Uncategorized
A history of Mel Brooks as a ‘disobedient Jew’
(JTA) — Jeremy Dauber subtitles his new biography of Mel Brooks “Disobedient Jew.” It’s a phrase that captures two indivisible aspects of the 96-year-old director, actor, producer and songwriter.
The “Jew” is obvious. Born Melvin Kaminsky in Brooklyn in 1926, Brooks channeled the Yiddish accents and Jewish sensibilities of his old neighborhoods into characters like the 2000 Year Old Man — a comedy routine he worked up with his friend, the writer and director Carl Reiner. He worked Jewish obsessions into films like 1967’s “The Producers,” which features two scheming Jewish characters who stage a sympathetic Broadway musical about Hitler in order to bilk their investors.
Brooks’ signature move is to inject Jews into every aspect of human history and culture, which can be seen in the forthcoming Hulu series “History of the World, Part II.” A sequel to his 1981 film, “History of the World, Part I,” it parodies historical episodes in a style he honed as a writer on 1950s television programs such as “Your Show of Shows,” whose writers’ rooms were stocked with a galaxy of striving Jewish comedy writers just like him.
The “Disobedient” part describes Brooks’ relationship to a movie industry that he conquered starting in the early 1970s. In a series of parodies of classic movie genres — the Western in “Blazing Saddles,” the horror movie in “Young Frankenstein,” Alfred Hitchcock in “High Anxiety — he would gently, sometimes crudely and always lovingly bite the hand that was feeding him quite nicely: In 1976, he was fifth on the list of top 10 box office attractions, just behind Clint Eastwood.
Dauber describes the parody Brooks mastered as “nothing less than the essential statement of American Jewish tension between them and us, culturally speaking; between affection for the mainstream and alienation from it.”
Dauber is professor of Jewish literature and American studies at Columbia University, whose previous books include “Jewish Comedy” and “American Comics: A History.” “Mel Brooks: Disobedient Jew” is part of the Jewish Lives series of brief interpretative biographies from Yale University Press.
Dauber and I spoke about why America fell for a self-described “spectacular Jew” from Brooklyn, Brooks’ lifelong engagement with the Holocaust, and why “Young Frankenstein” may be Brooks’ most Jewish movie.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “History of the World, Part II” comes out March 6. “History of the World, Part I” may not be in the top tier of Brooks films, but it seems to touch on so many aspects of his career that you trace in your book: the parody of classic movie forms, the musical comedy, injecting Jews into every aspect of human civilization, and the anything-for-a-laugh sensibility.
Jeremy Dauber: I agree. There’s the one thing that really brings it home, and it’s probably the most famous or infamous scene from the film. That’s the Spanish Inquisition scene. You have Brooks sort of probing the limits of bad taste. He had done that most famously in “The Producers” with its Nazi kickline, but here he takes the same idea — that one of the ways that you attack antisemitism is through ridicule — and turns the persecution of the Jews into a big musical number. It’s his love of music and dance. But the thing that’s almost the most interesting about this is that he takes on the role of the Torquemada character.
As his henchman sing and dance and the Jews face torture, the Brooklyn-born Jew plays the Catholic friar who tormented the Jews.
That’s right. And what’s the crime that he accuses the Jews of? “Don‘t be boring! Don‘t be dull!” That’s the worst thing that you can be. It’s his way of saying, “If I have a religion, you know, it is show business.”
His fascination with showbiz seems inseparable from his Jewishness, as if being a showbiz Jew is a denomination in its own right.
One of my favorite lines of his is when he marries [actress] Anne Bancroft, who of course is not Jewish. And he says, “She doesn’t have to convert: She’s a star.” If you’re a star, if you’re a celebrity, you’re kind of in your own firmament faith-wise, and so it’s okay. Showbiz is this faith. But it is very Jewish, because show business is a way to acceptance. It’s a way that America can love him as a Jew, as Mel Brooks, as a kid from the outer boroughs who can grow up to marry Anne Bancroft.
Jeremy Dauber is the author of “Mel Brooks: Disobedient Jew” (Yale University Press)
You write early on that “Mel Brooks, more than any other single figure, symbolizes the Jewish perspective on and contribution to American mass entertainment.” On one foot, can you expand on that?
Jews understand that there’s a path to success and that being embraced by a culture means learning about it, immersing yourself in it, being so deeply involved in it that you understand it and master it. But simultaneously, you’re doing that as a kind of outsider. You’re always not quite in it, even though you’re of it in some deep way. In some ways, it’s the apotheosis of what Brooks does, which is being a parodist. In order to be the kind of parodist that Mel Brooks is, you have to be acutely attuned to every aspect of the cultural medium that you’re parodying. You have to know it inside and outside and backwards and forwards. And Brooks certainly does, but at the same time you have to be able to sort of step outside of it and say, you know, “Well, I’m watching a Western, but come on, what’s going on with these guys? Like why doesn’t anyone ever, you know, pass gas after eating so many beans?”
You have this great phrase, that to be an American Jew is to be part of the “loyal opposition.”
That’s right. Brooks at his best is always kind of poking and prodding at convention, but loyally. He’s not like the countercultural figures of his day. He’s a studio guy. He’s really within the system, but is poking at the system as well.
You wrote in that vein about his 1963 short film, “The Critic,” which won him an Oscar. Brooks plays an old Jewish man making fun of an art film.
On the one hand, he’s doing it in the voice of one of his older Jewish relatives, the Jewish generation with an Eastern European accent, to make fun of these kinds of intellectuals. He’s trying to channel the everyman’s response to high art. “What is this I’m watching? I don’t understand this at all.” On the other hand, Brooks is much more intellectual than he’s often given credit for.
For me the paradox of Brooks’ career is conveyed in a phrase that appears a couple of times in the book: “too Jewish.” The irony is that the more he leaned into his Jewishness, the more successful he got, starting with the “2000 Year Old Man” character, in which he channels Yiddish dialect in a series of wildly successful comedy albums with his friend Carl Reiner. How do you explain America’s embrace of these extremely ethnic tropes?
Brooks’ great motion pictures of the late 1960s and 1970s sort of track with America’s embrace of Jewishness. You have “The Graduate,” which came out at around the same time as “The Producers,” and which showed that someone like Dustin Hoffman can be a leading man. It doesn’t have to be a Robert Redford. You have Allan Sherman and all these popular Jewish comedians. You have “Fiddler on the Roof” becoming one of Broadway’s biggest hits. That gives Brooks license to kind of jump in with both feet. In the 1950s, writing on “The Show of Shows” for Sid Caesar, the Jewishness was there but in a very kind of hidden way. Whereas, it’s very hard to watch the 2000 Year Old Man and say, well, that’s not a Jewish product.
What he also avoided — and here I will contrast him with the novelist Philip Roth — were accusations that he was “bad for the Jews.” Philip Roth was told that his negative portrayals of Jewish characters was embarrassing the Jews in front of the gentiles, but for some reason, I don’t remember anyone complaining even though the Max Bialystock character in “The Producers” can be fairly described as a conniving Jew. What made Brooks’ ethnic comedy more palatable to other Jews?
“The Producers” had a lot of pushback, but for a lot of other reasons.
I guess people had enough to deal with when he staged a musical comedy about Hitler.
Exactly. But the other part is that his biggest films are not as explicitly Jewish as something like Roth’s novel “Portnoy’s Complaint.” I actually think “Young Frankenstein” is one of the most Jewish movies that Mel Brooks ever made, but you’re not going to watch “Young Frankenstein” and say, wow, there are Jews all over the place here.
What about “Young Frankenstein,” a parody of classic horror movies, seems quintessentially Jewish?
The script, which is a lot of Gene Wilder and not just Mel Brooks, is really about someone saying, “You know, I don’t have this heritage — I’m trying to fit in with everybody else. My name is Dr. FRAHNK-en-shteen.” And then people say, “No, this is your heritage. You are Dr. Frankenstein.” [Wilder’s character realizes] “it is my heritage, and I’m embracing it. And I’m Frankenstein. And you may find that monstrous but that’s your business.” It’s about assimilation and embracing who you are.
And of course, Wilder as Dr. Frankenstein is unmistakably Jewish, even when he plays a cowboy in “Blazing Saddles.”
Right. Again, by the mid-’70s, you know, you have Gene Wilder and Elliot Gould and Dustin Hoffman, all Jews, in leading roles. “Young Frankenstein” ends up being a movie about coming home and embracing identity, which is playing itself out a lot in American Jewish culture in the 1970s.
I guess I have to go back and watch it for the 14th time with a different point of view.
That’s the fun part of my job.
You talk about what’s happening at the same time as Brooks’ huge success, which is, although he’s a little younger, the emergence of Woody Allen. You describe Brooks and Woody Allen as the voice of American Jewish comedy, but in very different ways. What are the major differences?
Gene Wilder, who worked with both of them, says that working with Allen is like lighting these tiny little candles, and with Brooks, you’re making big atom bombs. The critical knock against Brooks was that he was much more interested in the joke than the story. And I think with the exception maybe of “Young Frankenstein” there’s a lot of truth to that. The jokes are phenomenal, so that’s fine. Allen pretty quickly moved towards a much more narrative kind of film, and so began to be seen as this incredibly intellectual figure. In real life, Allen always claimed that he wasn’t nearly as intellectual as everyone thought, while Brooks had many more kinds of intellectual ambitions than the movie career that he had. There is a counterfactual world in which “The 12 Chairs,” his 1970 movie based on a novel by two Russian Jewish novelists and which nobody talks about, makes a ton of money.
Instead, it bombs, and he makes “Blazing Saddles,” which works out very well for everybody.
Although he does create Brooksfilms, and produces more narrative, serious-minded films like “The Elephant Man” and “84 Charing Cross Road.”
Right, and decides that if he puts his name on these as a director, they’re going to be rejected out of hand. There is a shelf of scholarship on Woody Allen, but if you look at who had influence on America in terms of box office and popularity, it’s Brooks winning in a walk.
You also mention Brooks and Steven Spielberg in the same sentence. Why do they belong together?
Partly because they had huge popular success in the mid-’70s. Brooks is a generation older, but they are hitting their cinematic success at the same time. And they are both movie fans.
Which comes out in their work — Brooks in his film parodies and Spielberg in the films that echo the films he loved as kid.
Until maybe his remake of “West Side Story,” Spielberg is not really a theater guy in the way that Brooks is, when success meant to make it on Broadway. When Brooks was winning all those Tonys in 2001 for the Broadway musical version of “The Producers,” it may have been almost more meaningful for his 5-year-old, or 7- or 8-year-old self than making his incredibly popular pictures.
You also write about Brooks being a small “c” conservative, a bit of a square. Which I think will surprise people who think about the fart jokes and the peepee jokes and all that stuff. And by square, I mean, kind of old showbizzy, even a little prudish sometimes.
I think that’s right. There’s a great moment that I quote at the end of the book where they are trying out the musical version of “The Producers,” and they want to put the word “f–k” in and Brooks is like, “I don’t know if we can do that on Broadway,” and Nathan Lane is like, “Have we met? You’re Mel Brooks!” He’s a 1950s guy.
Another place where this kind of conservatism comes in is when you compare him to other comedians of the 1950s and ’60s — the so-called “sick comics” like Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl who were pushing the envelope in terms of subject matter and politics. He wasn’t part of that. He was part of Hollywood. He was trying to make it in network television.
There is an interview in that era when he complained that people who are writing for television are not “dangerous.” Meanwhile, he himself was writing for television. But I think it’s fair to say that “The Producers” was really something different. You didn’t have to be Jewish to be offended by “The Producers.” But as we were saying before, he is more of the loyal opposition, rather than sort of truly out there. He’s not making “Easy Rider.”
An exhibit space at the Museum of Broadway evokes the scenery from the Mel Brooks musical “The Producers.” (NYJW)
“The Producers” is part of Brooks’ lifelong gambit of mocking the Nazis, I think starting when he would sing anti-Hitler songs as a GI in Europe at the tail end of World War II. Later he would remake Jack Benny’s World War II-era anti-Nazi comedy, “To Be or Not to Be.” And then there is the quick “Hitler on Ice” gag in “History of the World, Part I.” Brooks always maintains that mocking Nazis is the ultimate revenge on them, while you note that Woody Allen in “Manhattan” makes almost the opposite argument: that the way to fight white supremacists is with bricks and baseball bats. Did you come down on one side or the other?
To add just a twinge of complication is the fact that Brooks actually fought Nazis, and also had a brother who was shot down in combat. So for me to sit in moral judgment on anybody who fought in World War II is not a place that I want to be. What’s interesting is that Brooks makes a lot of these statements over the course of a career in which Nazism is done, in the past, defeated. Tragically, the events of the last number of years made white supremacy and neo-Nazism a live question again. When “The Producers” was staged as a musical in the early 21st century, people could say, “Okay, Nazism’s time has passed.” It’s not clear to me that we would restage “The Producers” now as a musical on Broadway, when just last week you had actual neo-Nazis handing out their literature outside a Broadway show. It would certainly be a lot more laden than it was in 2001.
Time also caught up with Brooks in his depiction of LGBT characters. Gay characters are the punchlines in “The Producers” and “Blazing Saddles” in ways that have not aged well. But you also note how both movies are about two men who love each other, to the exclusion of women.
There’s an emotive component to him about these male relationships. Bialystok and Bloom [the protagonists in “The Producers”] is a kind of love story. One of the interesting things is that as it became comparatively more comfortable for gay men to live their truth in society and in Hollywood, there was an evolution. In that remake of “To Be or Not to Be,” there is a much more sympathetic gay character who’s not stereotypical.
What other aspects of Brooks’ Jewishness have we not touched upon? For instance, he’s not particularly interested in Judaism as a religion, and ritual and theology rarely come up in his films, even to be mocked.
It’s not something that he’s particularly interested in. To him, being Jewish is a voice and a language. From the beginning of his career the voice is there. What he’s saying in these accents is that this is Jewish history working through me. It is, admittedly, a very narrow slice of Jewish history.
The first- and second-generation children of Jewish immigrants growing up in Brooklyn neighborhoods that were overwhelmingly Jewish.
It was a Jewishness that was aspirational. It was intellectual. It was a musical Jewishness. It was not in the way we use this phrase now, but it was a cultural Jewishness. It was not a synagogue Jewishness or a theological Jewishness. But of course he is Jewish, deeply Jewish. He couldn’t be anything else. And so he didn’t, and thank God for that.
—
The post A history of Mel Brooks as a ‘disobedient Jew’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
I want to rescue the word Zionism. We cannot reduce a vast Jewish idea to the politics of the moment.
On Rosh Hashanah, I spoke about my predecessor Rabbi Alexander Kohut. He was the renowned European scholar who gave his first sermon here in 1885 and began with the Gomel prayer, thanking God for bringing him safely to America, to this promised land.
I need to tell you how the rest of that sermon went down. Our new German-speaking rabbi proceeded to warn our congregation about the changes he saw happening in American Judaism that threatened our connection to the Jewish people as a whole.
Two years earlier, when Hebrew Union College ordained its first class of American-trained Reform rabbis, its celebratory dinner included littleneck clams and shrimp salad: the infamous Trefa Banquet. It was a provocative declaration that American Jews were no longer bound by archaic laws that separated us from our neighbors.
Kohut cautioned that discarding tradition would leave Judaism a skeleton “without spirit and heart.” If every Jew could simply pick which rules to follow, what would hold us together as a people?
Kohut illustrated this point with a famous Midrashic parable. A group of people are traveling together on a boat. When one passenger begins drilling a hole beneath his seat, the others cry out, “What are you doing?” He responds, “Why do you care? The hole is only under my seat.” Kohut’s sermon sent shock waves through the Jewish community.
The next Shabbat, Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler, the leading voice of radical Reform, answered from his own pulpit just eight blocks uptown, arguing, “Judaism is a living faith, not a religion confined to dead letters.” For weeks, the two rabbis traded sermons before packed pews. The Kohut–Kohler debates even made the front page of The New York Times.
Later that year, Kohler helped author the Pittsburgh Platform, defining the principles of a new American Reform Judaism. Its most consequential statement was not about kashrut or ritual garb but about peoplehood, declaring, “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community.”
America had offered Jews a radical promise: you could be fully Jewish and fully American. With America gratefully embraced as our new nation, Judaism could just be our religion, like our Protestant neighbors’ down the street. It was liberating, but it also amputated a part of Jewish identity that had been essential for thousands of years.
Of course, Judaism is a religious practice. But for centuries, it was also our law and calendar, our language and literature. Jewish identity runs through how we speak and argue and tell a joke, and through that inexplicable pull that, when something happens to a Jew we have never met in a place far away, we somehow feel it happened to us.
The 20th-century philosopher Martin Buber understood why. Most religions, he noted, begin with an individual revelation. A prophet or a spiritual teacher has an encounter and shares it with others. But Judaism’s defining religious encounter is different. At Sinai, revelation happens to an entire people. Buber wrote, “In the hour of faith, the group becomes a nation. Only as a nation can it hear what it is destined to hear.” Jewish faith and peoplehood cannot be pulled apart.
But we kept trying. Modernity asked us to check a box. Religion, race, nationality: What are we?
The author Dara Horn gives the best answer I’ve heard. She says, “It’s not complicated. It’s just old. Jews are a joinable tribal group with a shared history, homeland, and culture.” That’s a whole sentence in English, but in Hebrew, it’s just two letters: Am. We are Am Yisrael, the people Israel.
Around the turn of the 20th century, just as Reform Jews were loosening their claim on nationhood, Europe told our Jewish brethren, “Not so fast.” Pogroms swept through the Russian Empire. Political movements in Germany demanded the rollback of Jewish rights. Vienna, the glittering capital of European culture, elected an openly antisemitic mayor. And in France, Alfred Dreyfus, a Frenchman by birth, language, and military service, discovered that to his accusers, he was simply a Jew.
Europe kept asking what was called the Jewish Question: What to do with the Jews? Could they assimilate enough to belong, or would they always remain strangers in the lands they called home?
Jewish leaders began asking a different question: How can we take our future into our own hands? Different Jews gave radically different answers. Their answers came to be called Zionism.
The political Zionist Theodor Herzl asked, “How do we save the Jews?” His answer was sovereignty. Jews could no longer depend on the tolerance of other nations for our safety.
The cultural Zionist Ahad Ha’am pushed back: “What good is saving the Jews if we fail to save Judaism?” His answer was cultural renewal, a Hebrew spiritual and cultural center that could renew Jewish life everywhere.
The Labor Zionist A.D. Gordon pushed the question further: But what kind of Jews are we trying to become? His answer was labor. Jews would become rooted again by working the soil, remaking not only a homeland but ourselves.
The religious Zionist Rav Kook asked, “How can this national rebirth also be a spiritual rebirth?” His answer was redemption. By rebuilding Jewish national life, even secular pioneers participated in a sacred process larger than they understood.
There was never just one Zionism, and there still isn’t today. Early Zionists disagreed about every aspect of the state they hoped to build. Zionism was a family argument about how an ancient people takes responsibility for its future.
Journalist Haviv Rettig Gur has defined Zionism as a rescue project, because underlying all of those competing visions was one urgent conviction: There has to be somewhere in the world where we do not need another nation’s permission to live as Jews.
The Holocaust made that need undeniable. Even after the world witnessed the Nazis’ machinery of extermination, hundreds of thousands of survivors languished in displaced persons camps because most nations still refused to take us in. Later, more than 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab and Muslim countries such as Iraq, Libya, and Iran, erasing Jewish communities that had endured for thousands of years.
And in the 1990s, Israel took in over a million Jews fleeing persecution from the former Soviet Union, and tens of thousands of Ethiopian Jews escaping famine and civil war. After the founding of the State of Israel, Jewish survival never again had to depend on whether someone else would open the door.
And that brings me to a rescue project for our generation. I want to rescue the word Zionism.
A Jewish Federation survey earlier this year grabbed my attention. Nine out of 10 American Jews believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. Nine out of 10. But only a third of us are willing to call ourselves Zionists. Why does that matter? Because when a majority of Jews reject the name Zionist, it obscures just how mainstream support for the Jewish state and attachment to Jewish peoplehood is for Jews.
Zionism, simply put, is the belief that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland. If you believe Israel should exist as a Jewish state, you are already standing inside the Zionist argument.
Let me tell you why I am a Zionist. To me, Zionism is what becomes possible when the Jewish people can fully shape our own lives. In Israel, Jews not only live from January to December, but from Nisan to Adar, from Rosh Hashanah to Tisha B’Av. Children order ice cream in the language of our prophets. Jews have built amazing universities and hospitals where Jewish and Palestinian citizens study side by side and save lives together. Engineers make the desert bloom one drip at a time. And we live again in a land toward which Jews in exile have directed our prayers for 2,000 years.
With that return comes the responsibility to build a society worthy of our deepest Jewish values, always striving for peace. And because I know how essential safety and self-determination are for my people, my Zionism cannot deny those same fundamental rights to another. Palestinians, too, must live with dignity, security, and freedom in that land. That, too, is my Zionism.
Today, I’m not addressing the one in 10 Jews who reject the very idea of a Jewish state, though my door and this synagogue remain open to you. I’m speaking to the majority of Jews who believe in the Jewish state but refuse the Zionist name. And you’ve told me why.
You’ve said, “I don’t want to call myself a Zionist because I can’t support the Israeli government’s or military’s treatment of the Palestinians.” But Zionism is older and larger than any government. Dissent, even contempt for an Israeli leader or policy, does not place you outside Zionism. It puts you alongside Israelis who have filled the streets for years protesting their own government because of their Zionism.
You’ve said, “I’m ashamed of Israeli extremists who commit crimes in the name of religious Zionism.” But all of us should be appalled by extremist settler violence. No one should stand in the same camp with racist ministers who excuse or enable this Hillul Hashem, this desecration. Hundreds of prominent Zionists, including prime ministers, former IDF generals, and heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet, have all condemned this Jewish terrorism and demanded an end to the violence and displacement in the West Bank.
You’ve said Zionism has become a slur, “She’s a Zionist” is now shorthand for colonialism, racism, apartheid, even genocide. But these words have a history. In the 1960s, Soviet propaganda deliberately recast the Jewish national liberation movement as a colonialist and imperialist project, while using anti-Zionism to oppress Soviet Jews, even sponsoring a 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism. The label Zionist has been weaponized against Jews for more than half a century.
We cannot reduce a vast Jewish idea to the politics of the moment. As British writer Howard Jacobson says, “Zionism is not a country or a system of government. Zionism is an expression of a people’s soul. It is a longing and a necessity, a utopian fantasy. It’s an understanding of history and a solution, an act of reasoning, an act of despair, a prayer, a poem, and a song.”
And since when do we Jews let other people do our naming for us? If we refuse the Zionist name because others have smeared it, or because some have stained it with violence, we hand the word to its most fanatical followers and its most hostile opponents. We abandon the Zionists working every day to build a more just, secure, and peaceful Israel for all its inhabitants. And we surrender a word that has carried the dreams, sacrifices, and hopes of Am Yisrael for generations.
One of our young Central members spent the last year in Israel, and he said his time there both increased his love for the Israeli people and his disgust for the current government. He’s not the type to join in protests, but on Fridays he traveled to the West Bank to accompany Palestinian shepherds and farmers so they could work with less fear of harassment or violence from settlers. Israeli groups call this “protective presence.” This young man called it his Zionism.
I especially want the next generation to know that claiming Zionism means believing in Jewish sovereignty and insisting that it’s not exempt from our tradition’s moral demands. It means seeing clearly where Israel has been a beacon and a blessing, and where it has failed to live up to the values stated in its own Declaration of Independence: freedom, justice, and peace, and equal rights for all its citizens.
When we fall short of our promise, as every person and every nation does, the Jewish response is not abandonment. It is teshuvah, a return to who we are meant to be. That is what Yom Kippur asks of us. Teshuvah requires honest accounting and change. But the goal of teshuvah is not shaming. Teshuvah is fundamentally an act of hope, the hope of return.
When the Israelites first returned to Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE after their first exile, they sang.
“When God returned us to Zion, we were like dreamers.” They couldn’t believe it. They were living inside what once seemed impossible: to be back in their land.
Zionism has always required that kind of imagination. Theodor Herzl looked at a scattered, vulnerable people and imagined us sovereign again in our ancestral homeland, saying, “Im tirtzu, ein zo agadah. If you will it, it is no dream.” Less than half a century later, the State of Israel was born. Impossible, until it happened.
And after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israelis regarded Egypt as their most formidable enemy, and the vast majority of Israelis did not believe peace was possible. But soon thereafter, Israel’s mightiest adversary became the first Arab state to make peace with it. Impossible, until it happened.
And in recent memory, after 738 days of despair and fear that we would never see every hostage out of Gaza, on Simchat Torah, two years after their kidnapping, every last living hostage came home. It was a miracle made possible by the relentless work of so many and the prayers of Am Yisrael from around the world. Impossible, until it happened.
Im tirtzu, ein zo agadah. If you will it, it is no dream.
There is so much that still feels impossible in Israel right now. But if our history teaches us anything, it’s not to underestimate what is yet to come, or our responsibility to help shape it.
Rabbi Kohut served this congregation around the time of the birth of the modern Zionist movement. His message to us in 1885 is no less true today. We Jews are in the same boat. Half of the Jews of the world live in the State of Israel. No Jew should say, “Why should I care? The hole is only under their seat.” We cannot walk away from the most important sovereign project of the Jewish people. We must proudly claim the name Zionist and take our place in the unfolding story of Am Yisrael.
The post I want to rescue the word Zionism. We cannot reduce a vast Jewish idea to the politics of the moment. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Canadian leaders condemn shooting outside Ontario synagogue at the start of Yom Kippur
(JTA) — Canadian leaders have condemned a shooting outside the Sons of Jacob synagogue in Belleville, Ontario, at the start of Yom Kippur that left a police officer seriously injured and forced the congregation to cancel services on the holiest day of the year.
“Jewish people must be able to practice their faith safely. They deserve to live their Jewish lives proudly, freely, and openly,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney wrote on X on Monday.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford joined in the condemnation with his own X post. “I’m disgusted by the shooting that took place outside the Sons of Jacob Synagogue,” he wrote. “My thoughts are with the Jewish community in Belleville and across Ontario, who have every right to gather and worship safely and without fear.”
At a press conference on Monday, Belleville’s deputy police chief Sheri Meeks identified the shooter as Shawn Ward, 29, from the neighboring city of Quinty West and the injured officer as Constable Jeff Smith.
The incident occurred at 7:10 p.m. Sunday, according to brief statements by the Belleville Police Service and the Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Belleville is a little more than 100 miles east of Toronto.
Both Meeks and SIU spokesperson Kristy Denette gave details of the gun battle that unfolded outside the synagogue, which is located at the corner of a residential street of single family homes.
The synagogue posted on social media that “there were no injuries of anyone inside the building.”
Ward allegedly arrived at the scene in a truck with a shotgun and fired at Smith, who was stationed outside the synagogue. Smith returned fire and as did a second officer who arrived at the scene.
Some 20 to 30 shoots were fired, with some hitting nearby vehicles and homes, Denette said, explaining that Ward was now in “life-threatening condition” at a hospital. Meeks added that Smith was in a hospital’s intensive care unit with serious injuries but was expected to recover.
There is a team of four investigators and two forensic investigators who are speaking to witnesses and looking through surveillance and body camera video footage, Denette explained.
A CBC report showed footage of Smith’s black unmarked vehicle parked outside the synagogue, which is now riddled with bullets, and explained that Ward’s truck was parked just across the street.
Synagogue president Norm Weddum recalled the attack for the CBC, explaining that he was ushering worshippers into the sanctuary to start the Yom Kippur services when they heard noises that sounded like “boom, boom.”
When it became clear it was gunfire, everyone ran into the synagogue auditorium and closed the doors, recalled Weddum as he described yelling at everyone to “hit the floor.”
Once the gunfire stopped, he and a number of members went to the synagogue doors and saw the impact of the gun battle and the evacuation of the shooter and the police officer from the scene by ambulance. After the attack, he said, police also entered the synagogue.
Weddum said he believed the gunman had intended to attack the synagogue but was thwarted by Smith, who had been in an unmarked vehicle.
At the press conference on Monday, a reporter asked Denette if the incident could be considered a “terrorist attack aimed at the Jewish community.”
She responded that said “common sense would say that probably was the case,” but that her department’s investigation was limited to the exchange of fire and that the Belleville police were looking at motive.
Meeks characterized it as a hate crime in a statement she made at the press conference aimed at the Jewish community.
“We recognize the concern and uncertainty many may be feeling, particularly given that this occurred near the Sons of Jacob synagogue during one of the holiest days in the Jewish faith. Let me be very clear: Antisemitism, hate and violence have no place in our community,” Meeks said.
“Every person deserves to feel safe when attending a place of worship, gathering with loved ones or participating in community life,” she stated.
There are increased patrols and heightened police presence through the city, including houses of worship, Meeks added.
A number of Canadian politicians spoke out on X against the attack, including opposition leader Pierre Poilievre and Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Canadian leaders condemn shooting outside Ontario synagogue at the start of Yom Kippur appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
There’s nothing Jewish about this classic American comedy — except just about everything
Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur’s 1928 Chicago newsroom comedy The Front Page was so famous that when Harry J. Romanoff died in 1970, his New York Times obit referenced it. And in a 1986 review of a revival with John Lithgow as the conniving editor Walter Burns and Richard Thomas as the ruthless reporter Hildy Johnson, Frank Rich asked: “is there anyone who hasn’t seen The Front Page?”
Staged by George S. Kaufman and produced by Jed Harris, the original ran at the Times Square Theater for 276 performances. It has had many lives, including Howard Hawks’ fantastic 1940 screwball comedy, His Girl Friday. Hawks brilliantly turned the bromance into a he-she love story, casting Cary Grant as Walter Burns and Rosalind Russell as Hildy. He also softened the script so that it passed The Hays Office — the film censorship bureau named for ex-Postmaster General Will H. Hays.
The play’s many admirers include Walter Kerr, another New York Times critic, who, writing about a 1969 revival, memorably described it as ” like a watch that laughed.” David Mamet praised Hecht and MacArthur’s satire in several places, once calling it “arguably the best American play.” Tennessee Williams wrote that it “uncorseted the American theater,” and Kenneth Tynan and Tom Stoppard loved it.
Hecht, who, according to researcher Jesse Tisch in an essay on Medium, did the majority of the writing, died in 1964 and our century seems more ambivalent about the play. Some critics loved the 2016 Broadway version, which Jesse Green, then of New York Magazine, said had been pieced together from several scripts. That production’s all-star cast, including Nathan Lane as Walter Burns and John Lithgow as Hildy did not prevent the late Terry Teachout from calling it “toothless.”
Part of the play’s slide may be related to the demise of legacy journalism. Chicago is down to two newspapers from the seven of the era of The Front Page. And part may be style. The long, crowded scenes lack the propulsive energy of a lot of streaming-influenced drama and the characters lack the tormented interiority many theater audiences have come to expect.
Now, the first major production in ten years — by the playwright Jeffrey Hatcher, best known for Compleat Female Stage Beauty, which became a film starring Billy Crudup, and for a 2022 stage adaptation of Dial M For Murder — has opened Northlight Theatre’s inaugural season at their $33 million building in Evanston.
Set in a crummy press room in the Criminal Justice Building in Chicago, The Front Page was the first Broadway show about zany, wisecracking journos and the corrupt politicians they took down. About to quit the paper, get married and move to Buffalo, Hildy Johnson stumbles onto death row inmate Earl Williams’ jailbreak. Walter Burns wrangles Hildy into covering one last scoop.
The play uses many sources, some of which contradict each other. In Chicago, Hecht had both devoured and befriended the Jewish comics of the day. He loved clowns, including The Marx Brothers. The Cocoanuts, the 1924 Marx Brothers’ Broadway madcap vehicle that George S. Kaufman wrote and directed and Irving Berlin wrote music for anticipates certain elements of The Front Page. Set in a resort hotel instead of a newsroom, its crime and con-filled ambiance and fast-talking shyster characters seem like a prequel to Hecht’s drama.
But The Front Page also came out of the imagination of a first-generation American Jew who came of age in the 1910s. Born in 1893 in New York, Hecht moved west with his Russian immigrant parents, settling at age ten in Racine, Wisconsin. He arrived in Chicago when he was 16, became a journalist and hung out with figures in that city’s Literary Renaissance, most of whom were not Jewish.
Hecht had an enduring but tormented friendship with the writer Max Bodenheim, who was raised Jewish. It began with the men collaborating on plays and starting a modernist magazine, The Chicago Literary Times and descended into each satirizing the other in novels. Even worse, Bodenheim seemed to become Hecht’s evil twin. Like Hecht, Bodenheim was a provocateur. Like Hecht, he moved to New York. But where Hecht flourished, Bodenheim crashed into poverty. Hecht helped him financially. But he couldn’t save him. In 1954, Bodenheim and his third wife were brutally murdered in their apartment.
If Bodenheim was a daredevil, Hecht was a fabricator. He embellished his nonfiction, including chunks of his 1921 and 1922 column for The Chicago Daily News, ‘1,001 Nights in Chicago.’ Hecht’s Chicago peers mostly tolerated his provocations and fabulations. But as he grew famous, they became less tolerant. Writing in 1973, after Hecht’s death, Norman Mailer wrote that he was “never a writer to tell the truth when a concoction could put life in his prose.”
And yet to say that The Front Page is just an embellishment seems wrong. It is based in real life. Jazz Age Chicago had plenty of newspapermen, (some Jewish) who regularly impersonated people with accents, tall tales, and disguises to get stories. The city was full of Jewish criminals too, like Ike Bloom, who ran Midnight Frolics Cafe, a nightclub Hecht frequented. But the central characters Hecht and MacArthur used as models for The Front Page were not Jewish. Walter Burns is based on Walter Howell, a famously Machiavellian editor. The death row murderer Earl Williams is based on Tommy O’Connor, a convicted murderer who was never captured after he escaped the county jail in 1921.
Though Hecht didn’t write The Front Page until he left Chicago for New York in 1924, he continued to identify with the city — or at least his version of the city. In Hollywood where he won his first Academy Award for the silent gangster film, Underworld, he wrote dozens of movies including Notorious, Scarface, Twentieth Century, Design for Living, and Wuthering Heights and ghostwrote Gone With The Wind, Stage Coach, and A Star is Born. “He invented 80% of what is used in Hollywood movies today,” Jean-Luc Godard said in 1968.
Hecht liked to say that “he became a Jew at 39” in the late 30s, when he took up anti-Hitler activism. He wrote polemics entreating Americans to pay attention to Hitler and pageants, such as one staged in Madison Square Garden, encouraging the country to attack Germany. As the scholar Liesl Olsen has written, he was “a heroic truth-teller who demanded that his country act decisively during modern history’s blackest hour.”
But recent biographers have complicated the idea of Hecht’s Jewishness as a midlife discovery. In the words of one, Adina Hoffman, he was “divided,” the man who grew up hearing Yiddish. And he was, like a lot of Jews of his generation, not observant, instead using journalism and the performing arts to express his Jewishness. In his Chicago days, literature and theater were his response to literary friends (and enemies) characterizing his Jewishness in one way or another.Carl Sandburgaffectionately referred to him as the “Jewish Huck Finn.” Ezra Pound (less affectionately) called him “Rabbi Ben Hechtenberg.”
Hecht had to protect himself, either by acting tough, or by submerging himself in characters and fantasies. So he turned to theater. In Chicago, he wrote plays with Sherwood Anderson and then with the founder of The Goodman Theatre, Kenneth Sawyer Goodman. In New York, he briefly hung out with the Algonquin Table set, many of whom dabbled in theater. But it was not a mutual admiration society. Dorothy Parker complained about his “smiling and swaggering savageries” and Alexander Woolcott wrote, “Hecht’s favorite character in literature is the disconcerting little boy who, when the King paraded in the imaginary robe, cried out: ‘But he hasn’t got anything on!’” Even the actor George Jessel, meeting Hecht during a rehearsal of The Front Page, described him as a yokel “wearing a loud red tie and a shirt that might have been used as a stage curtain for a troupe of very gay midgets.”
In The Front Page, Hecht and MacArthur wrote a play that, with its profanity and cynicism towards politicians and journalists, initially attracted the attention of the police, who sent stenographers to note the supposedly pornographic dialogue. But nothing much came of the outrage except that the play became a hit. Nearly 100 years later, the classic vehicle seems, at first glance anyway, more charming than shocking.
The new production is directed by Northlight Artistic Associate Director BJ Jones, who was an official artistic associate at Skokie’s now-defunct National Jewish Theater in the 1980s and 1990s.
Jones sees The Front Page’s legacy in 20th century Jewish writers, especially ones with a Chicago connection — David Mamet’s scurrilous language, Larry Gelbart’s rat a tat dialogue in M*A*S*H.
Reading The Front Page now you also might get the sense of a Jewish play manqué: its outsider characters, its energy, its cynicism. Jeffrey Hatcher, who adapted it, says. “It’s Jewish in the same way as you could say about Irving Berlin, ‘there’s nothing Jewish about him except for everything he says.’ You feel it in the razzamatazz of the talk.”
Here are the first lines of the original 1928 script, in which the guys are playing poker:
The Card Players: crack it for a dime….by me…I stay…me too….I’m behind again…I was even a couple of minutes ago… papers…three…two…three to the dealer.
The scene is urban melting pot! Jazz! Vaudeville! As Hatcher puts it: “The play is chock full of Irishmen, Wasps, Presbyterians. But Jews are not there except in the style and verve of the language.” For his part, he names Officer Jacobi, who in the original is “voice from jail yard.” And he adds Abramovitz, an offstage journo.
Hatcher also wisely kept the gender-flipped casting from Howard Hawks’ His Girl Friday, in which star reporter, Hildy Johnson, was played by Rosalind Russell. He whittles down the play from three acts to two and the cast from 23 to 13. And he cleaned up some of the slurs. Like Hildy calling Jacobi “pickle nose” and the word “sissy.”
He did, however, keep “Polack Mike.” “We don’t want to blunt the knife so that it’s a butter knife,” he said.
Still, there is something constricted in The Front Page. The long scenes are sometimes funny, but also cruel, this world where nepotism and corruption rule, violence is king, and an editor and a politician manipulate everyone. If Hecht’s divided Jewishness led to his outsider take on Chicago journalism, his world can also seem hollow.
In the famous last scene, Walter lets Hildy go off to get married and even gives the happy couple his watch. The minute they leave, he calls his henchman to get the police to arrest them. And then he delivers the fabulous last line as if he himself even believes it: “The son of a bitch stole my watch!”
In 1928 the phrase “son of a bitch” shocked audiences. Now it seems quaint. But the vignette made me consider how the play takes people’s selfishness and cruelty for granted. Those in charge are so glib about the lives of others, including those they supposedly love. It barely seems like a comedy anymore; it’s too real.
*
The post There’s nothing Jewish about this classic American comedy — except just about everything appeared first on The Forward.
