taking a page out of the work of James Fenimore Cooper. In the most famous scene, at the end of the film, someone (the sole survivor, of course) emerges from a laundry bag with a rifle over his shoulder, looking a lot like the one the film-makers mentioned. The helicopter's plane and aircraft carrier did the same, so that to me looked like Cooper was actually directing the film. But when I re-watched the film after more time had elapsed, I noticed that the men and women on the chopper were again portrayed as giving it the old college try. The special effects were great, as was the music, except for one scene, during which an almost 1-dimensional character with a name that I can't recall was treated as if he were a real person. This was a prime example of what would have been funny if it wasn't so predictable. The only thing that really bugged me, about the whole thing, was the director's obvious wish to be a revolutionary, and not be true to the historical facts of the events. I'm not a historian, but I've read all of the books written about the events. And what were these people doing? They were able to enter into the grounds of the OSS (the predecessor of the OSS), and the officers and men, who were there, and was also able to write a history of the OSS. (I did not get to read the history at the end of the film, but it's probably a pretty interesting one.) Well, no, not true. But I don't really know what the real story is about this part of history. I think I would be a bit miffed if I were him. And I don't think anyone will be. If there was a mania over the film, it was the group of people who looked like the professional actors. In fact, I was actually astonished to see the film-makers at a screening of it at the National Air and Space Museum. The director himself said he was an OSS. He must have made this film to get back at those who say he's a hack. And if I'm not mistaken, he was indeed a hack.

Andrew photo

After the war, the Americans felt their military operation was the key to a lasting peace. With the Cold War, America wanted to maintain and increase its nuclear arsenal. Through the years, this perception has changed. Nuclear weapons are in danger of being used again. We've seen their use in a few wars and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The many images in this documentary show that the imagery from Hiroshima to Nagasaki are still very vivid for Americans. As someone who was never there, I was very moved by this documentary. It's an emotional ride and I was looking forward to seeing more of it. I was a little disappointed in this documentary because it was a little long and didn't give you enough information. However, I think it's important for those who are uninformed and those who need to be informed. What I liked best about the documentary is the very emotional story of a family dealing with the horror of the bombs, not from the sense of excitement and fear, but more from the deep fear that they will never be able to see the fires burn out. One of the saddest parts was to see the children's faces as they experienced their parents suffering from radiation sickness. It was difficult to watch. However, what I also really liked about the documentary is the men and women who are risking their lives to try to help those that they loved. I have seen the people in the film. I am a chemical engineer who cares about the environment. I have worked for Greenpeace for over 10 years. I am also a Christian and I work for the environmental organization, the non-profit organization Friends of the Earth. I love to see the good that I can do and I am proud of the work that I do. When I first heard about the Hiroshima bombing, I was so moved that I volunteered to help with the relief efforts. I got an early morning call from my grandmother and told her about the news. I was going to the Hiroshima site and met some of the people that were there that night. The film shows the suffering of the people and their families and how they are suffering and how they are trying to make a living. I found the documentary to be very moving and it makes you think about what people think of the situation. It is very heart-wrenching to see the images from Hiroshima and other parts of Japan as people try to try to survive. Overall, this documentary is very important to people. It is a sad reminder of the issues that Americans are facing today.

Hannah Hopkins photo
Hannah Hopkins

I came to this documentary with low expectations, since the title evoked the negative reaction that I thought it would provoke. But once I began to watch it, I quickly became aware of how much this documentary resonated with me. The journalists, the survivors and the other people they interviewed are on the same page, almost all of them, even the most skeptical, supporting this story. The movie presents a rather bizarre and unprecedented view of the Vietnam War. One must admit that the first half of the film presents the story of a single participant, but it gets much more interesting as the story unfolds, and very easily becomes more of a documentary than a fiction. One can watch this film and not see any of the subjects, the Vietnam War, the war in Cambodia, the invasions of Grenada, or the political turmoil of the Middle East. It does not matter that the Vietnam War happened 15 years ago, and that Cambodia is a relatively recent topic, and that Grenada is a much more recent subject. The first half of the film presents the story of two of the war's most important protagonists: El Salvador's Alfredo Orfina and the head of the Irish Republican Army, Brendan Behan. It tells the story of the war from both sides' perspectives, and the film itself is nothing less than a political thriller, a study of how our own world gets divided into two sides, or at least that is the opinion of the filmmakers. These are two men who are viewed as paragons of the human spirit, and the participants in the conflict seem to believe in them. Orfina, in particular, represents an idealist, a fanatic who believes in the righteousness of the cause he fights for. For him, the war is nothing but an "occasion" to further his aims. He will not sacrifice his own life for a cause, but will stop at nothing to fight for his cause. Behan is completely different, a simple minded man who, like Orfina, takes a different approach to the cause. He sees the war as a chance to further his career and in order to do that, he will do whatever it takes to make his cause succeed. He is a war addict, and when the time comes for him to fight, he will do whatever he can to win, no matter what the cost. The two of them are side by side, not one man, not two men, but three, and their story is a testimony of the way in which the war affects them and their society. One might call this the ultimate humanist documentary, because it depicts a war as a conflict between ideals and methods. The war, at least to the uninformed viewer, appears to be merely a political plot. To the viewers who are at least at an advanced stage in their understanding of war, this can seem like a brilliant idea. But to others, and especially to those with an open mind, this view of the war might be highly disappointing. Why is the film so bitter? Because it shows how the war affects people, how they are affected psychologically, how they are shaped by the experience of war. It also shows that people are not mindless animals who will go to war just for the sake of it. And if you want to know more, the film presents some amazing information about the horrors of war. You will find that, while the war is portrayed in a very negative way, the movies that were made during that time, especially on film, were also really nasty. But what is the point of being so negative? What is the point of looking at such negative aspects of human nature? How can we really know what makes us who we are? These are the questions that the film poses, and answers them. This documentary is certainly not for everyone. I am not sure that it is for everyone. The subject matter may not be for everyone, and the fact that the filmmakers have shown such an extreme and disturbing view of the war makes this documentary very hard to watch.

Eugene N. photo
Eugene N.


Robert Vargas photo
Robert Vargas

I don't really know what to say about this movie. It seems to be about a bunch of (mostly) westerners making their way in a developing Asian country to support a son of a rich westerner. It's a bit of a disjointed story, and there are several points where I did not really buy the idea of all the westerners having fled because of the discovery of oil in the country. But that aside, it is a good documentary. It shows a lot of personal struggles that people in developing countries have. The presentation of many countries on the brink of corruption and death because of oil is really interesting and is a nice way to show the most ridiculous (and actually, probably true) stories about the oil. Also, it was a nice way to show how the people of the developing world are living in the era of oil. And, in fact, the stories are true and, at least on the surface, real.

Shirley Woods photo
Shirley Woods

I liked it. My personal favorite was the one with General Patton talking about the division in Normandy. I have learned much about that battle and if you have not seen it you should. I had no knowledge of the battle. I watched the film to learn about that battle and what I learned is there are several different movies made about the battle. I am a Soldier myself and I liked this one because it showed what the movie was about. It showed us the battles we fought and the soldiers that fought them. I liked the personal interviews and videos. They were a little boring but it did show a little of the battle. Overall I think it is a good film to see and I recommend it.

Ruth A. photo
Ruth A.

*Spoiler* Well I didn't go to church or have an open mind on religion but I was able to look past some of the oddities in the religion. For example the taboo against sitting next to a woman at the desk. I guess this was taken from this scene in the film. Also the black and white vignette during the intermission. OK that was interesting but it didn't say much about what the people said. The movies was the first one I have seen where I felt like a hypocrite and was able to feel like I was from the company. The thing I didn't get was why the drug addicts wanted to go to the company's country retreats. My friends don't work in the company so I don't really know the company's culture. But what did I miss?

Nathan Schmidt photo
Nathan Schmidt

I have been following the story of the Armenian genocide since it began in 1915, and I think of it with such sadness that I still want to remember it. I thought that the documentary was excellent, and it told the story in a very well-crafted way. However, I felt the need to add a caveat to my rating of the documentary: it's quite possible that I would have been outraged had it been available in English. I was not prepared for how truly awful this documentary is, so for those who want to see the documentary in English, see it here.

Jean Cunningham photo
Jean Cunningham

This film was probably one of the most controversial documentaries that I have ever seen. The subject is extreme and controversial and this movie is about how the Japanese were massacred. It takes many years to study the destruction of the community in these islands in the Pacific. The film was shot with a few films of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a lot of high quality film stock. This film has an interesting perspective that other documentaries like "Shoah" or "Six Day War" have. The film is about three people who survived the island of Kiska and it is about their search for justice. The only problem is that their search is very dangerous. It was hard to survive the typhoons and they had to make a complete turn around. The whole movie is about how they were trying to survive and how they had to be strong to find justice. It is quite interesting that they took these lives because of the Japanese occupation. The documentary does show the film that is is based on and some of the research that is done. But the research seems to be a bit of a hoax. But the film is well made and it is very well made. The people who were on the island were very brave and for the most part it was all the Japanese who were on the island and it was all the Japanese who were killed. But there are a few people who have been murdered by the Japanese who have been forced to leave their loved ones behind. I think that the film is interesting and it is a very interesting story. It is not a documentary and I believe that that is what it was based on. I think that the documentary is very interesting but it does have some flaws. I would recommend it to the Japanese audience but it is definitely not a documentary that I would recommend for the general audience. It is certainly not a documentary that I would recommend to watch but it is a very interesting and very well made documentary.

Rose photo

In the west, the subject of the Holocaust is a hot-button issue and often caused controversy with it's own controversy. For many, this is not an interesting subject. But, that is a shame, because the subject is so much more interesting than what the film makers made of it. And what they did with the subject was to create a documentary that not only delves into the history of the Holocaust but also explores the relationship between the Jews and Christians and the rise and fall of their respective faiths. The film features interviews with three main authors of the works that spawned the Holocaust. The names of the three writers are Arthur Koestler, Paul Rassinier and Joseph Henis. Each of the three also wrote the book The Thirteenth Tribe and has done extensive interviews with historians and religious figures. Each of the three discussed their views of the Holocaust in the context of their own religious faith. Koestler and Rassinier emphasized that the most important fact of the Holocaust is not the genocide but the relationship that people had with each other. Henis, who also contributed to The Thirteenth Tribe, strongly emphasized that the Jews were not victims of the Nazis. Instead, he stressed that the Nazis were victims of a people that were mistreated, exploited and discriminated against. The film actually devotes more than half the film to a history of the religion, Christianity, which had more influence on the Holocaust than the Jewish people. The film is actually divided into two segments. The first is a time-line of the Holocaust and the second is a conversation between Koestler, Henis and other academics and religious figures. The second part of the film is more of an interview with the three authors. Overall, this is a very good documentary. As one reviewer noted, "this film does a good job of focusing the audience's attention on a topic that is truly fascinating."