Connect with us

RSS

‘Golda’ focuses on a few grim weeks in the life of Israel’s first female prime minister. A biographer wants you to see the bigger picture. 

(JTA) — “Golda,” the new biopic starring Helen Mirren as Israel’s first (and so far only) female prime minister, focuses on the few terrible weeks late in her life that would in some ways seal Golda Meir’s legacy. On Yom Kippur 1973, Egypt and Syria led a sneak attack on Israel that, in its stealth and fury, erased the euphoria that followed Israel’s lightning victory six years earlier in the Six-Day War.

The public blamed Meir for Israel’s lack of preparation; she resigned in 1974 and her reputation, particularly in Israel, has never really recovered. 

For Meir’s defenders, her legacy has often been obscured by misogyny and condescension. Biographers like Francine Klagsbrun, in 2017’s “Lioness,” and Deborah Lipstadt, whose “Golda Meir: Israel’s Matriarch” was published this month, argue for a fuller, more generous assessment of Meir. They recall a Zionist pioneer, born in present-day Ukraine in 1898 and raised in Milwaukee, who helped shape public opinion about the nascent Jewish state in the United States and ignited American Jewish fundraising for its cause; a Labor Zionist activist who helped establish the Israeli welfare state that sustained the country and its waves of immigrants through the 1980s, and a foreign minister who, over a decade, forged important alliances with the French, the United Nations and, most importantly, the United States. 

In “The Only Woman in the Room: Golda Meir and Her Path to Power,” which came out late last year, Pnina Lahav picks up on these themes and develops another: How Meir, adamant in not calling herself a feminist, nevertheless refused to be defined by the traditional roles set out for her and instead forged a path for other women in politics. 

Lahav, born in Israel, is an emerita professor of law and a member of the Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies at Boston University. We spoke this week about the ways Meir has been underestimated, how she defied the Jewish grandmother stereotype and how a flawed leader can also be considered a great one.

Our conversation was edited for length and clarity. 

Your book asks us to consider the ways Golda Meir succeeded as a woman in a man’s world, but also asks that we judge her by the standards of Israel’s other male leaders, both in her accomplishments and in her flaws. What did you discover in your research that may have changed your perception, or the public’s perception, of her as a leader?

As I learned about her decision-making, the way she conducted foreign affairs, I came to respect her more and more. I did not expect to see a very savvy, very experienced and caring person as I saw at the end. 

I wanted to give [the book] as a gift to the Israeli people, particularly to Israeli women, to say to them that we also have great leaders. It’s not only Moshe Dayan and David Ben-Gurion. Golda was a great leader. She understood exactly what was going on. She was capable of making important policy. She had a very good relationship with the American administration, and we should be very proud of her rather than putting her down. Israelis have a tendency to look down and underestimate her as someone who was not really up to the job. I think it’s a big, big mistake.

Before we look at her political career, I wanted to step back. She grew up in Milwaukee, but was born in Kyiv at a time when Jews were experiencing persecution and pogroms. How much did that shape who she became?

I think very little. Before coming to America, she was a little girl. She was not subjected to a pogrom. Let’s not forget, she used the pogrom as a PR piece. She used it to extol the significance of Zionism: “Outside of Israel we are subjected to pogroms, inside we are protected.”

That was a pitch she used effectively in the 1930s, before she became a central figure in Israeli politics. After moving to Palestine in 1921, she would regularly travel back to the States to fundraise and promote the Labor Zionist cause here, to groups like Pioneer Women and other Jewish groups. To what degree did she create the image of Israel in the minds of American Jews?

She’s the one who laid the foundation for a very strong relationship with the American government and the American people. One of the reasons for this was that she was an American. She knew how to speak to them. It’s not only the language but the body language, the culture. Other leaders who grew up in Germany, or Holland, or even in England did not understand the American instinct in the same way. She always kept her Midwestern accent. And that was very important because it communicated an affinity with the United States. 

Golda Meir was indeed the “only woman in the room” at the  first session of Israel’s third government, in 1951. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion chairs the meeting. (David Eldan, National Photo Collection of Israel, Goverment Press Office)

A lot of the American Jewish establishment was not really keen on Zionism before Israel’s establishment. But she was speaking directly to working class Jews who came to view it as a place, if they weren’t going to move there, that they wanted to support and build.

For many of them it was a haven — if something happened, God forbid, we have a place to protect us. She knew how to play on this.

Golda graduated from a school for teachers in Milwaukee, but all of her education in statecraft and foreign policy was on-the-job training. What were her strengths in becoming a spokesperson and diplomat?

As I did the research, it was interesting to me how attentive she was to other views. She was always willing to consult, always willing to listen. She didn’t always accept your advice, but she always took it into consideration. I thought that was a very important thing. 

I would also say that the men that she befriended, such as David Remez [Israel’s first Minister of Transportation], who was her lover for many years, also influenced her in terms of foreign affairs. They were very, very experienced and educated people. And she relied on them to learn and to expand her views. She knew how to choose her friends, like Zalman Shazar, who eventually became president of Israel. These were the people that she socialized with and associated with. She didn’t go to school. So she basically absorbed information and analysis from the people that she was socializing with. 

Golda was 70 when she became prime minister in 1969, and 75 when she resigned in the wake of the near-debacle of the Yom Kippur War, which in some ways became her legacy. But you, like others, argue for a more complete portrait of what she accomplished as a leader before and after the establishment of the state. 

I’m afraid many people today in Israel forget Golda, and many people remember Golda negatively, because of the Yom Kippur War, which they tend to blame her for. It’s not entirely fair. There was a lot of bias against Golda over time, and the reason is basically misogyny: People did not like the idea that they had a female leader, especially in wartime. She also had a lot of enemies in Israeli politics. So people like, for example, Shimon Peres — they did not like her. They were spreading a lot of information about her that was very negative. She had to fight a lot of negative press. I remember myself as a student, that we didn’t really think much of her. It’s only slowly that a younger generation like ours began to value her contributions.

But at the same time, if you look at public opinion polls at the time, you see that the Israeli public was very supportive and very, very positive about her leadership. 

Golda’s greatest contribution was in foreign affairs. She came to fame in the 1950s as minister of foreign affairs, and she gained a lot of experience, which she then put to good use later as a prime minister. People saw that she had a very good relationship with the American administration, which was the thing that really counted in Israel. She knew the Nixon administration very well. She had a very good relationship with [then Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger. They did not always see eye to eye, but they had good relationships. They could speak to each other. They would try to persuade each other.

As you said, negative perceptions of Meir came from the Yom Kippur War, when Israel appeared unprepared for the attack by Arab armies and lost not only 2,500 soldiers but its own sense of security. What led to the negative impressions of her during and after the war? Did you find anything that showed that she may not have deserved that kind of criticism?

First of all, before the war, Israelis were on top of the world, and she essentially made the same miscalculation. She announced many, many times before the war, when elections were being held at the same time, that “we never had it so good.” And suddenly, we found ourselves attacked by Egypt and Syria, and the feeling that we were going to lose that war was very strong, very deep. The change from the sense of security and the confidence to the surprise of the war was great. So she became the scapegoat. People will simply blame the leader when things don’t go well. 

Still, she successfully made the case to the Nixon administration that it had to resupply Israel with weapons, which helped turn the fight against the Arab states. 

Golda had great persuasive powers. Even if you disagreed with her, you’d slowly begin to see her point of view much more positively. 

What do people get wrong about her, either positively or negatively? I am thinking how she is sometimes portrayed as sort of a quintessential Jewish grandmother, but was in fact was a really tough and well-informed political operative. 

It’s a tricky question, because for young people, the Golda that she was after the war was not the same Golda that she was before. So people look negatively at her after the war and blame her for a lot of things that they actually should have blamed themselves for. 

Such as?

Most Israelis made it very clear after 1967 that they didn’t want to return any of the territories seized in the Six-Day War [which included the West Bank, the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights]. They didn’t want to return any of it, and they were not receptive to compromises. They felt the Arab side should compromise. So they were very surprised when they launched this war against them. And they were also very surprised to see that the United States was not 100% behind Israel and was willing to be more objective. And then they looked for somebody to blame, and blamed her for not supporting a compromise with [Egyptian president Anwar] Sadat [before the war]. But public opinion, by and large, didn’t want it. They were not interested in giving up anything. 

She also said that we could overcome anything, and one of the reasons for that is that her military advisors were promising her that everything was going to be okay and that we could always win the war.

Golda Meir meets with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and troops on the Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur War, Oct. 21, 1973. (Ron Frenkel/GPO/Getty Images)

Did she have a blind spot toward the Palestinians? She gave the famous interview in 1969 when she said, “There was no such thing as Palestinians,” meaning there was no independent Palestinian Arab state, entity or identity prior to the creation of Israel. 

I wouldn’t call it a blindspot. I think it was an effort on her part to cater to the trend in public opinion. The public opinion at the time was developing the view that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people. And she thought it was useful for Israeli foreign affairs. But if you look at her history, she knew very well that there was a Palestinian people. When she came to Israel, she saw a Palestinian people but she slowly went over to this other view. And the feeling that she also shared was that, “we don’t want to compromise.” It was a feeling that Israel fought a successful war [in 1967] and we are entitled now to reap the fruit of our efforts. 

Was she especially sensitive to public opinion?

She was the kind of leader who followed the crowd, or public opinion. And so she felt that if that’s what people want, and if she also felt this way, that therefore that was the way we should develop our policy. For a contrast, if you read [Israeli diplomat] Abba Eban’s memoirs, you see that he wanted to compromise, he wanted to reach out to the Arab side and she basically marginalized him. She didn’t want to hear what he had to say. 

And so from this perspective, you can say she was not a good leader. Because she did not foresee what was coming. It’s tragic.

Do you have any personal memories of her?

I’m 77. I was a student when she was prime minister, and a child when she was Minister of Foreign Affairs. When I saw her I was at the margins of a crowd, and I was just a lowly 20-year-old.

I do remember watching her once in conversation. I was impressed by the way that she was in control of the conversation. But I don’t want to claim that I knew her or that I have something more valuable to say than that. 

There’s a lot of controversy about her views on feminism. Many feminists were and are disappointed that she never could bring herself to endorse the movement despite her own accomplishments.

Whether she liked it or not, she was a feminist. She believed that women should have the power to conduct policy, and to go up the ladder in politics. She wanted to have a life outside of the home. And she said she needed to work and she needed to make a difference. 

She was a feminist in action: an ambitious woman who can learn the secrets of the trade and go up the ladder all the way to the prime ministership. But she did not understand the value of feminism. She was afraid of it and the reason I think she was afraid of it is that Israelis were very much against feminism at the time, which is due primarily to militarism. Militarism was very strong in Israel at the time and Israelis admired the strong leaders, you know, the generals in the field. 

When you think about Israel now, with a far-right government, with the public upheaval over attempts by the current prime minister to overhaul the judiciary, what lessons from Golda’s life might apply at the present moment?

I believe the word “hubris” should come into the picture. At the time of the Yom Kippur War, we were full of hubris. We were sure that nothing could vanquish us or bring us to do something that we didn’t want to do. And I think we may be in the same situation today. And that is always the problem. We’re fairly strong, with a strong army, the United States is on our side, and we say to ourselves, “we can do anything,” but there is no situation in which you can do anything. And the truth of the matter is you need to listen to the other side, understand where the compromise is, and give something back. 

—
The post ‘Golda’ focuses on a few grim weeks in the life of Israel’s first female prime minister. A biographer wants you to see the bigger picture.  appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Post Views: 416
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Amnesty Lied About Israeli ‘Genocide’ — the Media Gladly Joined In

Copies of Amnesty International’s report named “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity” are seen at a press conference at the St George Hotel, in East Jerusalem, February 1, 2022. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

Amnesty International’s latest significant report, “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza,” is in keeping with the organization’s long history of hostility towards Israel — and accuses the Jewish State of genocide in Gaza.

According to Amnesty, its report:

documents Israel’s actions during its offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip from 7 October 2023. It examines the killing of civilians, damage to and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, the obstruction or denial of life-saving goods and humanitarian aid, and the restriction of power supplies. It analyses Israel’s intent through this pattern of conduct and statements by Israeli decision-makers. It concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Amnesty’s conclusion, however, is categorically wrong.

Amnesty Redefines Genocide

Having already resorted, in 2022, to formulating a totally new definition of what it calls “the crime of apartheid,” Amnesty has changed the definition of genocide to suit its predetermined conclusions.

Despite this, the coverage of Amnesty’s genocide report demonstrates how too many journalists are not prepared to exercise their own critical thinking.

The media commonly suffer from the “Halo Effect,” whereby journalists cite non-governmental and so-called human rights organizations like Amnesty, treating them as beyond reproach and assuming their information is authoritative.

This effect is exacerbated by the need for the media to get the story out quickly. It’s unlikely that a journalist would spend their time properly reviewing the substantial 296-page Amnesty report. So, Amnesty’s talking points in its six-page press release summary or statements at a press conference will be what appears in the media.

And the news cycle moves quickly. By the time those who wish to respond to the report in-depth will have finished reading it and issuing a response, the Amnesty story will be over. The impact of the report, however, and the genocide charge, will last much longer, becoming part of the media narrative, as Israel comes under sustained assault from multiple sources seeking to delegitimize its right to self-defense and even its right to exist.

NGO Monitor did manage to obtain the Amnesty press release in advance, noting in its preliminary analysis that the six-page, 2,500-word embargoed summary “highlights the absence of substance and the dominance of slogans and myths. Following previous practice, the press release declares Israel to be guilty of genocide, regardless of the reality in Gaza. This basic paradigm is evidenced by Amnesty’s highly selective use of ‘evidence,’ including fundamental omission of facts that do not support its political line, and the blatantly manipulative discussion of civilian casualties.”

This discussion of civilian casualties is taken up by Salo Aizenberg, who notes Amnesty’s avoidance of addressing the combatants killed figure and the resulting civilian/combatant ratio would have shown evidence of the IDF’s precision targeting, thus eviscerating Amnesty’s report.

NGO Monitor also noted that Amnesty had “made an embargoed text of the report and a lengthy press release available to select journalists in an attempt to ensure favorable media coverage. Although under no obligation to adhere to Amnesty’s embargo, journalists who cover Amnesty’s report should avoid this manipulation and incorporate detailed critical analysis.”

It appears that ship has already sailed as media outlets, including Associated Press, CNN, Reuters, AFP, BBC, The Guardian, Washington Post, and Sky News, jump on the story.

Amnesty Israel Rejects the Report

So, it’s unlikely that any international press will do the extra legwork to question Amnesty’s malleable definition of genocide. It’s also unlikely that any will sit up and take notice of the press release (Hebrew) issued by Amnesty’s Israel branch.

While still highly critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza, Amnesty Israel states it “does not accept the claim that genocide has been proven to be taking place in the Gaza Strip and does not accept the operative findings of the report.”

Haaretz, meanwhile, which is followed religiously by foreign media, reports on a joint statement from several members of Amnesty Israel and Jewish members of Amnesty International who:

argue that report’s “artificial analysis” — especially with regard to the widespread destruction in Gaza, which allegedly indicates a genocidal intent — suggests that the authors “reached a predetermined conclusion — and did not draw a conclusion based on an objective review of the facts and the law.”

“From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the ‘genocide report,’ even when research was still in its initial stages,” the Jewish employees reveal.

“This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled ‘genocide report’ and then to have to conclude that it is ‘only’ about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations.”

The joint statement further stated that the report “is motivated by a desire to support a popular narrative among Amnesty International’s target audience,” and that it stems “unfortunately, from an atmosphere within Amnesty International of minimizing the seriousness of the October 7 massacre.

“It is a failure — and sometimes even a refusal — to address the Israeli victims in a personal and humane manner.” According to the Jewish staff, the international organization also “ignored efforts to raise these concerns.”

But will Western and foreign journalists take any notice?

Holocaust Appropriation

It says much about a journalist’s mindset when the Holocaust is appropriated to subconsciously associate Israel’s actions in Gaza, which Amnesty is claiming to be genocide, with the very real Nazi genocide against the Jewish people.

Sadly, both the Associated Press and The Guardian went down that road in their stories on the Amnesty report.

The Guardian even went as far as to preempt Israeli reaction to the Amnesty report, claiming it would “generate accusations of antisemitism,” effectively accusing Israelis and Jews of weaponizing antisemitism in bad faith.

AFP didn’t even bother to include any Israeli reaction to the report beyond the boilerplate line: “Israel has repeatedly and forcefully denied allegations of genocide, accusing Hamas of using civilians as human shields.”

The Washington Post quotes Paul O’Brien, executive director of Amnesty International USA who says: “What the law requires is that we prove that there is sufficient evidence that there is [genocidal] intent, amongst all the other complex intents that are going to exist in warfare.”

And this is the crux: The death toll and destruction in Gaza can be explained as an inevitable and tragic outcome of a war where Hamas have done everything possible to put Gaza’s civilian population in harm’s way. And Israel has taken every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, while still allowing humanitarian aid to cross into Gaza.

The inevitable result of Amnesty’s approach is to turn every war into a genocide, thereby stripping the word of its true meaning.

Israel’s actions are not those of a state that shows intent to commit a genocide, and to charge Israel with such a crime shows just how divorced from reality Amnesty International and its cheerleaders are.

Sadly, the international media have given an unquestioning platform for this libel.

The author is the Managing Editor of HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post Amnesty Lied About Israeli ‘Genocide’ — the Media Gladly Joined In first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 17
Continue Reading

RSS

After Massive Arson Attack, We in Australia’s Jewish Community Are Under Siege

Arsonists heavily damaged the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne, Australia, on Dec. 6, 2024. Photo: Screenshot

On Friday morning, the world of the Australian Jewish community changed forever. The confidence that the community has always known has vanished — replaced with a new reality of uncharted, dangerous waters, where tolerance and security are no longer guarantees.

The impact of seeing a holy place of worship burning in the very heart of Jewish Melbourne, was like a stab in the heart of the Jewish people.

A synagogue represents so much more than a house of worship. It is a sanctuary for reflection, for learning, and for community gathering. For Jews, it is a cornerstone of identity and faith. An attack on such a place is not only an assault on Jewish life, but an assault on the core values that define Australia as a tolerant and inclusive society.

Australia’s relationship with its Jewish population has long been defined by warmth, mutual respect, and shared values — tracing all the way back to the early days of the country’s formation. It was the first country to vote in favor of the 1947 partition plan that paved the way for the establishment of the modern-day State of Israel. It was also the famed Australia Light Horse brigade that conquered Beersheba in October 1917, which enabled British forces to break the Ottoman line, leading to the end of Ottoman rule in the Land of Israel.

But the deliberate firebomb attack on the Adass Israel synagogue in Melbourne reflects a broader, troubling trend. In recent times, the social fabric of Australia has come under severe strain, mirroring challenges in other parts of the world. The dramatic rise in antisemitism, up 316% since the October 7, 2023 Hamas pogrom — and Israel’s defensive response — has been particularly heartbreaking, given the country’s history as a refuge for Jewish people fleeing persecution.

Melbourne’s Jewish community, for instance, has a large number of descendants of Jews who escaped the horrors of the Holocaust. And the country has the largest population of Holocaust survivors per capita outside of Israel. Many found safety in Australia, a land free from the deep-seated prejudices of Europe. They rebuilt their lives and became integral contributors to Australian society. For these families, the attack on a synagogue in Melbourne echoes the dark past their ancestors sought to leave behind.

Yet the legacy of antisemitism is not one bound by geography, distance, or time. Its tentacles reach far beyond its origins in the old world, and are able to penetrate every fabric of society in every corner of the new world, including here in Australia. While Australia’s ruling government has become more hostile to Israel in recent years, it is also the changing demographic nature of the country — including people from places where antisemitism is much more normalized — that helps account for the negative changes happening here.

But political leadership has a responsibility too, and the failure of the government to act decisively against the growing wave of antisemitism has exposed the Jewish community to these acts of hostility.

This rise in antisemitism has coincided with the government’s decision to undermine decades of bipartisan diplomatic support for Israel, leaving many in the Jewish community to feel abandoned. Since October 7, 2023, the sitting government has constantly criticized Israel’s conduct in the war, failing to understand the existential threat Israel faces. Just last week, it supported a biased one-sided resolution at the United Nations that demanded Israel unilaterally withdraw from every inch of territory Palestinians want for their state, including all the holy places of Jerusalem, while demanding nothing of Palestinians — not even the cessation of terrorism.

And the Australian government has failed to crack down on weekly anti-Israel protests, which are often violent and intimidating, and take place in our major cities.

The flames of antisemitism are burning in Australia, just like they are burning in Canada and France and many places across the world. But to douse these flames requires a willpower, strength, and a moral clarity that this government has so far not shown.

If Australia’s leaders fail to act, it will not just be a single synagogue consumed by these flames — but the very fabric of Australian society itself.

Justin Amler is a policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC).

The post After Massive Arson Attack, We in Australia’s Jewish Community Are Under Siege first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 16
Continue Reading

RSS

Re-imagined ‘Merchant of Venice’ in New York Fails Horribly Because of Poor Artistic Choices

“The Merchant of Venice” at Classic Stage Company. Photo: publicity release.

William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice is one of his most powerful plays. In recent years, there have been some who said it should not be taught or performed because of its anti-Jewish themes.

Early on in the new production of the play at Classic Stage Company in Manhattan, one performer on stage calls it a “problem play.”

I’ve taught the play many times at a high school level, and no student came away hating Jews because Shylock, the Jewish moneylender, is the villain of the play. Art is a reflection of reality — and one character does not represent an entire people.

There are surely large antisemitic elements in the play, including that Shylock is bent on getting his pound of flesh, refusing to have multiple times the money he has lent Antonio (who has mocked him in the past and treated him poorly) returned.

I was looking forward to seeing this production, and how Richard Topol as Shylock would give the “Hath not a Jew eyes,” speech, in which he argues for equality and seeing Jewish people’s humanity.

With rising antisemitism in the world and in America, I looked forward to seeing how the play would be “re-imagined” — as Classic Stage Company promised.

Jewish director Igor Golyak has a kernel of genius in having this staged production as a talk show. But the kernel unfortunately never pops. He abandons a possible Jerry Springer idea for some weak slapstick comedy that doesn’t work in the slightest.

The actors are all high energy and talented. Alexandra Silber, who I’ve seen excellently play Tzeitel in a production of Fiddler on the Roof, is a commanding presence on stage as Portia and fun to watch. Jorge Espinoza has great charm as an idealistic and muscular Bassanio. As Shylock, Richard Topol wears Groucho Marx fake glasses and a fake big nose and he is a good actor, but the play is so off-kilter, there is no power in any of his lines. Gus Birney goes all in with a good amount of gusto as Shylock’s daughter, Jessica, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she has a lead role in an upcoming play. T.R Knight who plays Antonio, has some good moments.

But I cannot understand what in the world Golyak is trying to do here. Yes, we get it. He wants to show the absurdity of how in Shakespeare’s times, the play was viewed as a comedy and should not be viewed as funny. But in order to do this, one should make sure there is balance and power, not just things that appear different for the sake of being different.

This production is like a promising microwave meal that looks smoking hot at the beginning, and fails because not enough care and craft was taken.

There are two jaw-droppingly absurd moves. The first is to have Richard as Shylock say “Richard is my name.” This is simply infantile. The biggest miss is to think people will care that you have a painted Jewish star and the chanting of the “kel maleh” the prayer recited at funerals, despite scenes earlier, having a puppet perform a sex act on another. You can choose one of the other to have in your play — but using both together is a cheap trick, and destroys tonal consistency.

There is value to abstract art, and not doing everything “on the nose.” But to try to shock simply to be shocking is pointless.

To have “Hava Nagilah” in the show also serves no purpose. A scene where a character is tied down as was Jack Tripper in Three’s Company also has no relation to The Merchant of Venice.

A woman who sat next to me said she’d seen Golyak’s direction of Our Class, which was a play about five Jews and five Catholics in Poland and is inspired by the 1941 pogrom in the Polish village of Jedwabne. I am sorry I did not see it.

It is sadly ironic that the Classic State Company has done away with a classic play, and turned it into a ball of randomness and banality. That some of the women are scantily clad neither helps nor hurts the production.

When you peel off the plastic, this production of The Merchant of Venice has some smoke, but no fire because Golyak, despite a great cast, fails to go deeper into a depiction of the consumption and understanding of information and more specifically, hate.

The author is a writer based in New York.

The post Re-imagined ‘Merchant of Venice’ in New York Fails Horribly Because of Poor Artistic Choices first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 12
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News