Kike Like Me (2007 TV Movie) User Reviews

Sad exploration of Jewish identity - Flawed but Interesting

[czarnobog · 5/10 · 2 March 2008]

What starts off as a seemingly whimsical quest for auteur Kastner to "discover" what it means to have a Jewish identity ends in an abort, crushed by the weight of the "new anti-Semitism" and Kastner's inability to deal with the subject objectively.

His inadequacy becomes apparent when he interviews Pat Buchanan and is dismissed when it becomes clear that he's simply wasting the very cooperative Buchanan's time.

He moves on to England, and interviews an overtly anti-Semitic commentator, and does his best (but fails) to entrap a poor cabbie with some crudely pointed questions.

On to France, where he finds a gleam of hope, only to have it snuffed by a conversation with some zealously anti-Semitic Arab immigrants (who'd a thunk it?).

Then on to Germany, where he is outwitted by a German woman responsible for the construction of a huge Holocaust monument, because someone has decided it's a bad thing, which gives him the incentive to try once again to entrap her into admitting she's really an anti-Semite (and once again fails).

Finally he visits some Jewish cultural tribute sites in Poland, which thrill him at first, until he figures out that none (of the ones he's visited) are owned by Jews. The fantastic violinist playing Klezmer music isn't a Jew, so she is lumped in with the Arabs and the nasty British commentator in the great anti-Jewish conspiracy the auteur has "uncovered" in his journey.

He ends his quest at Auschwitz, disgusted by the commercialism he finds there. You know, the kind of tourist trinkets sold to FUND the existence of the monument. Tacky? Yes. Anti-Semitic? Hardly.

Kastner's resolve finally sputters completely when he finds out that the woman selling admission tickets to a historic Jewish synagogue is actually a gentile. He angrily demands his "five bucks" back and huffs out. The old Polish woman is puzzled, but readily complies (denying him the opportunity to make a stink about the money or otherwise implicate her in his grand conspiracy.)

He refuses to visit the notorious ovens, remarking instead that the whole place (and all monuments to the Holocaust) are evil and should be razed to the ground, along with those who built and maintain them.

This is the sad part... the realization that the very real anti-Semitism he found in obvious sources earlier in his journey have terrified him so much that he's seeing anti-Semites every time he looks at a gentile.

Next time make a movie about ducks or sailboats or something you can handle, Mr. Kastner. Leave the serious subjects for serious filmmakers.

Give it a chance...

[tydogg2443 · 6/10 · 27 August 2008]

I agree... It appears as if this film was just completely made on-the-fly. It seems disjointed because it was just a series of events that just fell into place a certain way. He went on a journey, and it wasn't a smooth one. As far as his attitude in some of the film, it was a bit of a turnoff. It seemed as if he'd wanted to find semitism at every corner. Maybe for the good of the movie? I don't know. It seemed as if he went into this in a certain mindset and it never altered throughout the entire thing. While he did find semitism, I don't believe he found nearly as much as he thought he would. Especially in the U.S. It definitely felt like he'd already had a chip on his shoulder going into this journey. But in the end even with the pitfalls, I really did enjoy this movie. It's hard not to learn anything from this, especially seeing the memorial portion of the movie as well as the interviews on the streets of a Paris suburb.

You always knew there was semitism, but it's not all that hard to find if you're looking for it. What the creator was aiming to do here, however, remains a mystery to me. Maybe it's exactly that. There is a lack of focus. Maybe you could say it's a very generalized, blurry perspective. You're getting a look at something the director wants you to see, but you're not sure what EXACTLY is there to be seen.

I do have one question, though... Was the hot dog at Auschwitz kosher? =) Just one of those dark humor things you'll catch in this movie. It's a good watch, but don't expect to come out of this thing feeling like a changed person.

A travelogue through a contemporary Jewish (lack of) identity

[tennis_larry · 6/10 · 13 January 2013]

Jewish people have always wondered, "what makes us different" if anything? Certainly many non Jewish have considered us different, and I think that is the jumping off point for this travelogue through Jamie Kastener's identity crisis if you will.

He's curious. I'm curious and the whole situation as it stands now is curious. And I'm still curious because I don't feel that JC gave any good answers, but suppose he made us think - a little. Most often I thought "why is he asking that" and "why doesn't he ask" ...

When he ran across the Arab youth in France he should have asked, you say that "they will screw you over any opportunity" but what has any Jew done to harm you personally? Or "would you screw a Jew over at any opportunity?" yourself. Or "how would you treat someone if if they thought the same of you?" Instead he asked, "Why don't you like ME??".

When he gave the $5 to the lady at the temple, and then asked for it back, that was crass. Was he trying to portray an example of a stingy Jew or one who only supports their own? He was just moody.

I did find it curious that there were no Jews seen in Krakow(?) where the temple was, the bagel store was closed, and yet there were non-Jewish Yiddish entertainers at the Jewish restaurant that was owned by non-Jewish owners. That really calls for more investigation. What's going on there? Is it for tourists. Is it for guilt remediation that Poles and Germans go to these places? He didn't care to find out.

Also it was really curious why fans of the soccer team in the Netherlands called themselves "yids" or Jews, and wore symbols along those lines. Is it kind of a "Indian" thing, where sports team fans carry tom-a-hocks and celebrate the fighting nature of the natives? Certainly Jews have a fighting spirit and have had to had one to survive. Perhaps that is this quality that is most developed in the Jew, although one tends to think that it is "intellect". Perhaps it's that the Netherlands have also become anti-Arab and being pro-Jewish is another way to be anti-Arab. I don't know but would like to know more...

Anyway he was at Auschwitz and wanted the whole thing to be blown up. Like most Jews he wants antisemitism to just "go away". It's probably not going to happen. But was is the real impact of the museum on the visitors, especially non-Jewish? He never provided us that information.

He may have been honest and at the level most people think, but we expect a deeper analysis from a filmmaker. This is why I call this a travelogue and not an investigative documentary. I think everyone would benefit from more contemporary explorations similar to what JC did in his, although a deeper investigative journalistic journey that is more fulfilling.

The majority doesn't work but it is sporadically interesting and amusing

[bob the moo · 16 November 2007]

Canadian Jamie Kastner is often asked if he is Jewish and the question often annoys him as he doesn't understand why it should matter whether he is or not. Inspired by the Gregory Peck film Gentleman's Agreement (in which he pretends to be Jewish in order to explore anti-Semitism), Kastner sets out across the world to explore anti-Semantism himself. His journey takes him to Brooklyn (where he is embraced as a Jew and given his Bar Mitzvah), the US (where he meets politician Pat Buchanan), London (where anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise), Paris (where he starts a fight on the subject) and of course heads to Auschwitz.

Regardless of whether he is Jewish or not, Kastner's film exploring anti-Semitism manages to be clever and yet crass, sensitive and yet overly sarcastic, intelligent yet simplistic and accordingly the final film is a very mixed bag and I'm not entirely sure how I ended up taking it. Kastner approaches the subject with a blundering insensitivity that I found to be quite crass and at times it makes for very weak segments. The best example of this is the interview with Pat Buchanan that really goes nowhere and ends once the politician realises that Kastner has one thing on his agenda and won't stop till he gets a sound bite that backs it up ("you're looking for answers that you're not getting") but yet Kastner still tries to make his exit into some sort of persecution.

Conversely though his simple questions manage to start a fight between some random people on the street by talking about Jews. This moment exposes the problem but sadly he fails to deliver this in the same way when he goes to London and forces a Taxi driver to say what makes him think he is Jewish – the obvious answer of course being "because you're making a film on the subject and you're asking me about Jewish people, not the fact you have curly hair although that is clearly what you are looking for me to say". His sarcasm over Auschwitz is misplaced – yes it is weird that it is a tourist attraction but not as wrong and weird as Kastner suggests with his strong (but yet emotionally cold) reaction.

What he does achieve though is sort of sending out the message that Jews are getting a hard time, although maybe not that hard a time. The contributions are limited and it is only one or two of them that lets Kastner make his point well – the rest of them will win you over if you are already with him but otherwise they fall flat. A mixed film then, that doesn't seem to have the structure that it needs. Interesting and amusing stuff, but only to a point – the majority of the film didn't really do a lot for me.

Loses focus along the way...

[the-pond · 3/10 · 6 February 2008]

I am not sure what Kastner wanted to achieve with this piece. All the points of entry seem to be skewed; whether trying to interview Pat Buchanan or getting a rise out of poor, unemployed, indigent French youth he just keeps missing the mark.

The one thing I found interesting was that the only people in the film who were concerned about him being Jewish were other jews! He seems to have missed this point entirely.

Not sure how a Jewish viewer would react to this film. You have to see it to decide.

Other than poor editing and a lack of vision, the biggest problem with this film is that Kastner comes across as genuinely unlikeable.

Anti-Semitic and Inappropriate

[Coopster · 2/10 · 17 December 2007]

This film had a lot of promise, and indeed there are moments where the filmmaker gets out of the way enough for it to succeed, most notably a confrontation between Jews and Arabs on a city street in France. But by and large, the inappropriate sarcasm of the filmmaker/narrator makes this film offensive to me. At Auschwitz, his lack of respect for the dead and for the import of where he is is truly mind-boggling, and comes off as anti-Semitic. Those anti-Semitic tones -- not from others, but from the filmmaker himself, whether he is Jewish or not -- echo throughout the film. I'm sure he thought he was being sarcastic or funny, but it's neither -- it's nothing more than intentionally offensive.

There is an arrogance to the way that the filmmaker looks at those around him that is very off-putting -- those that criticize Michael Moore for making his films too much about him will hate this film. Come to think of it, I suppose the entire time Kastner is really just doing a bad Moore impersonation. Really bad.

The thesis is generally muddled -- it's supposed to be about what Jewish identity means, but the film meanders and often goes off on tangents that seem unrelated to the stated goal of the film. Still, it's unfortunate that the film doesn't work given the great potential of plumbing the important issue of anti-Semitism in the world. I just wish so much didn't come from the filmmaker.

Poor Moore imitation

[JohnSeal · 3/10 · 8 January 2008]

Jamie Kastner, you are no Michael Moore, though you are clearly desperate to be his Canadian understudy. Truly, he makes Moore (who's a far better filmmaker, period) look like a paragon of journalistic integrity. This obnoxious and fairly noxious exercise in navel-gazing is a narcissistic 'documentary' of the worst sort: Kastner looks for anyone who will help him prove his point and is then unrelentingly rude to them. Examples: his treatment of an elderly woman he mistakes as Jewish in Poland is unconscionable, his cavalier attitude toward Holocaust memorials sickening, and his attempt to bait Pat Buchanan pathetic. Yes, Jamie, it is possible to be both Jewish AND a neo-con, and that stating this obvious fact does NOT automatically make someone an anti-semite! This is a nasty little film with a bitter heart disguised as one man's search for himself. Avoid avoid avoid.

From interest to awe

[ScalNeCuS · 3/10 · 8 May 2008]

OK, I didn't saw this doc from the beginning, and neither did I know what it was about. So how did I tune in. I saw a person who claimed to be a Jew, but said he was not, presenting himself to other people about the subject of "being a Jew". Aha, I thought.., another "Louis Theroux"-reporter, trying to go to the bone of things. But how further the documentary evolved, the lesser I respected the reporter. He seemed to be completely biased about the subject, and acted like he knew it all. He was totally disrespectful about the tradition of having Jewish monuments after the IInd WWar. Maybe he picked up some hate-feelings of those football-hooligan Amsterdam-Joden, Which aren't Jews at all.

For me, Mr. Kastner, you act, like I would think any narrow minded Jew would do. Please insert into every next product or docu you make, you are a narrow minded Jew, so we don't waist any time in watching your product.

I didn't hate it

[Lancetb · 8/10 · 1 January 2008]

Quite frankly, "Kike Like Me" grated on my nerves. You know what Jamie? Your problem isn't that you're a Jew; it's that you're obnoxious and presumptuous.

I found a couple of scenes particularly irritating: 1) When you went into Pat Buchanan's home and were rude, and; 2) When you made an off-the-cuff remark about Christians at Auschwitz. While I can't defend the comment in Pat's book, you had no right to confront him in his own home, because that was just rude, period. Regarding the chip on your shoulder about Christians, maybe this is a news flash to you, but Jesus is Jewish and Christians adore him.

This may surprise you, but the reason Christians are so supportive of Israel is because we understand that Christians and Jews are siblings through Jesus. Regardless, keep on making documentaries, you are very talented.

A cynical film-maker proves that it doesn't make any difference if you are Jewish or not, except to yourself.

[threeJane · 7/10 · 24 July 2008]

Or does he? I could think about this film forever, and I probably will from time to time, for the rest of my life. There is the strength of it. If nothing else, this feature documentary makes you really think about why you would ask someone, "Are you Jewish?" I've asked people, and it makes them bristle. I've been asked a lot myself. There are never any consequences to the answer yes or no, so does it change how we think of someone if we know they are Jewish?

Jamie Kastner goes around the world begging people to ask him. He starts getting a bit fed up with humanity in Germany, where memorials to holocaust victims abound. His rather dry tone gets rather drier. On to Krakow, where restaurants called Alef and Ariel serve matzo ball soup to tourists on a Friday night. The waiter admits that the reason the restaurant is open on a Friday night is that the owner is not Jewish. Jamie appears to crack and starts asking the question himself. Is the quartet Jewish? No. Jamie spits the dummy and cynically head over to Bagel Mama. It seems a little more kosher, but still Jamie isn't happy. Will anything please him?

In Krakow, he asks someone else if they are Jewish. I don't want to spoil the surprise here, but the answer affects a financial transaction between Jamie and the other party. Does it matter if you are Jewish or not? I'm confused.

By Auchwitz, Jamie has lost all his mirth. He criticizes the tourists, walking around looking 'dutifully mournful' in their 'hipster outfits' (not looking too shabby yourself there Jamie). He picks a fight with his film-crew, arguing that he doesn't need to go and look at the oven etc. Angry, and not feeling the need to prove his disgust with the Holocaust, Jamie leaves Auchwitz, with the camera following him out the gates.

Oh, I just remembered that there is a hot-dog stand on the way in to the camp. Jamie buys one, and comments that the camp could have done with one during the war. (I suppose, if they were kosher hot-dogs.)

I get it. Jewishness, and the Holocaust are not commodities. But is that all this film was about? I came away with much more.

Where Documentaries Go Awful

[tillzen · 1/10 · 22 December 2008]

Once upon a time, Documentarians like Wiseman let the story organically tell itself. Then along came Michael Moore, and documentaries changed. The Director's began to cheat, and to steer the story. They inserted themselves into the mix, and the films became about them This is what Jamie Kastner has done in "Kike Like Me". His first glaring deficit is that he is not self-aware enough to know how un-funny he most often is. He preens, and poses as if everything he thinks or says is pure gold. Instead, he is rarely funny, and he throws away great opportunities because it is ALL about HIM. Perhaps it is generational, as his preciousness is to me off-putting. It certainly is not his politics, which are as shiftless, as his plans. He seems to just film like a Moth, turning his camera and his aren't I AMAZING personae upon the brightest light in view. Documentary is inherently powerful, but Kastner keeps jazzing it up with insights, and focus that is ham-handed. THIS is a heady, and painful topic for Jews, and the Director's tap-dancing, and patter are insulting. When at Auschwitz after failing at his first 3 attempts at irony, I simply could not watch any longer. The analogy I would give is making an ironic black comedy about "crib-death" and expect it to be cute to those who have lost a child. This is a big bad world, filled with hatred that killed 6 million Jews. Amateurs in both film-making and black comedy had best pick the lightest topic around, as it fits their style. In "Kike Like Me" Jamie Kastner has brought a pickle to knife-fight, and the result is not only insulting to Jews, but it insults thinking. This was a waste of film, and ultimately a waste to a topic that demands deeper thinkers than this dopey un-funny clown.

Clever , Intriguing and Sarcastic

[Greatornot · 9/10 · 18 August 2008]

Yes Jamie Kastner was sarcastic. I thought it worked . He was real and he broke documentary rules because .... he was himself . Wow what a crime. The irony is that Mr. Kastner does not mind if you do not like him , he does mind if you do not like him for being Jewish. Yes he came across as the nerdy dweeb that raises his hand in class for every question the teacher asks. He came across as the annoying pest that will come over everyday without calling or ringing the phone about 50 times. Yes he was all that. He brought up great points. Though he was harsh and very Michael Moore-ish [ I like Michael Moore by the way], he pushed buttons whether they worked or not. I have seen people reviews feeling sorry for the old lady working at the temple . This is the point of it all. The point is that the Jews to this day , in these European nations , in this example Poland are treated like they are 'animals' on exhibit. The temple is an example of how the natives make money off of the Jews. Mr. Kastner was absolutely right, there should have been Jews at that temple. Whom better to understand Jewish worship houses than Jewish people. Mr. Kastner gave his opinion on monuments and Aushwitz museum and he should not be criticized. Rather he brought up debatable points . I liked the movie, I liked Jamie Kastner and I like the fact he opened it up for discussion ON THE MOVIE. Really, you could replace any nationality, race, creed or religion for Jewish and have frank discussions. Excellent movie with great points and I suggest anyone to watch this movie.

Recommend Movie, Film-making Not-so-much

[bksports92 · 7/10 · 19 February 2008]

The movie loses focus, but don't count it out.

An interesting topic that examines what it means to be Jewish? Walking through the streets of Krakow looking for Jews,laying Tefillin in 770, or talking to Pat Bucanon about the Jewish neo-cons.

It shows some people are annoyed with Jews and their "control" over America, but also shows what it would be like to walk a mile in a Jew's shoe.

Most interesting parts were the Krakow "Jewish" restaurants and the Auschwitz experience, where all come to see the place of the mass murder of the Jewish people took place, but not interested in a Jew's point of view.

I recommend this movie to Jews and Goys, but if you are looking for a documentary for its film-making, this is not for you.

Schlock, with a few redeeming qualities

[frucklish · 3/10 · 11 April 2018]

A little background for those reading this: I did not watch this film voluntarily. I just think that might be pertinent information for those wondering why I (or anyone, for that matter) would go into watching something this inherently, obviously stupid and dated of my own volition. I was made to watch this very, very unpleasant film for school, and the fact that anyone would consider something this banal sound for educational use is mind-boggling to me, because this movie is straight garbage.

As I've made somewhat evident, I did not come into this film with very high expectations. Why my teacher would show us a mostly forgotten (and offensive) documentary by a self-involved, pompous filmmaker for a class about religious oppression is beyond me, but I certainly preferred watching this with others over having to watch it by myself, since at least I ended the film with the peace of mind that I wasn't alone in thinking that this movie was dumb as bricks.

In short, Jamie Kastner (or, as it seems he would prefer to be called throughout the course of this film, Jewmie Jewstner) decides that since everyone always thinks he's Jewish because of his curly hair and how much of a nebbish he is, he's going to travel around the world and publicly call himself Jewish with no evidence or insight into why this makes a difference whatsoever. He believes that in doing this, he'll be able to expose the antisemitic behaviors of those around him and in turn, give viewers a glimpse into the life of a true Jew. This idea, which Kastner seems eager to have the film revolve around, caves in on itself pretty quickly, as it relies heavily on the public's anticipated shock and dismay at his status as a proud Jewish man. But when he actually DOES "reveal" his status as Jewish, few people so much as bat an eye. In fact, most responses are less based in fear or anger and more in bewilderment. Most people are just as perplexed as the audience as to why Kastner feels the constant urge to flaunt his faux-Judaism everywhere he goes, and since the premise of the film is essentially, "All my friends tell me that I look Jewish, so I'm going to pretend to be a Jew and see how that goes," there's not much to go off of if no one reacts to it. But it's not like he can pretend to be surprised by any of this: he even admits within the first few minutes of the film that nearly everyone he meets already assumes he's Jewish without even asking him, so what reason would they have to be any more disgusted or alarmed when he says it out loud? As the film goes on, his premise crumbles beneath his feet and eventually just sort of devolves into "Antisemitism is bad".

He also seems to believe that people are too stupid to know when they're being played for a reaction, which becomes clear when he talks to Pat Buchanan and is subsequently forced to leave after picking a fight with him in his own home (which somehow manages to leave Kastner stumped, even more evidence of how clueless he is of his own attitude) and that they will do exactly as he wants if he pushes the right buttons. Sure, it works sometimes, but not because he treats people politely and receives antisemitic sentiment anyway, but because he is usually a persistent, stubborn asshole and gets treated with the same amount of respect as he shows others. It serves less as evidence of others' mistreatment of his not-actually-Jewish heritage and more as oversight on Kastner's part, something which is not too hard to spot throughout the movie.

His ability to crack unfunny jokes at a Holocaust memorial coupled with his readiness to defend "his people" who are not really his people make for a rather confusing dynamic, and makes it hard to tell what tone Kastner is trying to set throughout the film. At some points, you're convinced he's an uninformed asshole who wants to make a serious documentary about the hardships of Jewish life while never actually documenting them, and at others, you're convinced he's a sarcastic asshole who wants to make a lighthearted romp about how silly and funny it is that Jews are still not accepted in modern society. As if either of those things are better than one another.

He treats everyone he meets, regardless of whether or not they support his argument, with such blatant condescension that it's difficult to like or empathize with him, which in turn makes it difficult to see where he's coming from. This treatment extends to the audience as well, since I suppose if he doesn't make a snide comment every two seconds he'll self-destruct, so he decides to fill the movie with sound bites of him being even more unlikable by saying really spiteful, facetious things behind the backs of whoever he's talking to.

The reason I gave this movie three stars as opposed to just one is, in spite of Kastner's snobby attitude, haplessly poor filmmaking skills, and lack of self-awareness, he manages to get on tape some pretty intriguing moments which actually do help to illuminate his argument, with no help from him or his film crew. The most entertaining segment in the film is when Kastner finds himself in the middle of an almost-too-perfectly-timed war of words between some locals in Paris regarding Jews' work ethic, which unfolds beautifully as more and more strangers throw in their two cents and eventually the whole neighborhood is having a go at it. It's quickly glossed over though, I guess because Kastner felt it didn't give him enough reason to voice over a bad joke, and in its place is a rather obnoxious conversation he has with a group of Muslim boys. The boys say some ignorant things about Jewish people but Kastner continuously tries to make it about himself and how they have the audacity to say something like what they're saying in front of a real, live Jew. Whatever point he was attempting to make by asking the boys loaded questions is nullified through his self-involvement, but the authentic moments where Kastner's unpleasantness isn't on full display and we are allowed to see interactions between other people about their feelings on Judaism and Jewish identity are the real gems of the film.

Potentially the worst part of the film is Kastner's insistence on keeping it a secret as to whether or not he's really Jewish, as if it's not made obvious by his own tourist-y behavior when he walks into a synagogue. This is made even more frustrating by the fact that he never actually provides an answer to the question, even though it's probably the only thing anyone even cares to know by the end of the movie.

He finishes by asking those watching why it even matters whether or not he's Jewish, I guess thinking that this is supposed to make us feel really introspective and ask ourselves why we care so much, except he also fails to have any sort of mea culpa and never once considers that maybe we're not the ones who need to be analyzing our own behaviors.

This is an important film

[morteew · 9/10 · 18 December 2007]

Kastner makes his point. We get the feeling that Anti-Semitism will flow on forever, much like the hoaxes on the internet that get forwarded repeatedly. We get a sense of the hatred that is worldwide, yet it can never show a fraction of the magnitude. The scene in Paris where young boys say they will hate him if he says he is Jewish shows that kids have been taught to hate as it was expressed in the play and movie "South Pacific. We can understand how he handled Aushwitz, like it is one big cover-up, modern trains, not boxcars, antiseptic buildings, nice looking brick facades, everything so clean, orderly. i wonder if he was able to control the urge to vomit. Actually, i think his decision not to continue filming there, not to visit the gas chambers is, in a way, a metaphor for heaving one's guts out.

an excellent, if bitter, document

[doctormuzak · 9/10 · 9 August 2009]

I'm surprised at the negative reaction on this site to this film. I experienced this as a powerful documentary, which explores the modern phenomenon of continuing antisemitism in Europe, even after the genocide of WW2. The interviewer is a bitter and sarcastic fellow, and he doesn't hide the fact; I think it's what makes the film interesting and even darker. He tries to jokingly explore the buffoonery of antisemitism, and finds himself caught in his own bitter revelations. I've never heard anyone else before him point out the irony of Europeans eulogizing the dead Jews of Europe, while antisemitism still thrives in their streets - some of the attitudes he documented were straight out of the middle ages. And why would people want to know if he's Jewish? So they can dismiss his viewpoints as "biased", while they accept the views of all others? The film can be upsetting to watch, to be sure, and he could be rude at times, but I think he became increasingly enraged about the subject as his film went on. I found it to be a fascinating, short psychological study of bigotry and the anger it creates (even in the filmmaker), and would recommend it.