Customer Reviews

Believer [VHS]

5 star:		(45)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I was prepared to absolutely hate this 2001 film. It's about Daniel, a Jewish young man who's an anti-Semite. He supposedly hates Jews so much that he becomes a leader of a right wing group. He's cruel and angry and incredibly articulate about it. In fact his arguments are so sophisticated and well done, that some Jewish groups have called it a "primer for anti-Semitism". When the film was released, the press was so bad that the film never was distributed widely, especially since it came out around the time of 9/11.

Based on an actual true story, the film is hard to watch. The star, Ryan Gosling, is such a good actor that I believed in his characterization entirely. His performance is nothing less than mesmerizing, as we see him go through conflicts and gradually change. We see flashbacks to his early years when he attended a Yeshiva and argued with the teacher. We also see short sequences enacting a holocaust story of a murdered child that he plays and replays in his mind. We see a romance with a young woman who is fascinated with Judaism. We see him and a gang of young toughs desecrating a synagogue. There are a lot of ugly words. And forbidden concepts. I found myself cringing throughout.

My heart was beating the whole time. My eyes were glued to the screen. I was disgusted and fascinated and horrified. But, as the film progressed though, I saw that it was not an anti-Semitic film at all. In fact, it said some wonderfully positive things about Judaism and made me proud to be a Jew. However, I'm aware that many people will only see the hate and I understand why this film creates fear. It's very powerful. And it will probably feed the flames of hatred for those who already think that way.

The DVD has some wonderful features. The director, Henry Bean, spoke at length about his search for an actor, his troubles with distributing the film, the true story on which the film is based, and his own struggles as an American assimilated Jew. Another feature on the DVD showed the actual filming of one of the most pivotal scenes in the film. Daniel is alone in a room with a partially destroyed Torah, the holy scroll that all Jews hold sacred. He carefully tries to clean it and repair it with tape. And his body language and facial expressions show all his conflicts and contradictions. The feature also discusses the camera angles, lenses and the use of the light and also talks about the changes made in the editing room. All of this just added to my appreciation of the film.

This is not a film for everyone. And, unfortunately, it will be misinterpreted my many. But I personally loved it. And highly recommend it for those with an open mind.

"The Believer" features Ryan Gosling as a Jewish fascist and is based very loosely on a true story from the 1960s. The movie has been quite controversial, and it was shown originally on cable when the studio that made it decided not to release it in theaters, even though it won awards at Sundance. It was filmed in a raw, almost documentary manner, but it's not really gratuitous. Clearly, it's meant to provoke the viewer into thinking critically about issues of anti-semitism, religion, hatred, and so forth. On that level, it succeeds. "The Believer" is the type of movie that is likely to elicit a great deal of conversation if you watch it with your friends.

Some viewers may compare it to "American History X," but I think that "the Believer" is a much more complex and realistic portrait of aliented youth and hatred. The most frightening aspect of the movie is that it forces the viewer to understand (but not neccesarily sympathize with) the lead character. Ryan Gosling gives a raw, believable star-making performance. Obviously, many viewers may be (justifiably) offended by this movie, but if you're open then give "The Believer" a try. The DVD also features a wonderful episode of "Anatomy of a Scene" that shows the making of one of the best scenes in the movie.

This movie was incredible, the most interesting and well-acted presentation of neo-nazism and post-WWII judaism that I have seen. I was a little surprised that some reviewers mentioned American History X. The two films have little in common, other than the politics of their protraginists. Though American History X was enjoyable, it was not the powerful film (despite the infamous curbing scene) that The Believer is.

Inspired by a true story, Ryan Gosling plays Daniel, a self-hating Jew who denies his heritage and joins up with an American fascist, neo-nazi movement. One reviewer has said that his self-loathing comes from the perceived inability of the Jews to fight back against their attackers, and this is certainly part of the equation. (In one of the more powerful scenes - though there were quiet a few of those - he tells Jewish survivors of the Holocaust that they ought to have "killed their enemies".) However, the flashback the movie provides of Daniel telling his teacher at Hebrew School that he alone recognizes G-d for the "conceited bully" that He is suggests that Daniel's flaws run deep indeed. For it is Daniel, as the movie's first scene shows, who is the real "conceited bully". Brought up with an idea of a punishing G-d, a G-d who would order the Jews to kill their own children, he becomes that G-d by completing the task that Abraham began.

Needless to say, the psychology of the protaginist is the main draw of the movie and what will leave the viewer wondering for hours afterwards. Ryan Gosling's performance is simply incredible, and he gives perfect voice to the twisted rational of modern anti-Semitism. His accusations are refuted, here and there, by other Jews, but the movie doesn't once stoop to the level of preaching. Simply an excellent, excellent film.

I bought this movie because I had read several online discussions about it which mainly focused on the excellent portrayal of the conflicted central character, Daniel Balint. I had also read claims that the film was anti-Semitic so I wanted to see exactly how bad it was. I decided to watch it with no preconceptions.

For me, it was shocking to see a portrayal of neo-Nazis, never mind that one of them was supposed to be Jewish. It was fascinating and revolting at the same time to see apparently normal looking people who espouse ideas and philosophies that are completely repugnant to a normal human being who has empathy and compassion for his fellow man. The problem is, as we know, such people do exist - and a lot more of them than we would like to admit.

So, what was so fascinating to me was to see and hear the justification of the young Jewish man played by Ryan Gosling, for why he - of all people - would be attracted to such horrible ideology.

The answer wasn't long in coming. Via a series of flashbacks to his childhood when he was in yeshiva and arguing about god with his teacher, we are presented with a view of Judaism that is stark and, at the same time, due to the fact that it comes from a young boy, fresh and innovative. The subject is the "almost sacrifice" of Isaac by his own father, Abraham.

The example of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, has been trotted out for ages as the supreme example of how one is to approach the "god". One must be willing to give the god anything and everything! This "Faith" is an essential part of the "covenant" with the god - a sort of "act of trade", so to say.

In my opinion, the image of Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his own son, is not so compelling a picture. It merely symbolizes a sort of mindless belief in the orders of someone or something "out there" that certainly may not have the best interests of humanity at heart.

We can perceive, in the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, the terror of Cain who killed his brother because his sacrifice was not accepted. A god who picks and chooses what sacrifice is "good enough" - setting brother against brother - is certainly a "jealous god", and such a god is a psychopath.

Danny Balint, as a child, saw this. Here is the exchange from the movie:

Young Danny: I'm the only one who does believe. I see him for the power-drunk madman he is. And we're supposed to worship such a deity? I say never.

Rav Zingesser: And you, had you come out of Egypt you would have been destroyed in the desert with all of those who worshipped the Golden Calf!

Young Danny: Then let him destroy me now. Let him crush me like the conceited bully he is.

Pretty astute observation for a kid.

And that seems to be the theme that runs through the movie: an expose of Judaism as it is - a striving for nothingness and worship of ritual rather than a real god.

Counterposed against this is Danny's apparent attachment to the Torah - the material representation of Judaism, that is - which he takes risks to protect and describes the "history" of it to his girlfriend. His historical knowledge of the Torah is, of course, that which is taught to Jews and not based on Biblical scholarship.

The thing that comes across most clearly is why Danny hates Jews (including himself) and that is the very meat of the matter: anti-Semitism, the holocaust, and so on.

To Danny, Jews are to be hated because they thrive on this aversion; they actually use it to define themselves as "persecuted" and afflicted and victims. In Danny's mind, as portrayed in the movie, it is Jewish powerlessness and their apparent inability to fight back during all those persecutions that he despises more than anything else. And he perceives this powerlessness to be a consequence of the brainwashing of their religion.

Funny little voice overlays occur here and there in the movie that are like dialogs with a rabbi: "question: is it permissible to answer the phone on the sabbath? answer: no. question: what if it could be an emergency? answer: it is okay to knock the phone of the hook with your elbow and listen to who is calling and determine if it is an emergency..."

It is nonsense like that, slavish following of rules that bespeak a god who is, as Danny points out, a power-drunk madman.

All of this is made clear in an exchange with an old couple of Holocaust survivors. The old man tells how a German soldier killed his infant son, bayoneting the child right out of his arms and holding him overhead while the child died in agony and the blood poured on the father. Danny is outraged by this story, that the father did not sacrifice his own life to save his son, but stood by helplessly.

The real conflict in the movie is that this young man can clearly see the absurdity of his religion (and in my opinion, this is true of all religions, I'm not picking on Judaism), but he has been so inculcated into religious piety from infancy, that he cannot resolve this conflict. He can be neither a Jew, nor free of being a Jew. More than that, he also despises the ignorance of other anti-Semites because they are ignorant and do not hate Jews for the "right reasons" nor do they admire and emulate the Nazis for the right reasons.

Ryan Gosling gives one heck of a performance, alternating between his dissociated personalities.

Billy Zane and Theresa Russell are the bizarre couple who are leaders of some kind of covert fascist organization. They don't come across as very interesting or even really committed to what they are espousing. It seems more like a social club than anything else. When Danny and his skinhead friends join up with them, things get a lot more intense.

Danny inspires them with his brilliant rhetoric, which is how the viewer comes to know so much about his reflections on Judaism. He does, indeed, articulate what seem to be compelling and "valid" reasons for anti-Semitism, but they are all based on the same attitude that he despises about Judaism's god: that he is a psychopathic bully. And so, Danny has become one also.

I did a bit of research and discovered that the real character on whom the movie was based, one Daniel Burros, committed suicide after he was exposed as a Jew.

The final scene in the movie reiterates the concept of the god of Judaism as perceived by Danny - constantly going up a flight of stairs, trying to get to the top, but constantly finding yourself where you started - never getting anywhere. Nothingness.

This is not just a rhetorical device for a movie, either! Giovanni Garbini writes in Myth And History in the Bible (Academic Paperback):

"The examination of some aspects, usually neglected, though evident and essential, of the mythic reconstruction of Israel's past and of the figure of its God as the Hebrew religious thought presented them in the Bible presents us an apparently paradoxical situation.

"The Law and the Prophets ... codify and exalt a kind of religion centred on the cult of Yahweh, national and sole true god, who established the Jerusalem temple as his only seat; from the other, they reveal explicitly the moral inconsistency of that god... his unfulfilled promises and the vacuity of all the practices related to his cult.

"The first chapter of Isaiah, which opens the section of Latter Prophets and, as all the writings placed at the beginning of a collection, gives the key to its interpretation, cannot be more explicit in this regard.

"The chiefs of Jerusalem, that is the high priests, are called 'rulers of Sodom' and its population 'people of Gomorrah (Isa. 1:10). Against them, in the following verses, God refuses all the cultic practices: sacrifices, burnt offerings, visits to the temple, oblations, incense, new moon, Sabbath, readings, fastings, assemblies, feasts, prayers.

"It is not pointless to ask ourselves what was the effect on the priests of the obsessive motif, present in all the Bible, of gratitude to Yahweh for the deliverance of Israel from Egypt: such a deliverance never took place and was invented by themselves to allude, probably, to their return from Babylon.

"...[T]he interesting thing is that, apart from the many details concerning the external activities of the priesthood (which any Jew in Jerusalem could easily see with his own eyes), the texts do not contain any information about the structures, the organization and the other activities of the priestly class; it is like seeing only the front of a building.

"In these biblical writings we find not only a description of the religious practices, but often also their history, their meaning and their mythic origin, and since the religion of Israel is the expression of its relationship with Yahweh, all Israel's history becomes the history of this religion. In other words, these books fix a precise moment in the history of Hebrew religion, when a deep reflection on its nature was carried out. On the basis of this reflection, the entire past was reinterpreted (not as it was, but rather as they wanted it to be) and the future imagined, a glorious future with Jerusalem at the centre of the world."

Garbini then writes in a companion volume, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, an amplification of the above problem:

"Biblical Yahwism certainly reflects a monotheistic conception, but at the same time it is something less and something more than monotheism.

" ...Yahwism seems to be something less than monotheism: God is certainly one, but he is essentially the God of just one people and he acts only with them. If we reflect on this aspect, which is the central nucleus of the Old Testament, we discover that here we have what the historians of religions call henotheism rather than monotheism.

"On the other hand, Yahwism is also, and perhaps above all, an extremely rational vision of the world and of the privileged position that the people of Israel occupies in the world.

"So it would be legitimate to ask whether one could consider as a real religion, with all that this word implies.. a doctrine like that taught in the Old Testament in the first millennium BC, which denies the survival of the spirit."

He then asks how it is that a 'religion' which attributes importance to liturgies practiced only in Jerusalem, (that is, not by all Jews at that period of history), which denies survival of the human spirit, could even have survived and spread, especially after the destruction of said temple.

Good question. And this is the question at the root of Daniel Balint's agony - a question he cannot resolve because of his programming from infancy.

Highly recommended for, if no other reason, the truly stunning performance of Ryan Gosling as well as an insight into a bizarre world of neo-Nazis and anti-Semites - conflicted individuals all, wounded by our psychopathic society under the influence of psychopathic gods and religions that seek to induce mindless faith at the cost of human value.

.... and that's what makes it such an amazing piece. There's little wonder that this film scared studios and Jewish organizations away while attracting a devoted near-cult following.
This is not a film about anti-Semitism exactly, and definitely not a film about the neo-Nazi movement. To suggest either is to suggest that Waiting for Godot is about people sitting on benches; while it is a necessary context in which to discuss the theme, it is context only and says nothing about its substance.

Daniel, the film's protagonist (and at once its antagonist), looks straight into his own soul, a soul constructed out of a complex and sometimes contradictory tradition. Judaism today is at a strange crossroads, perhaps the strangest since the destruction of the Second Temple in the first century.
Are Jews supposed to abide in submission to their host governments, as proscribed by Jewish religious law? Or are Jews destined to return to Israel, a State far removed from its Biblical heritage in that it's a (semi-)secular democracy? Is Judaism an ethnicity decided by birth, as suggested by Israel's "law of return", or is it a matter of belief?
Interestingly, Daniel decides that Israelis are not really Jews at all, and instead dives headfirst into the Jewish Diaspora in search of an identity he can accept. It is not so simple as asking how a loving G-d could have allowed the Holocaust; Daniel "the Believer" (perhaps the only person in the film who truly understands the complexity of the Jewish G-d) goes all the way back to the near sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. Daniel is seeking desperately for something to hold on to, when Judaism seems to offer nothing but self-sacrifice.
...
That's my two cents, at least. What makes this film so compelling is that multiple arguments can be made, and the truth of the film's message probably lies somewhere between them all (not unlike the truth of Judaism itself).

I first saw this film several years ago and I thought it was just ok. I found the plot to be somewhat far-fetched, and while even then I recognized Gosling's amazing performance, I just didn't fully comprehend the film. I just watched this film again-twice more actually-and it's significance really hit me this time. Watching the interview with director Henry Bean (in the Special Features section) along with reading some of the comments by Jewish reviewers really helped me in this regard. It seems that Daniel's struggle with self-hatred and rebellion against his religion is somewhat typical-although clearly taken to the extreme here-of many Jewish people. Taken in this context, Danny's "anti-semitism" is not exactly as it seems. Halfway through the film, it becomes clear that Danny still cherishes his religion, even if he simultaneously resents it. So rather than the ignorant Jew-hatred of his buddies, Danny's anti-semitism is more of a tormented personal rebellion against his religion, his people and God himself. Then there's Bean's concept of Danny being a "Rabbi in spite of himself." Admittedly, I don't fully understand this, but it definitely adds to the film's fascinating complexity. So while at first glance this is simply a story about a "Jewish Nazi" the film is much more complex than it seems, and that's what really makes this a great film. With that said, I'd like to point out that self-hatred is not something unique to Jews, or minorities for that matter. A previous reviewer compares Danny to Michael Jackson who bleached his skin in order to "fit-in with WASP society." Not only is this a ridiculous PC statement, but this reviewer has completely misjudged the film. Do you really think a gun-toting neo-nazi "fits-in" better in American society than a Jew? I think one of the reasons this film moved me so much was that I strongly identified with Daniel. Although I am not Jewish (I was born and raised a suburban, middle-class Irish-Catholic), I completely related with his tormented, self-denying, and self-destructive mentality. I too once hated who I was and where I came from and tried desperately to be someone I wasn't. So although 'The Believer' is the story of a confused, angry and hateful young man bent on destruction, I personally found it to be a heart-wrenching story of a lost soul trying to find his way. So for anyone who has ever struggled with their own identity and beliefs, or for anyone who wants to understand what a truly tormented soul looks like, please watch 'The Believer.'

At first glance THE BELIEVER seems like the ultimate oxymoron: a Jewish neo-nazi. What makes this movie even more fascinating is that it is based on a true story.
The opening sequence in which the film's protaganist Danny Balint (Ryan Gosling) beats up a Jewish student he stalks from the subway is chilling and leaves the viewer appalled at Balint's ignorance and self-loathing and his apparent unwillingness to accept his creed.
In several flashback scenes a nerdy Danny is shown in his Torah class giving opinions on religion his teacher doesn't like- actually very intelligent and provocative observations- his teacher's inability to accept a different opinion to his only serves to add another dent in Danny's psyche (As a lapsed Catholic, I can understand this all too well).
THE BELIEVER is utterly compelling, Gosling gives a frighteningly plausible performance, the scene in which he gives a newspaper reporter a look at his passionate but undeniably flawed reasoning is one of many powerful moments. A couple of other sequences of the movie I found very interesting is a film clip where God is describedby a yeshiva as "The purest form of spirit. Nothingness without end"; and especially the scene where Danny rolls up a damaged Torah scroll while his friends are destroying a Jewish synagogue. The movie also co-stars Theresa Russell and the almost unrecognizable Billy Zane both in fine perfomances as nazi radicals. I'll go so far as to say this is better than AMERICAN HISTORY X, which I also gave 5 stars. This is a must-see, though not for all tastes.

Although at first blush this film might sound like the studio pitchman's perfect concept movie, "a Jewish Nazi!", in reality it is a serious, complex, thought-provoking film that sent me home to do some research on Jewish theology and a search to discover what it is that is appealing about fascism to some people. I do think those who liked the slicker movies of American History X or Fight Club might like this movie, too, but this independent film goes beyond those in importance. Interestingly, Ryan Gosling has been compared to Edward Norton who was a lead actor in both those films, but I think that comparison is a complement to Edward Norton.

Ultimately I realized it is not at all far-fetched or unthinkable for a Jew to join a fascistic hate-group and to advocate the destruction of his own kind. There is, after all, often an element of self-destruction in each of us, if only at the level of unhealthy habits such as smoking, drugs, overeating, or unsafe sex, but, more socially serious, studies have shown that gay bashers, for example, are more often closer to the homosexual end of the Kinsey scale than not. This kind of hatred is actually a deep self-hatred. And besides, there is strong evidence that Hitler, himself, was half-Jewish, based on his abusive father whom Hitler hated and was deeply ashamed of. And, in the character Daniel Balint we have an obvious underachiever, who, similar to Hitler, is an intelligent, but severely conflicted, charismatic, persuasive, passionate individual. Balint is working only as a forklift operator and seems to spend all his free time lifting weights and researching hate-group websites, but, due to his charms, the leaders of the fascist movement Balint joins attempt to conscript him into the political arena.

Balint expresses the contention that he is disgusted at Jewish passivity in the face of intended annihilation and to prove it, bashes an innocent student who is unwilling or unable to defend himself. But realistically, how many of us would be able to protect ourselves against a thug on the street who has targeted us or a sniper in the bushes who has placed gunsight cross-hairs on our skull? Or against a political movement that was moving step-by-step in an unthinkable agenda towards our extermination (which, for all we know, may be happening once again right now)? But really, Balint, himself, doesn't really believe his own argument, most obviously indicated by his willing complicity to get involved with the masochistic daughter of the head of the proto-fascist organization he joins. Instead of being disgusted by her as well, he willingly punches her in the face prior to their having sex, at her request. Besides, as a people, the Jews are anything but passive and, in fact, have continued to survive (and thrive) in the face of constant enemies throughout their entire history, whether we are talking about Biblical warrior tribes wandering in the desert, individuals contending with the horrors of the Holocaust, or modern-day Israelis in an eternal battle against Arabs. Nowadays, there is even a self-defense martial arts technique credited to the Israeli Army, Krav Maga.

Daniel Balint's battle is with God Himself, or, more properly said, with the meanings and means of Existence or Nonexistence. In the film we see flashbacks of him as an aggressive, questioning student, reading Biblical metaphor as factual truth and concluding that the God who required Abraham to sacrifice his son or who tortured Job with unjustifiable afflictions is the ultimate fascist (as mythologist Joseph Campbell said, "Too many rules and no mercy"). If only as a student he allowed himself to mature and wrestle with the studies some more. Existence is frought with the unthinkable, where an innocent squirrel could run across a highway right underneath the tires of your car, or a child contracts leukemia. How can one explain "why bad things happen to good people," (an issue wrestled with by a rabbi in a book by that name); ultimately, all we CAN do is accept life as it comes, keep on doing our best with what we know, and have faith that somehow it will all work out. Ultimately, the entirety of the universe is way beyond our comprehension and "faith" is there to fill in the gap. But this is unacceptable to the idealisms and passions of youth, who wants to use its muscle and energy for solutions NOW.

Ryan Gosling could not have presented a more riveting performance--this is an actor who has developed his face and body into a radiant instrument. When he was beating up the student he targeting on the subway, agony reflected on his face and in his bearing, it was as if it were the student hurting HIM. When forced to attend sensitivity training with Holocaust survivors (whose actual nightmares became his own), he turned his tear ducts into vaccuums, [bringing] the tears back inside. And in his confrontation with the Torah, Gosling's own face became an open scroll embossed with letters of the flame alphabet. This is clearly a film to see even if all you want to do is observe the work of the consummate actor, but don't be surprised if when you get home, you find yourself doing some heavy thinking. This movie goes way beyond the momentary hours you fill while watching it, into, possibly, an exploration of just what kind of a believer YOU are. In fulfilling the meaning of your existence, how strong are you in the face of unanswerable questions?

When I saw this movie two months ago I was reeling at the end. I couldn't even put my thoughts into words (although I was tempted to ask my self-righteous hippie friend why he couldn't be THAT kind of self-hating Jew). Two months later I'm still shell shocked.

You can't even compare this movie to American History X. Not only because American History X was a sappy melodrama about a Nazi that learns how to love everyone by talking about basketball. This is a searing portrait of nihilism, Judaism, racism and self-loathing. The only comparison that can be made is that the movie rises and falls by the main actor. Only, where Edward Norton does his best to keep saccharine afloat, Ryan Gosling has some real meat to work with.

Danny (Ryan Gosling) is a Hebrew School dropout going further away from Hebrew School than most. As an all-out Nazi beating up Jews on the street and advocating the killing of Jews, he's scary. Only as the movie goes along you realize that it's not Judaism that he's fighting against, but G-d. THe push-pull relationship between him and his faith create a vivid Dostoyevskian character filled with contradictions and angst. My favorite scenes include the one where he's trying to give the Nazi salute but instead says the blessing for the Torah scroll, and the scene where he finds his girlfriend naked reading teh scroll, makes her get dressed, admits that it's stupid, but then explains the seperation between the sacred and teh profane with rabbinical authority.

THis is not just a movie about Nazism and Judaism. This is a movie about faith, belief and the extremes which we go to deny our personal destinies.

At least that's what I think it's about. This movie keeps playing with my head and I'll have soemthing else to say about it in another month.

Ryan Gosling (Stay, The United States of Leland) stars as Danny Balint, a Neo-Nazi who starts fights with Jewish and other races for no reason and who thinks that every Jew should be exterminated. He thinks Hitler didnt do it correctly. He then gets a group of followers. He falls in love with Carla played by a miscast Summer Phoenix (Dinner Rush, Wasted) who wants Danny to teach her about Judaism in which he does. The revelation is that Danny himself is a Jew but doesnt want to be. He desperately hides it from those he hangs around with. Not for all tastes but it certainly was a fascinating story about a man with an identity crisis and it gave Gosling a blazing performance from start to the finish. Also starring Glenn Fitzgerald (Series 7: The Contendersm, Tully), Theresa Russell (Empire Falls, Wild Things), Elizabeth Reaser (The Family Stone, Stay), Joshua Harto (Swimming, Campfire Stories), A.D. Miles (Wet Hot American Summer, The Baxter) and Billy Zane (Dead Calm, CQ).