Complexity in Dinesh D’Souza’s Documentaries

I’ve got to say, my feelings about Dinesh D’Souza’s documentaries are a bit mixed. Some I’ve really enjoyed, but, well, they often feel like they get bogged down in certain spots. There’s this tendency for them not to stick with you, you know? After the initial watch, there’s not much that makes you want to revisit them. They often revolve around D’Souza’s own view and sometimes seem more focused on rallying a supportive crowd rather than convincing someone who is skeptical.

The film’s exploration of eschatology, or the study of the end times, could spark a lot of strong reactions. That’s where the critiques may come in the strongest.

This particular issue is particularly frustrating because it seems simpler to please a conservative audience. Given D’Souza’s backing, I think his films could be bolder and more impactful if they tackled themes that last, rather than recycling narratives about the 2020 election and current presidential candidates.

Exploring The Dragon’s Prophecy

With that in mind, I approached D’Souza’s latest film, The Dragon’s Prophecy, which is based on Jonathan Cahn’s works. This production takes a look at the aftermath of the October 7 attack and the two-year conflict between Israel and Hamas, culminating in a ceasefire on October 10.

And honestly, it does feel sharper this time. There’s a chilling moment when Tucker Carlson criticizes “Christian Zionism” as heresy. New York City even elected a mayor keen on arresting the Israeli Prime Minister. It’s a deep-rooted anger towards American Jews, echoing sentiments we haven’t seen like this since Pat Buchanan’s time, who implicitly condemned them for backing the Gulf War.

While anti-Zionism and the related anti-Semitism seem to be gaining traction, support for the Israeli government holds steady.

D’Souza doesn’t shy away from addressing these issues. He challenges Carlson and the far-left group in the House, “The Squad,” incorporating footage from Carlson’s confrontational interview with Ted Cruz. The film defends Israel vigorously while harshly labeling Hamas as rapists and murderers, even showcasing calls where militants boast about their brutal acts.

Shock Factor

It’s distressing to watch at times. Scenes of violence, including rebels harming animals and civilians, leave a lingering aftermath. The shock value is deliberate. As Ambassador Mike Huckabee tells D’Souza, this conflict symbolizes an “eternal battle between good and evil,” pitching Israel on the side of righteousness and Hamas as the “dragon.”

Amid such turmoil, D’Souza travels through Israel, reflecting that it’s a place where “nothing is settled.” His perspective remains unwavering, even labeling the building of the Islamic Dome of the Rock as “true colonialism.”

The filmmaker searches for meaning amid chaos, engaging with Jewish survivors, archaeologists revealing ancient Israeli history, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who seizes the moment to attack American critics and commend Donald Trump.

Theological Backlash

However, the film’s eschatological theme is bound to attract significant criticism.

D’Souza’s primary audience seems to be Christians, but he might face opposition from anti-dispensationalists—whose viewpoints are gathering support among Catholics and mainline Protestants—who argue that dispensationalism is a relatively modern American theological concept. They point out that the idea of “the rapture” is quite new.

Brian Mattson, a Protestant theologian, highlights that dispensationalism is quite recent in the big picture of Christian theology. Its proponents argue for two distinct paths of salvation: one for Gentiles and another for the Jewish people, protecting God’s promises to Israel.

This line of thinking is foundational to the “Left Behind” series, which places modern Israel squarely within the context of Revelation, different from traditional Christian interpretations.

While there certainly are dubious reasons behind criticisms of dispensationalism, there are also valid biblical critiques. Many younger “America First” Catholic converts are starting to see Israel as an unnecessary “foreign entanglement,” and some of their arguments carry a veneer of anti-Semitism.

Signs of the Times

D’Souza’s work fundamentally embraces dispensationalism, suggesting that recent turmoil in Israel signals an approach to end times, asserting that evil is intensifying and divine signs are becoming clearer. His perspective intertwines the fate of Israel with global implications.

The latter half of the film consists of interviews with Israeli archaeologists discussing findings related to figures like King David, aiming to affirm Biblical narratives. Alongside the insights from messianic Jews like Jonathan Cahn, it frames the Israel-Gaza conflict in a cosmic battle of good versus evil.

Viewers’ responses to the film’s defense of Israel will likely be influenced significantly by the heavy lens of American dispensationalism, a challenging perspective for many to adopt.

Broadening Horizons

There are also some minor critiques about the film, such as its notable reliance on AI-generated visuals, raising questions about authenticity. Nevertheless, the film seems to target a wide array of American centrists who don’t align with either extreme and who support Israel.

Despite its theological peculiarities, the film ultimately does what I’ve long hoped D’Souza’s documentaries would achieve. It engages directly and convincingly with enduring moral themes.

The struggle for Israel is ongoing, and the events of October 7 mark just one chapter in a larger narrative. D’Souza offers a moral argument aimed at a conservative audience that appears to be drifting away from him. Regardless of whether one agrees with him, he’s addressing significant questions of faith rather than transient political skirmishes. This time, he seems to be reaching beyond his usual converts.