RSS
This Jewish actor plays Richard Dreyfuss in Broadway’s ‘The Shark Is Broken’
(New York Jewish Week) — In 1974, three men — Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss and Robert Shaw — spent countless hours together aboard the Orca, a converted fishing boat docked in the open ocean east of Martha’s Vineyard. The trio, all actors, were filming “Jaws,” the Steven Spielberg-directed blockbuster whose filming schedule famously went 100 days over schedule.
The Orca is also the setting, and the men the cast of characters, of the play “The Shark Is Broken,” now playing at Broadway’s Golden Theatre. The play chronicles the tense relationships between the actors as they sit onboard, day after day, waiting — with decreasing amounts of patience — for the film’s mechanical shark (nicknamed “Bruce”) to be repaired so filming can continue. Like any group of near-strangers forced together in close proximity for a prolonged period of time, they bicker, bare their souls and play mindless games to pass the time.
Alex Brightman, 36, a Tony-nominated actor best known for originating leading roles in “Beetlejuice” and “School of Rock,” plays Dreyfuss, the Jewish actor who himself played the movie’s earnest marine biologist, Matt Hooper.
“The Shark Is Broken” keeps its three-person cast onstage for nearly the entire 90-minute show, and much of it centers around Shaw’s distaste for Dreyfuss. (Shaw is played by his son, Ian Shaw, who co-wrote the play based, in part, on his father’s drinking diary from his time on set.) Shaw — embittered, ill-tempered and frequently drunk— has no patience for Dreyfuss, a Brooklyn native who is anxious, eager and, according to the script, caught the acting bug after auditioning for a play at Los Angeles’ Westside JCC.
Dreyfuss’ Jewish identity is made clear from the play’s start, primarily through his own self-deprecating humor. He jokes about how his skin “bypasses tan and goes directly to sunstroke,” and how Spielberg nearly cast the emphatically non-Jewish looking John Voigt in the role of Hooper. Expressing his dislike for the ocean, Dreyfuss says, “Jews should stay away from water. Nothing good ever happened to any Jews on the water.” (Turns out that’s a sentiment with which Brightman, not a huge fan of the ocean himself, wholeheartedly agrees.) Later, as the characters dive into their childhoods, Dreyfuss reveals how his “typical Jewish father” wanted him to become either a lawyer or a doctor; this sliver of backstory helps the viewer to understand the anxiety Dreyfuss is feeling about achieving success as an actor.
Like Dreyfuss, Brightman is Jewish. He approaches his character with a fast-talking vulnerability, throwing his full physicality into the role. The New York Jewish Week caught up with Brightman in between shows to hear about his own Jewish identity, what it’s like playing a real person and how he relates to Dreyfuss’ Jewishness.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Actor Alex Brightman at the opening night of “The Shark Is Broken” on Aug. 10, 2023. (Michaelah Reynolds, Courtesy Polk & Co.)
You’re playing Richard Dreyfuss, who’s a real actor, and who’s also still living. What was it like preparing for this role?
I think I was ignorant to the idea that it was strange when I was first auditioning for it, which I guess is a good thing. But as it’s gone forward, the pressure started to build a little bit because he’s alive and probably knows about it. I watched interviews of him, pretty much only from the year or two surrounding the filming of “Jaws,” because that’s before he was the Academy Award winner [in 1977, for “The Goodbye Girl”]. He was nervous, he had imposter syndrome, and he had this huge ambition to be not only a successful actor, but to be famous. I can empathize with so many things that he went through. But it was really the voice, the mannerism work and the posture. It’s been really fun for me to figure out that real human beings can also be characters to inhabit.
There are so many jokes throughout the play about Richard Dreyfuss’ Jewishness. Does that help you feel a sense of kinship with him?
As he says in the show, “The people of Martha’s Vineyard, they look at me like they’ve never seen a Jew before.” I think it’s about the ostracizing, or even the sort of loneliness or isolation that comes from being something a lot of people didn’t, and really don’t, understand. I can relate to his anxiety about being someone that doesn’t inherently belong, or has been persecuted in the past. He has his walls up. And I think that was an interesting thing to play, because being in theater is about being vulnerable. And he isn’t, until he has to be. He’s full of loudness and bravado, but I think only later on does he feel comfortable enough to be vulnerable around strangers. And I totally understand that as a Jewish person.
Can you tell me a bit about your own Jewish upbringing and sense of Jewish identity?
I’m Jewish by genetics. My mom is Jewish, my dad is Jewish, and so I am. I never went to Hebrew school, mainly because I didn’t love regular school. My parents both had bar and bat mitzvahs, and I think they got something out of it; they definitely have some culture still ingrained. But they didn’t want to press that upon me or my brother, mainly because it wasn’t a daily practice for them.
I’m definitely culturally Jewish, even stereotypically. I’m funny. I know that seems odd, it’s not an objective thing, but I think that a lot of Jewish people I know in show business are the funniest people I know. And I know that might be a slight defense mechanism from history. I wasn’t really raised in a way that felt meaningfully Jewish, but I think I feel more Jewish now than ever.
Your character’s Jewishness feels in many ways like a throughline in his tension with Robert Shaw. Do you have a sense of how much that was based on reality?
I can’t speak for how Jewishness played into their feuding. But the reality is that they didn’t get each other — they just fundamentally did not understand each other on a human level, and on a professional level. They couldn’t relate to each other. I think some of it has to be about culture and being Jewish; I think it fuels their misunderstanding. In the show, Richard is persecuted more than anybody else. Richard is beat up, literally. He’s manhandled and thrown around. I can’t help but think under the context of being Jewish, it’s like at this point — then and also now — Jews are kind of through being tortured.
In the play, Dreyfuss is anxious about the impending release of “The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz,” in which he played the titular lead. That means that you are a Jew, playing a Jewish character, who is nervous about playing a Jewish character. Do you ever find yourself getting lost in the layers?
You’ve touched upon something that is a nightly struggle. I feel like I’m in the movie “Inception”: It’s a Jew, playing a Jew, playing a Jew. Where does it end, and where am I in that? Sometimes I do get lost even to the point where when I leave the theater I can’t shake the [Dreyfuss] accent — a sort of Queens, fast-talking, anxious, almost Woody Allen type. I think that might be a big part of who I am. It’s easier to shake off the things that are so anti-you, and I think that sometimes I bring home more of the Jewish anxiety than I anticipated.
“The Shark is Broken” is scheduled to close Nov. 19. What’s next for you after that?
I’m doing “Spamalot” in January on Broadway at the St. James. And I have a lot of writing in the hopper. I wrote a play called “Everything Is Fine” that’s getting a reading this month, and I’m hoping that it will get a production sooner than later. It explores identity, the difference between moving on and moving forward. It’s definitely about trauma but it is a comedy, very pitch black. And other than that, I’m just trying to work on this work-life balance. I’ve done so much work-work, that it’s been really nice to dive back into life-life.
—
The post This Jewish actor plays Richard Dreyfuss in Broadway’s ‘The Shark Is Broken’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Mayor Olivia Chow’s city hall has yet to adequately address antisemitism in Toronto, based on Jewish community complaints
It’s been a rocky year for relations between Toronto’s Jewish community and city hall following the Oct. 7, 2023, assault on Israel—which led to an ongoing regional war in the […]
The post Mayor Olivia Chow’s city hall has yet to adequately address antisemitism in Toronto, based on Jewish community complaints appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Amsterdamned: The Shame of Femke Halsema
Mayor of Amsterdam Femke Halsema attends a press conference following the violence targeting fans of an Israeli soccer team, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Nov. 8, 2024. Photo: Reuters/Piroschka Van De Wouw
JNS.org – In the arsenal of the antisemite, denial is a key weapon. Six million Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust? Didn’t happen. The Soviet Union persecuted its Jewish population in the name of anti-Zionism? Zionist propaganda. Rape and mutilation were rampant during the massacre in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023? What a smear upon the noble resistance of Hamas. And so on.
No surprise, then, that the left-wing mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, is now publicly regretting her use of the word “pogrom” in her summation of the shocking antisemitic violence unleashed by Arab and Muslim gangs in the Dutch city in the wake of the soccer match between local giants Ajax and visitors Maccabi Tel Aviv two weeks ago.
One day after the violence, Halsema noted that “boys on scooters crisscrossed the city in search of Israeli football fans, it was a hit and run. I understand very well that this brings back the memory of pogroms.” She could have also mentioned (but didn’t) that the Dutch authorities ignored warnings from Israel that the violence was being stoked in advance in private threads on social-media platforms, resulting in a massive policing failure; that Ajax supporters were not involved in the attacks, undermining claims that what happened was merely another episode in the long history of inter-fan violence at soccer matches; and that the “boys” engaged in the assaults were overwhelmingly youths of Moroccan or other Middle Eastern or North African backgrounds, who gleefully told their victims that their actions were motivated by the desire to “free Palestine.” But at least Halsema grasped the nature of the violence. Or so we thought.
A few days later, she rolled back her initial comments. “I must say that in the following days, I saw how the word ‘pogrom’ became very political and actually became propaganda,” she stated in an interview with Dutch media. “The Israeli government, talking about a Palestinian pogrom in the streets of Amsterdam. In The Hague, the word pogrom is mainly used to discriminate against Moroccan Amsterdammers, Muslims. I didn’t mean it that way. And I didn’t want it that way.”
On the left, the enemy is “Jewish privilege,” and on the right, it is “Jewish supremacism.”
Halsema’s discomfort does not, of course, mean that what happened in Amsterdam was not a pogrom. Nor does she speak for the entirety of the Dutch political class. Both the center-right VVD Party and the further-right PVV Party, for example, continue to describe the violence as a pogrom and have suggested strong measures for countering further outrages targeting local Jews and visiting Israelis. Both parties have urged a clampdown on mosque funding from countries promoting Islamism, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and have called on the Netherlands to follow Germany’s example in denying or removing citizenship from those convicted of antisemitism.
But the mayor’s 180-degree turn speaks volumes about how the left in Europe enables antisemitism by denying that it is a serious problem. To begin with, there is a refusal to situate each incident in its historical context, which makes it all the easier to portray violent explosions as an anomaly. Listening to Halsema, you would never know that the Amsterdam pogrom was preceded in March by a violent demonstration at the opening of the National Holocaust Museum, where pro-Hamas protestors masked with keffiyehs and brandishing Palestinian flags—this century’s equivalent of a brown shirt and a Nazi armband—lobbed fireworks and eggs in protest at the presence of Israeli President Isaac Herzog. What you will realize, however, is that Halsema is terrified of being labeled “Islamophobic.” That explains her pleas for understanding for a bunch of Moroccan thugs who express contempt not just for Israel but for the country that has provided them a sanctuary with housing, education and many other benefits.
Not only are Jews expected to take all this abuse lying down; they are then told by non-Jewish leftist politicians—often aided by Jewish “anti-Zionist” lackeys—that they have no right to situate the violence directed against them within the continuum of Jewish persecution over the centuries. What happened in Amsterdam, we are badgered into believing, was different because it wasn’t motivated by hatred of Jews but a righteous rejection of Israeli policy.
That’s why the behavior of some of the Maccabi fans is brought into the equation. Video showing fans descending into a subway as they chanted “F**k the Arabs” spread like wildfire on social-media platforms, along with reports that Palestinian flags adorning some private homes had been torn down. I am not going to endorse these actions, even if, as a Jew, I can understand and empathize with the feelings that motivated them, but I also consider them essentially irrelevant to this case. The advance planning of the pogrom, coupled with the wretched record of pro-Hamas demonstrations around the Netherlands in the previous year, proves that the Maccabi fans would have been hounded and attacked even if their behavior had been impeccable. Moreover, legally and morally, violent assaults are in a different league than acts of petty vandalism or the singing of distasteful songs. There can be no comparison, and nor should there be.
What the Amsterdam pogrom underlines is that the extremes of the left and the unreconstructed elements of the nationalist right are now at one in their attitudes towards Jews. On the left, the enemy is “Jewish privilege,” and on the right, it is “Jewish supremacism.” Both terms carry the same meaning, but are expressed in language designed to appeal the prejudices of their respective supporters. For the left, claims of antisemitism are dismissed as expressions of Jews exercising their “privilege,” dishonestly seeking victim status at the same time as the “colonial” state they identify with is persecuting the “indigenous” inhabitants. For the right, claims of antisemitism are a tactic to shield the contention that Jews are superior to everyone else. Translated, both communicate the same message: The violence you experience is violence you bring upon yourselves.
To her eternal shame, Halsema is now trafficking in this noxious idea while presiding over a city in which no Jew can now feel safe, less than a century after their ancestors were rounded up and deported by the German occupiers. She should resign.
The post Amsterdamned: The Shame of Femke Halsema first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
On Academic Indoctrination in American Universities
DePaul University Law School. Photo: ajay_suresh/Wikimedia Commons.
JNS.org – On a site named “Slow Factory,” which serves as a resource for college pro-Palestine activists, its FAQ page poses the question: “Is ‘Free Palestine’ Antisemitic?” The answer, of course, is no. Why is that supposed to be a correct response? As they explain,
“First, antisemitism is a distinctly European cultural trait that has no historical equivalent in the Levant. … The movement does not single out or attack Judaism as a religion or people. … It hopes to create a truly democratic state in which self-determination and human rights are available for everyone.”
Before treating the claptrap quoted, we need to note that Slow Factory defines itself as “an environmental and social justice nonprofit organization” that works “at the intersections of climate and culture” to “redesign socially & environmentally harmful systems.” This is accomplished through “narrative change and regenerative design.” In short, mind control is supported by progressive funding. Influence Watch makes it clear that they are extremely anti-Zionist.
To return to the above-quoted excerpt, it is patently apparent that Slow Factory is presenting a false narrative. There is antisemitism in the Levant. While some of it could be traced to the influence of Christian missionaries, much of it is rooted in the Quran and accompanying Islamic literature. There are attacks on Jews by Muslims chanting itbah al-Yahud (“slaughter the Jews”) from Baghdad’s Farhud in 1941 to the massacre by Hamas in the Western Negev in 2023. Moreover, 31 years following the signing of the Oslo Accords, no democracy has developed in the Palestinian Authority; instead, it is a continuation and deepening of an authoritarian societal rule.
The “movement” indeed singles out Jews. It prevents them from crossing encampment lines. It attacks Jewish objects—whether people, institutions, places of business or customers at cafes. It seeks out the doors of Jewish students in dormitories. It lays siege to synagogues, hospitals named “Jewish” and Jewish schools. As for their vision of a democratic state, it is a movement that heralds the most undemocratic societies, whether in Gaza or Ramallah, Hebron or Shechem.
* * *
As explained by Austrian-born essayist Jean Améry, already in 1969, the left on campuses has been captured by pro-Palestine rhetoric and framework referencing that aligned itself with, first extreme left-wing and then, in its eventual progressive mutation, melding with Islamist antisemitism. Améry (born Hanns Chaim Mayer) realized that Israel would be demonized since nothing could ultimately satisfy the eliminationist demands of anti-Zionists. Anti-Zionism was fashioned to be the new “honorable antisemitism.”
For those opposed to Zionism, Israel is a symbol of capitalism, imperialism and colonialism—the core evils leftists exist to oppose. This is the underlying layer of today’s debasement of anything pro-Israel, its pillars sunk into a feeling of intense and even depraved degradation of Jews and all things Jewish, especially an independent and successful Jewish state.
What has evolved is epitomized at Villanova University outside Philadelphia, where a director of counseling services can present antisemitic views at an international conference, describing Zionism as a “disease” that requires psychotherapy. FBI-style “Wanted” posters targeted Jewish faculty and staff members at the University of Rochester. The sheriff’s office in Walla Walla, Wash., was required to respond to a pro-Palestine student protest outside a Whitman Board of Trustees dinner at a winery forcing the college to relocate its dinner venue.
At De Paul University, supporting Israel landed one Jewish student in the hospital while a second student was lightly injured. At Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, the campus flagpole had a Hamas flag hoisted.
The deeper invasive connection between academia and anti-Zionism, however, is not in protests but in the educational content, or rather the indoctrination, that a student undergoes. For example, the University of California, Berkeley has announced that it is offering a course this coming spring semester describing Hamas as a “revolutionary resistance force fighting settler colonialism.” More invidious, the course description reads as if a primer for a revolutionary underground:
“With the U.S.-backed and -funded genocide being carried out against Indigenous Palestinians by the Israeli Occupying Force, many have found it difficult to envision a reality beyond the one we are living in today.”
A second example is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology seminar taught by linguistics professor Michel DeGraff. The course deals with “language and linguistics for decolonization and liberation and for peace and community-building.”
His position is that Jews have no connection to Israel and that Israeli textbooks “weaponize trauma of the Holocaust.” Israeli youth, he further asserts, grow up “with this trauma that made them fear that their existence is in threat.” That may be a fair observation, but he adds that the threat comes from “anyone who doesn’t believe in the superior position of the Jewish people in Israel.”
If you perceive some racism and black supremacist theory in this explanation, you are probably correct.
This is but one sphere of influence crushing on a student. In too many cases, his/her lecturers and advisors are those who sign pro-Palestine petitions, marshal the demonstrations and sit-ins, and provide support for campus groups when they are disciplined—or more correctly, when administrations attempt to do so.
The Capital Research Center has published a study titled “Marching Towards Violence” that investigated militant left-wing antisemitism on the campuses of U.S. colleges and universities. It has identified more than 150 campus groups that explicitly support terrorism or, at the least, emphasize violent anti-Israel rhetoric.
David Bernstein, founder of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values and author of Woke Antisemitism: How a Progressive Ideology Harms Jews, sums up the situation:
“Anti-Israel forces focused on U.S. college campuses have transformed the American university into a vector for their activist agenda … playing the long game—what activists call “the long march through institutions”—in inculcating a stark ideological worldview that portrays anyone with power or success … as oppressors.”
Is there an antidote? One is the Deborah Project, which defends the civil rights of Jews facing discrimination in educational settings. Its aim is “to use legal skills and tools to uncover, publicize and dismantle antisemitic abuses in educational systems.” Other groups and individuals work on many levels of engagement; still, if the monied Jewish establishment institutions do not get behind this, then the anarchy, irrationality and hate will at some point come to overwhelm Diaspora Jewry.
The post On Academic Indoctrination in American Universities first appeared on Algemeiner.com.