As far as conveying a historical narrative, I thought the movie might have been a little over-the-top.  There were too many layers to the storytelling as to relate them to the occurence of the Armenian genocide, and that confused the reinforcement of what actually happened.  Plus, the premise of the movie with the Jewish security guard at the airport and the art historian's son's drug habit/personal history seemed almost arbitrary and forced, and I thought maybe it could have had more of a bearing if the affairs (the film's premiere, the book reading/signing, the general Hollywood vibe) of the present were more engrained in the background of the message they were trying to convey--which if it was, that the past is what makes us who we are today, that there's no escaping the past despite having carved out for yourself a new life in America, then it particularly was coming through strong enough as it should.  In other words, the main actors' present day entanglements seemed unattached to the injustice they were trying to vindicate, aside from the fact that they were Armenian.  The casting of the half-Turkish actor and his two cents about the Armenian genocide trivializes the Armenians' cause--the high emotional point of which was demonstrated through the son Peter's blurb on Hitler and  how he reminded that nobody paid attention to the Armenian genocide.  And why should they, when the premise of the Movie seemed inappropriate to begin with in covering the grisly subject-matter, genocide?