[1] The film also focuses on the tendency for immigrant cultures to lose uniqueness through assimilation and the importance of maintaining valued traditions.

An archival clip is shown of Julian Rose, performing with a thick accent as "Our Hebrew Friend", denigrating his own show, "I think it's rotten".

The interviewees suggest comedy became a way for Jews to express themselves; they had an outsider perspective that helped find jokes and a sarcastic edge that could address taboo subjects.

[16] It is further noted the critical nature of Jews made them tough audiences, so the Borscht Belt provided venues for Jewish comedians to hone their acts.

[17] The Jews' tight-knit community and shared experience began to disappear with assimilation, and success within North American society removed their reasons to complain or be fearful.

Marc Maron suggests Zweig is nostalgic for the older Yiddish mannerisms that made him laugh and feel comforted as a child.

[8] Cory Kahaney notes Judaism is about the freedom to ask questions, that there is no single approach to being a Jew and that Zweig can find a way to raise his daughter that works for him and his wife.

While recalling his dead son, he becomes moved to sing a song in Yiddish,[6] which he explains means "the town I grew up in, I'm missing" – that the past cannot be revisited, but can be recollected in sharing stories of it.

[19] As a child, filmmaker Alan Zweig found it paradoxical to be told the world was unkind to Judaism but saw Jewish performers among the best comedians.

Some unavailable on his tight filming schedule included Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Stewart, Sarah Silverman, and Mel Brooks.

[8] Jordan Hoffman of The Times of Israel wrote the film lacked insight or originality, and that When Comedy Went to School was more successful.

[37] Alison Gilmor of CBC News described the film as an "insightful, intelligent, laugh-out-loud documentary" and possibly the best examination of comedy mechanics since The Aristocrats (2005).

[38] Dave McGinn of The Globe and Mail called it "an entertaining, often engrossing look" at its subject material, and found Zweig's earnest desire to find answers kept the film from getting tired.

[39] Michael Fox of Jewish Independent found the film to be "unexpectedly provocative", using a first-person perspective and intimate structure to invite the audience into the discussion.

[7] Anthony Kaufman of Screen Daily found unexpected entertainment in Zweig's purposely vague interview style – with "stops and starts and stutters" – which provoked his subjects into questioning the filmmaker in an authentically Jewish manner.

[1][41][32][42] The jury noted the film for "its deeply moving exploration of memory, identity and community and for its coherent and profoundly humorous representation of the personal as universal.