Uncategorized
Is ‘Nuremberg’ the Holocaust movie we need right now?
Holocaust movies have become such a genre of their own that it is hard for them to find anything new to say. Yet directors keep trying — perhaps out of a sense of duty, or the assumed prestige of the subject matter — to keep the atrocities front of mind.
Nuremberg, a star-studded new film written and directed by James Vanderbilt (the writer of Zodiac and both installations of the Adam Sandler-Jennifer Anniston hit Murder Mystery), focuses on the trial of Hermann Goering, Hitler’s second-in-command. The drama distinguishes itself from previous treatments of the trial by centering Douglass Kelley, the psychiatrist charged with assessing Nazis’ readiness to take the stand. Based on the book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai, the film stars Russell Crowe as Goering and Rami Malek as Kelley.
But Nuremberg’s two-and-a-half-hour runtime attempts to take on more than Kelley’s observations about the nature of evil; the entire second half is a courtroom drama, which follows the beats of the unfolding trial. The movie fits in the backstories of some of Goering’s co-defendants, the establishment of a new model of international law and a romantic subplot touching on the media circus surrounding it all. A late reveal in this overcrowded movie shows Kelley’s translator to be a German Jew, and we hear the story of his escape from the Nazi regime.
It’s a big project, with the cast to match, and it’s full of factoids designed to make its message about the horrors of the Nazis unmistakeable. But Nuremberg is an entry into a field crowded with Holocaust content. Is this the new Holocaust movie we needed?
Why now for a Nuremberg movie?
On the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and the start of the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis and their crimes remain topical. In October, a leaked group chat of the Young Republicans showed members openly joking about gassing Jews and proclaiming their “love” for Hitler; many of the members of the chat worked in state governments. (Vice President JD Vance defended them as “kids” making “edgy, offensive jokes.”) Tucker Carlson just interviewed avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes, legitimizing a man whose extremist rhetoric once relegated him to the fringe, and moving him into the mainstream. The current administration is engaged in a campaign of deportations, at least some of which have caught citizens in their dragnet.
The movie was in production long before any of these stories broke. But the rise of antisemitism, neo-Nazism and fascism in the U.S. — and Europe — has been apparent for at least a decade, fueled by social media and online forums where conspiracy theories and a resurgent white nationalism and nativism fester, sometimes breaking the internet’s containment to appear on political daises and in white supremacist marches.
“I think it’s important to not forget the past,” James Vanderbilt offered in an interview with The Catholic Review, adding that, “we have to be able to look backwards in order to move forwards.”
In this context, Nuremberg feels more like an urgent history lesson than a work of cinema, despite its aspirations to artistry; its clumsy exposition doesn’t help its schoolmarmish tone.
Why the psychiatrist?
In the film, Douglas Kelley arrives in Nuremberg hoping to discover what made the Nazis, and Germans, uniquely predisposed to, and capable of, great evils. “If we could psychologically define evil, we could make sure something like this never happens again!” he asserts. What Kelley found, in lieu of a diagnosis, was normal people. It’s the banality of evil, years before Arendt coined the phrase — and presents an opportunity for the movie to tee up a clear moral message.
Given that the Nuremberg trials lasted years and were extremely complex, narrowing the focus to Kelley and Goering’s dynamic could have helped to prevent overwhelming the audience while offering viewers a window into the minds of the Nazi leadership.
But we walk away with little insight into Goering’s own motivations. Kelley repeatedly emphasizes the Reichsmarschall’s manipulativeness and exhorts Justice Robert Jackson, the American prosecutor played here by Michael Shannon, to prey on the Nazi’s narcissism in his cross-examination. But we don’t see Goering do much manipulating beyond initially pretending not to speak any English, nor do we see much narcissism beyond remarking that he thinks he will escape the hangman’s noose.
Kelley mostly comes off as incompetent and eager for a book deal, not a masterful observer of the human condition, so we are given little reason to trust his insights.
How does this compare to other portrayals of Goering? Of the trial?
The most famous narrative film about the Nuremberg trials is Stanley Kramer’s 1961 Judgment at Nuremberg. Its characters are fictionalized and the action takes place at a later stage of the trial, years after Goering has escaped his hanging via a cyanide pill. Its focus is not on the high command, but the Nazi judicial system and everyday Germans. (It’s rooted in the 1947 Judges’ Trial, but reduces the number of defendants in the dock considerably.)
Much closer to Nuremberg is a 2000 TV miniseries, also called Nuremberg, starring Alec Baldwin as Jackson, the American prosecutor, and Brian Cox as Goering. Cox’s Goering is quite a bit more brash than Crowe’s, but, with his charm and chattiness with the guards, hits many of the same beats.
The main difference between the two Nurembergs comes in the portrayal of Goering’s motivations. In the movie, the Reichsmarschall displays no antisemitism and speaks only of his patriotic duty to Germany; he insists he had no knowledge of the Final Solution. His weakness, it seems, and his evil, is encapsulated in his devotion to Hitler.
In the miniseries, though Kelley does not feature, the psychiatrist Gustave Gilbert — who also briefly appears in Vanderbilt’s film played by Colin Hanks — serves much of the same function. In one memorable scene, Goering calls out the hypocrisy of America, with its segregation, trying Nazis for their race laws, and explains how Jews exploited Germans.
When Gilbert doesn’t see his logic, Cox’s Goering barks back: “You will never understand antisemitism. Why? Because you are a Jew.”
The moment implies, more than any scene in the movie version, that Goering could have been a true believer, rather than a career military man and opportunist.
How did the movie deploy its archival footage?
Despite the subject matter, the film mostly dodges direct discussion of the Holocaust — until it inserts archival footage of the concentration camps.
During the actual Nuremberg trials, a 52-minute film, directed by John Ford, showing the crematoriums, death pits, and abysmal conditions of the camps was played for the courtroom. The film uses an excerpt of the film in the trial scene. Vanderbilt chose to show the footage to the actors for the first time on set, wanting to capture their real, unfiltered reactions.
The use of archival footage reminds viewers that this story is not some Hollywood fantasy, but the rest of the film lacks this emotional power. Even when Kelley’s German-Jewish translator, Howard Triest (Leo Woodall), reveals his heritage to Kelley, a scene meant as an affecting turning point for the protagonist, its execution gives it the feel of something out of an afterschool special. The documentary footage gives the movie weight, but feels out of place in a film that otherwise has the sheen, waxy makeup and shallow characterizations of a Hollywood blockbuster.
What was the movie trying to do?
Nuremberg tries, often didactically, to spread the warning Kelley himself hoped to convey in his book, 22 Cells in Nuremberg: A Psychiatrist Examines the Nazi Criminals that all men have capacity for heinous deeds.
Highlighting the banality of evil has become a trend in recent Holocaust dramas like Zone of Interest. But unlike that film, Nuremberg relies on didactic expository dialogue. (“Jesus Christ, that’s Hermann Goering!” says an American soldier in the opening scene, before his comrade asks “Who?” and he responds with a Wikipedia precis.) It is much less interested in setting up a compelling story with deep characters than it is in lecturing the audience.
And though, by the end, the movie disavows the idea that morality — or immorality — is inherited, it gives more airtime to Kelley’s pursuit of a diagnosis of evil than it does to his conclusion that such a thing does not exist. Though a brief final scene shows the psychiatrist on a radio show warning that evil is just as possible in the U.S., we don’t see him arrive at that conclusion in the movie.
Is this an effective Holocaust movie?
At their best, Holocaust movies are able to force audiences to feel the horror of the concentration camps or make the inhumanity of the Nazis palpable. The Zone of Interest‘s most impactful scenes showed Rudolph Höss’ children playing cheerfully in the garden with the smoky plumes of Auschwitz’s crematoria in the background.
Vanderbilt tries to pack too much information into Nuremberg, leaving us with a movie that has to tell rather than show. The result is something more educational than evocative, providing a hurried overview of how the Nuremberg trials came about and a crash course on the Third Reich’s hierarchy. Its lack of focus makes it, at times, feel like a slog, and the movie depends on its star-studded cast and the inherent solemnity of its subject matter for viewers’ attention.
For those hoping to understand more about Goering’s psyche, Kelley’s own book — or The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, on which the movie was based — might be a better resource. For those hoping to delve into the entire history of the Holocaust, no one movie can capture it.
The post Is ‘Nuremberg’ the Holocaust movie we need right now? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
American Jews have fought BDS for 20 years. Israel’s election just handed them the winning move.
For decades, the American Jewish community has battled the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel. Now, in the aftermath of the election there, it has the opportunity to deal it the biggest blow yet. All it has to do is send one clear message to the Israeli opposition leaders: Join with the Arab parties.
Many Israelis, such as The Democrats party leader Yair Golan, are making the same argument. Arab Israelis voted in historic numbers in this week’s national election, winning a total of 19 seats with all votes counted. Together Zionist and Arab parties would, with 67 seats, become the country’s ruling coalition and bring an end to the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot pledged not to bring Arab parties into his coalition, and doing so would be no easy task. But if pressure builds at home and abroad — and if he gets cover and encouragement from Jewish leaders around the world — he might find a way. It’s a big ask of Eisenkot and more conservative opposition members, but it’s the right ask.
Breaking that one promise would enable Eisenkot to keep many more. He could pass his top legislative priorities, including an independent inquiry into Oct. 7, a crackdown on Jewish terrorism in the West Bank and a restoration of democratic norms.
Those are the immediate — and sufficient — Israeli reasons. There is a more basic one: a democracy shouldn’t treat the votes of 20% of its citizens as treyf. And from abroad, there’s an added benefit, one that could have a long-term impact on Israel’s well-being: Undermining the BDS movement.
For a generation, the movement to boycott, divest and sanction the Jewish state has called on governments, businesses and institutions to pull their investments from Israel, cancel Israeli academics and performers, and ban the import of Israeli goods.
It hasn’t succeeded — yet. Israeli international exports surged to $169 billion in 2025, the highest ever, and more than 35 states have passed anti-BDS laws. But BDS has been notching some major wins: In June, United Auto Workers delegates voted — barely — to divest from Israel bonds, the first major union to do so. Internationally, at least 50 universities, institutions and academic groups ended cooperative programs with Israeli universities, and there have been more than 1,000 cases of academic boycotts, cancellation of student exchange programs and research grants.
Some of that is in direct response to the Gaza War, but the BDS movement has built the infrastructure that turned outrage over the war into concrete actions.
The BDS movement has also normalized, or tried to normalize, the idea that entities that do business with Israel are complicit in apartheid, that Israel is a sham democracy and that Zionism is racism. BDS supplies the vocabulary of anti-Israel diatribes on social media.
Now Israel’s election provides a historic opportunity to prove BDS wrong, to take the steam out of a movement that shows no sign of slowing. Bringing together Jews and Arabs in a ruling coalition would be the single greatest blow to BDS.
For decades, American Jewish leaders and organizations have lobbied government officials, organized counter-petitions and worked to stem the BDS tide.
That job can now either get much easier, or immeasurably more difficult. A Jewish-Arab ruling coalition that acts on the issues of crime and under-investment plaguing Israel’s Arab communities would belie BDS advocates’ claim that a Jewish state and democracy are mutually exclusive.
That same Jewish-Arab partnership would have to work toward resolving Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza disaster — but those enormous tasks will be much easier with a strong majority and in a country not facing constant international pressure.
And if those 19 Arab seats amount to nothing? If the Jewish parties do all within their power to disempower Arab citizens who turned out in historic numbers?
Try arguing against the BDSers then. Try defending Israel as “the only democracy in the Middle East” when 20% of its citizens were just shut out of national representation.
Of course, there are other good reasons to bring the Arab parties into the government. One of them is written into Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which promises Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel, “full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”
For decades many Arab Israelis didn’t believe that sentence because they didn’t experience it. They stayed home, many because they refused to participate in a system that they believed would never truly serve them. This time, enraged by the Gaza War, fearful of violence in their own community and disgusted by the overt racism of Netanyahu’s Kahanist cabinet ministers, they chose to vote.
“I also wanted to show that Palestinians can participate when we choose to, and that our exclusion cannot be blamed on our refusal to enter the political arena,” wrote the journalist Nagham Zbeedat in Haaretz.
Seeing Arab Israelis dance in celebration when the election results were announced is a testament to the power of democracy and the hope it brings.
I know that what gives hope to American Jews like me instills fear in many Israelis. Palestinians from Gaza came over a border and slaughtered their loved ones.
But Palestinian citizens of Israel did not join the terror — something Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar counted on them doing. Arab Israelis were killed alongside their Israeli Jewish neighbors. And in many cases, they rescued Jews under attack.
American Jewish institutions need to step up and fight as hard for including Israeli Arabs in a new government as they do against boycotting Israel. Because fighting for democracy and fighting against BDS — it’s the same fight.
The post American Jews have fought BDS for 20 years. Israel’s election just handed them the winning move. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Did Qatar meddle in the Israeli Arab vote? Election officials reject Netanyahu’s claim of widespread fraud
(JTA) —
Allegations that Qatar secretly funded efforts to boost Arab voter turnout in Israel’s election have sparked a political firestorm, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declaring the vote “stolen” as his opponents accuse him of trying to undermine the results.
“The Ra’amgate affair is an earthquake,” Netanyahu’s Likud party said in a statement posted on the prime minister’s X account, referring to Ra’am, one of two Arab lists running in the election. “They stole the elections in Israel.”
Elections officials were at pains to say that the allegations did not indicate widespread fraud, and even if they were substantiated, would not invalidate the election.
“The elections to the Knesset were conducted lawfully,” acting Central Elections Committee director-general Dean Livne wrote Thursday, adding that “to the best of our knowledge there is no basis for claims of systematic harm to the integrity of the elections.”
The Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security apparatus, also cautioned against jumping to conclusions. “The Shin Bet has not yet completed its investigation, and any statements concerning the substance or nature of the suspicions under investigation do not reflect the agency’s position,” the statement said. “Such statements should have been avoided.”
Opposition leaders welcomed any investigation and accused Netanyahu of fearmongering – and noted that figures in his office have been under investigation for months for alleged ties to Qatar.
“I welcome the fact that Netanyahu is finally condemning Qatari involvement in the State of Israel,” said Gadi Eisenkot, whose Yashar Party is the largest in the opposition bloc. “It is serious when it happens in the Prime Minister’s Office and it is serious if it happens in the election system.”
Eisenkot accused Netanyahu of trying to change the rules after losing the game.
“What is already clear is that Likud and Netanyahu have embarked on an orchestrated and organized campaign to delegitimize the election results,” he said.
If the allegations are substantiated and found to have affected the results, a court could invalidate the election in whole or in part and order a new vote – though overturning an entire election is unprecedented in Israeli history.
The controversy erupted after Arab parties won a record 19 seats in Tuesday’s election, potentially giving them a decisive role in efforts to unseat Netanyahu.
With counting complete, Netanyahu’s bloc has 53 seats and the opposition bloc led by Eisenkot has 48, leaving neither with the 61 seats needed for a majority. One potential path for Eisenkot is to form a government with Arab parties or a minority government with their support from outside the coalition.
In a letter Wednesday to Shin Bet chief David Zini, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, chairman of the Central Elections Committee, called for an investigation into suspected foreign interference.
“Serious suspicions have been brought to my attention regarding improper influence on the elections through foreign funding by outside actors operating against Israeli interests,” Sohlberg wrote.
“I cannot attest to the nature of these suspicions,” he added, but said that because they involved foreign entities, “there is an obligation to investigate them thoroughly.”
Sohlberg instructed Zini to “uncover evidence to substantiate or refute the suspicions,” requesting findings within a week, ahead of the deadline for filing election appeals.
The letter did not identify Qatar or any Arab political party.
Likud alleged that foreign actors had sought to bring about an “Islamization of Israel” and overthrow the right-wing government. It urged other Zionist parties not to cooperate with Ra’am or the Joint List to replace the Knesset speaker or form a government reliant on Arab lawmakers.
Ra’am chairman Mansour Abbas denied any connection between his party and the suspected financing.
“Ra’am has no connection whatsoever to the affair in question or to any other such affairs,” Abbas said in a statement, pledging full cooperation with law enforcement.
He mocked Netanyahu by invoking the allegations that Netanyahu’s office has been infiltrated by Qatari agents and also by linking him to his son Yair, a provocateur who has been caught up in separate controversies.
“To Abu Yair [father of Yair], who employs Qatari agents in his office, we have one message in response to the campaign of incitement and delegitimization he is waging against Arab citizens: There will be nothing, because there is nothing,” he said.
Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana called the allegations the most serious in Israeli democratic history, while National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir urged the arrest of Arab party leaders suspected of involvement.
In a statement Thursday, the Shin Bet said the intelligence originated from its own operations and “did not come from any political party or political entity on either side of the political spectrum.”
The agency stressed that the investigation was narrowly focused and “does not cast suspicion on, or accuse, an entire sector of society that went out to vote democratically and legally.”
Qatar rejected the allegations, calling them “ridiculous and dangerous.”
“We categorically deny allegations that Qatar has interfered in Israeli elections or funded any activities intended to influence their outcome,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed Al Ansari said in a statement.
Al Ansari accused Israeli politicians of attempting to use Qatar as a scapegoat for their electoral setbacks, pointing to what he described as contradictory accusations that Doha had bought Netanyahu’s loyalty, financed Israel’s left and now manipulated Arab voters.
Experts on Israel’s Arabs said the massive turnout was organic.
Rami Zeedan, a professor of Israel studies and author of a book on Arab political participation in Israel, said he observed extensive grassroots mobilization during three months of fieldwork in Israel this summer. Many Arab voters viewed Netanyahu’s government as particularly hostile to their community and were determined to replace it, believing that almost any alternative would treat them more equitably as Israeli citizens, he said.
“The exceptional turnout was therefore not inexplicable,” Zeedan told JTA. “It reflected a genuine and highly visible effort to remove Netanyahu and his government.”
Zeedan said Likud and the Israeli right have long sought to delegitimize Arab political participation. He warned that the allegations could be used to cast doubt on the entire Arab vote or justify calls for a new election.
“The danger is that an investigation into specific financial or criminal allegations will be transformed into a sweeping claim that the Arab vote itself was fraudulent,” he said.
Joint List leader Yousef Jabareen accused Netanyahu of attempting to delegitimize Arab voters and prevent the new Knesset from being sworn in on schedule.
“Netanyahu was defeated at the ballot box. No incitement campaign will change the voters’ decision,” Jabareen wrote on X.
Knesset member Ahmad Tibi, also from the Joint List, fired back after the prime minister questioned why he had visited Qatar four days before the election.
“I told Al Jazeera in Doha that we very much want to bring you down,” Tibi wrote on X, quoting Netanyahu’s post.
“Meanwhile, according to Israeli police, the only ones who received Qatari money are those in your own office. Lots of money,” he added, referring to the investigation into allegations that Netanyahu’s aides received payments to promote the Gulf state’s interests.
Anwar Mhajne, a political scientist originally from Umm al-Fahm, said she was not surprised by the Arab voter turnout, saying she witnessed “sophisticated social media mobilization by journalists, influencers, activists,” who made a compelling case for voting.
Mhajne argued that Netanyahu was using the allegations to discourage opposition parties from partnering with Ra’am and the Joint List.
“The allegations risk achieving Netanyahu’s objective before the investigation concludes: making cooperation with Arab representatives appear illegitimate and closing off a possible route to replacing his government,” she said in an email to JTA.
President Isaac Herzog called for the allegations to be thoroughly investigated but warned against casting suspicion on Arab voters collectively.
“Even at a moment like this, we must not tarnish an entire community that sought to exercise its right to vote and take an active part in democracy,” Herzog said Thursday.
The post Did Qatar meddle in the Israeli Arab vote? Election officials reject Netanyahu’s claim of widespread fraud appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Beyond the frame, thousands are being murdered in Auschwitz but here, there are blueberries
”It’s a detective story,” Moisés Kaufman said. “It focuses on an archivist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum who is offered a mysterious album. The person offering the album claims that it is photographs of Auschwitz.”
Kaufman is talking about Here There Are Blueberries, the play about those photographs and that archivist. Kaufman conceived and directed the play, which he co-wrote with Amanda Gronich of the Tectonic Theater Project. It was a finalist for the 2024 Pulitzer Prize. The archivist — Rebecca Erbelding — “is very skeptical because there are very few photographs of Auschwitz in existence,” Kaufman, Tectonic’s founder and artistic director, told me over Zoom. “The Nazis did not want any photographs or records of what they were doing there.”
Once Erbelding gets the album, she discovers that the photos are authentic, but there are no photos of victims, only Nazis, including Josef Mengele. “The play,” Kaufman said. “is a detective story of her trying to figure out what these photos tell us.”
The album, which consisted of more than 100 photos taken between May and December 1944 and put together by Karl-Friedrich Höcker, a Nazi SS officer, was front page news in 2007 when Erbelding and the museum revealed it. “It’s something we didn’t know,” Kaufman said. “When you think Auschwitz, what do you think? Gas chambers, crematoria, you think barracks. And this is not that. We had never seen these photos before.”
Höcker “was a very high-up guy,” Kaufman continued. “That’s one of the reasons why the album is so important. Because he was very close to the center of operations. We’re looking at how the people who were running the camp behaved, and how they lived their daily lives.”
Kaufman decided he needed to turn those photos and that story into a play.
“I come from a Holocaust survivor family,” he said. “My father was a Holocaust survivor, and I knew that … I would at one point in my life have to write about this. But I kept postponing it because, as you probably know, the Holocaust is the one historical event that has been most written about. Many movies have been made about it. It’s like the historical event that has been most chronicled in art. So I thought, ‘What else is there to say?’ And yet, when I saw these photographs, I thought, this is something we didn’t know. I want to write a play about that.”
The play uses the photos, projected on the stage as the story is told.
“The Tectonic Theater Project is an experimental theater company,” Kaufman said. “And the kind of formal question for us was, ‘Can you write a play from an album of photographs? Can the photographs carry part of that narrative?’ Every play we do has a new form. We try to never repeat ourselves.”
Kaufman, 62, grew up in Caracas, Venezuela, and immigrated to New York City in 1987. He was nominated for a Tony Award for directing I Am My Own Wife and for writing 33 Variations. Blueberries previously played at the La Jolla Playhouse in California, the Shakespeare Theatre Company in Washington DC and Off Broadway at New York Theater Workshop.
The play’s title is taken from a picture in the album. “There’s a photograph in the album where they are eating blueberries,” Kaufman said — the title is a caption that the album’s owner had written. “I don’t want to give too much away,” Kaufman said, “but the location where this photograph is taken was something that few people knew about — that this location existed. And to me, it kind of encapsulates the spirit of the photos, which is a spirit of, a quotidian, a casual, the how do we live life in a moment like this?”
“What is happening outside the frame is that they’re killing 1.1 million people. Right outside the frame,” Kaufman continued. “And it poses questions about who we are as human beings.”
“We talk a lot about, what is the distance between culpability, complicity, and complacency?” said Kaufman. “And where do each one of us fall in that continuum?”
Why would someone knowing what’s happening in the camp take these photos and make an album of them?
“I think he thought the Reich was going to last a thousand years,” Kaufman said. “I thought that, in part, he wanted to chronicle his contribution to it.”
Kaufman said that although the play deals with what happened more than 80 years ago, it has a key relevance to today. “I think at a moment in time where so many governments around the world are turning towards authoritarianism, this play holds a mirror up to us. Who do we want to be?” he said.
What does he want audiences to get from this play after seeing it? What does he hope they are thinking as they leave the theater or afterwards?
“Number one, they’re going to see photographs that they’ve never seen before, and they’re going to see images that they’ve never seen before. Hopefully, the images will elicit new ideas, and hopefully, the conversation that they’re having when they exit the theater is different from the conversation they were having when they entered.”
The photo album, Kaufman said, “chronicles the life of everyone who runs the camp — people who worked in the kitchen, secretaries, high command, the people who drove the buses, the people who run the offices, the people who run the gas chamber. Everybody is portrayed. And I think that it invites the audience to think about not only how are humans capable of such a thing, but how are we all capable of such a thing? And what do we have to do in order to prevent ourselves from doing such a thing?”
‘Here There Are Blueberries’ begins performances Nov. 2 at Broadway’s Barrymore Theater and runs through Jan. 10.
The post Beyond the frame, thousands are being murdered in Auschwitz but here, there are blueberries appeared first on The Forward.
