Uncategorized
Dave Chappelle isn’t the first to suggest that Jews run Hollywood. Here are the origins of the trope.
(JTA) – On “Saturday Night Live” last weekend, Dave Chappelle really wanted his audience to know there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood.
“I’ve been to Hollywood, this is just what I saw,” he said during his widely dissected monologue. “It’s a lot of Jews. Like, a lot.”
While suggesting that it might not be fair to say Jews run the industry, the comedian said that coming to that conclusion is “not a crazy thing to think.” Chappelle’s “SNL” episode drew a season-high 4.8 million viewers when it aired on NBC (eclipsing Jewish comedian Amy Schumer’s own hosting stint the week before), and his monologue had more than 8.1 million views on YouTube as of Wednesday.
The Anti-Defamation League was quick to denounce Chappelle’s act, calling it antisemitic. Other prominent Jews have followed suit.
“I was very disturbed to see him speaking, to millions of people, a lot of antisemitic tropes,” Pamela Nadell, a professor at American University who researches antisemitism, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
But Chappelle, who was himself riffing on recent antisemitism controversies involving Kanye West and Kyrie Irving, wasn’t exactly breaking new ground by insinuating that Jews run Hollywood. The trope has been a part of show business since its earliest days — when, in a literal sense, Jews did run Hollywood. Or the studios, anyway.
Nearly every major movie studio was founded in the early 20th century by a group of first-generation secular Jews who immigrated to the United States from Eastern Europe. Carl Laemmle (Universal), Adolph Zukor (Paramount), William Fox (Fox), Louis B. Mayer (MGM), and Benjamin Warner (Warner) were all Jewish silver-screen pioneers, laying the groundwork for the size and scale of the industry to follow.
But the industry has diversified greatly in the century since, with studios largely swallowed up by corporate behemoths. And while individual Jews may be overrepresented in an industry that has long welcomed and rewarded them, the rhetorical danger, Nadell said, comes in conflating a large Jewish presence in an industry with ownership and control of that industry.
“Jews remain active in Hollywood in a variety of roles, but it would be impossible to say that they run Hollywood, that they own Hollywood,” she said.
“Whenever the Jews enter into any kind of position where they might have influence over people who are not Jewish, then all of a sudden it’s seen as some kind of conspiracy.”
Conspiracy theories dogged Jews in Hollywood from the industry’s beginning. Because so many Jews were in control in Hollywood in its early years, Joseph Breen, who for decades ran the industry’s Production Code office and tried to make movies palatable to Catholic morality groups, blamed “the Jews” for sneaking sex, violence and moral depravity into the movies.
But their rise to the top of the still-young motion picture industry wasn’t because they were a part of some secretive cabal; it’s because, historians say, Hollywood provided a low barrier to entry for enterprising businessmen, and was lacking the antisemitic guardrails of more established industries.
“There were no social barriers in a business as new and faintly disreputable as the movies were in the early years of [the 20th] century,” historian Neal Gabler writes in his landmark 1988 book “An Empire Of Their Own: How The Jews Invented Hollywood.”
In the book, Gabler notes that the movie business, which evolved out of other professions like vaudeville and the garment industry where Jews had already found a toehold, lacked “the impediments imposed by loftier professions and more firmly entrenched businesses to keep Jews and other undesirables out.”
As such, Jews (particularly recent immigrants) were able to thrive in show business in a way they couldn’t in most other industries. Once they were in, family ties or the general phenomenon of affinity groups often led to them elevating other Jews in the industry: For example, prolific Jewish producer David O. Selznick, whose credits include “Gone With The Wind,” “Rebecca” and a huge string of other hits in the 1930s and ’40s, spent many years at MGM, run by his father-in-law, Louis B. Mayer.
Areas like the film, garment and publishing industries were attractive to Jews, Nadell said, “because there were so many other sectors of the economy where they were barred from.”
But in exchange, Hollywood’s prominent Jews had to effectively extinguish their Jewishness.
Yearning to assimilate into American society, the Jews who ran these studios were beset on all sides by antisemitic invective — first from Christian groups like the Legion of Decency, then by anti-Communist groups, both of whom accused Hollywood’s Jews of conspiring to undermine American society with their loose morals.
As such, the Jewish studio heads largely refrained from making any movies about Jewish themes, or snuffing out antisemitic content even within their own films, or otherwise exerting their influence in any obviously Jewish way, even as many of the Golden Era of Hollywood’s most acclaimed writers and directors (Herman Mankiewicz, Ernst Lubitsch, George Cukor, Billy Wilder) were also Jewish. “Gentleman’s Agreement,” the landmark 1947 film about antisemitism, didn’t have any Jewish producers, directors or major stars (though some of its credited writers were Jewish).
Famously, Hollywood’s Jews also went out of their way to avoid offending Hitler during the Nazi era, continuing to do business with Germany and largely avoiding featuring Nazis as villains in the prewar years.
Director Steven Spielberg speaks at the Academy Awards in Hollywood, Feb. 9, 2020. (Kevin Winter/Getty Images)
With the demise of the studio system in the 1960s, Jewish creatives ranging from Mel Brooks to Steven Spielberg to Natalie Portman no longer had to hide their identity from audiences, but instead made it an essential part of their public personas. Earlier this week, in a New York Times interview, Spielberg acknowledged that Hollywood was a welcoming place for Jews when he arrived as a young filmmaker.
“Being Jewish in America is not the same as being Jewish in Hollywood,” he said while promoting “The Fabelmans,” a loose retelling of his own Jewish upbringing. “Being Jewish in Hollywood is like wanting to be in the popular circle and immediately being accepted as I have been in that circle, by a lot of diversity but also by a lot of people who in fact are Jewish.”
Still, such ethnic affinity has often been deemed conspiratorial. “Hollywood is run by Jews” and “owned by Jews,” Marlon Brando declared in a 1996 interview with Larry King, further claiming that Jewish studio executives prevented antisemitic stereotypes from being depicted on screen while allowing stereotypes of every other minority group “because that’s where you circle the wagons around.”
(Despite this outburst, which prompted intense backlash from Jewish groups, Brando was known for having close relationships with Jews and demonstrating a strong understanding of Jewish theology and culture throughout his life, and apparently spoke Yiddish quite well.)
This general air of suspicion around Jews in show business has continued into the modern day, as evidenced by Chappelle and West’s comments. In the tweets that precipitated the collapse of his businesses, West singled out Jewish producers and managers in the entertainment industry he had affiliations with, echoing how believers in antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish control tend to fixate on Jews in leadership positions outside of the public eye.
Attorney Allen Grubman, left, and rocker John Mellencamp speak onstage during the 37th Annual Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony in Los Angeles, Nov. 5, 2022. (Amy Sussman/WireImage)
Ignoring the many industry leaders who are not Jewish, such conspiracy theorists tend to focus on the successful managers and lawyers in Hollywood who are, including Jeremy Zimmer, Ari Emanuel, Allen Grubman — and Harvey Weinstein, whose decades of sexual abuse, scorched-earth targeting of his accusers and eventual downfall are the subject of the new movie “She Said.”
And in a similar fashion to Brando, Chappelle suggested that there is a double standard in talking about ethnic groups, with jokes about Jews being seen as taboo in a way that jokes about Black people and other groups are not: “If they’re Black, then it’s a gang. If they’re Italian, it’s a mob. If they’re Jewish, it’s a coincidence and you should never speak about it.”
At the same time as Jews in and out of the industry are fighting such perceptions, they are also pushing for greater visibility. The unveiling of the new Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles last year almost entirely omitted Jews from Hollywood’s founding narrative, leading to backlash from Jews in the industry and, ultimately, the guarantee of a new permanent exhibition space focusing on Jews.
And there was one other way in which the Chappelle episode hearkened back to the age-old dynamics of the relationship between Jews and Hollywood: “Saturday Night Live” executive producer Lorne Michaels, who presumably allowed the monologue on the air, is Jewish.
—
The post Dave Chappelle isn’t the first to suggest that Jews run Hollywood. Here are the origins of the trope. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
This Jewish philosopher would have called out the Trump administration’s b.s. in Minneapolis
Last week, the Trump administration immediately defended the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, insisting that the ICE officer who shot her acted in self-defense after she had tried to run him down. That same night, the city’s mayor, Jacob Frey, replied to the administration’s claims: “Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly, that is bullshit.”
Frey’s language shocked some Americans, but perhaps reminded others of the word’s philosophical lineage. Last year marked the 25th anniversary of the publication of Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit, which became a surprise bestseller, blasting past Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink and Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s Freakonomics to the top of the Times nonfiction list. But the Gray Lady spelled the title as On Bull—-, which exemplified, as yet another philosopher wryly noted, “what Frankfurt has castigated in his text.”
“One of the most salient features of our culture,” Frankfurt warns at the start of the book, “is that there is so much bullshit.” But the philosopher, whose book was published before the explosions of the internet, social platforms, AI, and Donald Trump descending the escalator at Trump Tower, had no idea just how much more bullshit could fill the world.
Yet, in light of events in Minneapolis, Frankfurt’s exploration of bullshit has now become, quite literally, deadly relevant. Frankfurt observes that the liar and truth-teller have something in common: Both acknowledge the existence of truth. The former, who tries to hide it, along with the latter who seeks to state it, recognize that truths abound in the world.
Not so, though, for the bullshitter, who simply ignores what is and is not true. He does not, as Frankfurter writes, simply “reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all.”
This leads to the heart of our present predicament. “The one thing the bullshitter does hide,” he remarks, “is that the truth values of her statements are of no central interests to her.” For this reason, Frankfurt concludes, “bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”
This claim should give us pause. After all, we honor those mythic figures who never tell a lie, be it George Washington or Horton the elephant. At the same time, we are shocked by those who honor Machiavelli, who famously advised the prince to “be a great liar,” observing that “a deceitful man will always find plenty ready to be deceived.”
Frankfurt salvages the reputation of the Machiavellian liar, reminding us that liars at least understand they are lying. In turn, this means they understand that there are truths hidden behind the lies. This is unfortunate, but not unexpected; as Mark Twain quipped, “Truth is the most precious thing we have. Economize it.”
Bullshitters are another matter altogether. In fact, they are truly dark matter because such people are ignorant of or indifferent to truth. Standing behind a podium in the White House press room or in front of ICE agents while wearing a 50-gallon cowboy hat, such individuals, Frankfurt explains, launch unhesitatingly into “a description of a certain state of affairs without genuinely submitting to the constraints which the endeavor to provide an accurate representation of reality imposes.”
This frees them from submitting to the constraints that a common understanding of morality imposes on us. In terms of foreign policy, Trump summarized this new standard of morality in his marathon interview with the Times last week. When asked if he recognized any limits on his use of power on the world stage, he replied, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
The same worldview is now on display in the aftermath of the murder of Renee Good. The sole constraint on the behavior of the administration and its agents are their own minds — minds that, to paraphrase John Milton, are their own places, busy turning reality into a hell of their own making.
The funny thing about bullshitters is that they might just as easily utter a truth as a lie. Trump displayed such inadvertent truth-telling during his press conference following the attack on Venezuela, when time and again he emphasized its rationale. It was not to bring democracy, liberty and prosperity to the country, but instead to bring oil out of Venezuela and to him. But he does not care when he happens to stumble across a truth. “It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth,” writes Frankfurt, “this indifference to how things really are, that I regard as the essence of bullshit.”
It is tempting to say that when Frankfurt’s book was published in 2005, we had a glimpse, thanks to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, of the real-world consequences of bullshitting. My guess, though, is that Dubya and his cabinet still recognized and, in a way, valued truth. (Consider Dick Cheney’s deathbed denunciation of Donald Trump.)
But those days now seem halcyon compared to the hell we now face, one where both epistemological and moral truths have been tossed into the woodchipper. Perhaps one step we can take to resist this state of affairs is, like Mayor Frey and Harry Frankfurt, to start calling the Trump administration’s lies what they really are.
The post This Jewish philosopher would have called out the Trump administration’s b.s. in Minneapolis appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
After facing backlash, California congressional hopeful Scott Wiener says Israel is committing ‘genocide’
(JTA) — After declining to say whether he believed “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza” during a debate last week, California congressional candidate Scott Wiener has announced that he does, in fact, believe Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute a genocide.
Wiener’s demurral during the Wednesday debate, during which his two Democratic opponents endorsed the genocide charge without hesitation, elicited jeers from the audience. Afterwards, Wiener said he thought the lightning-round format was inappropriate for such a complex question but said he believed Israel’s actions in Gaza represented “an absolute moral stain.”
Facing ongoing criticism over his stance, Wiener — a leader of the Jewish caucus in California’s legislature — issued a video statement on Sunday saying that he had come to a clear conclusion.
“For years, I’ve condemned Netanyahu and his extremist government and the devastation they’ve inflicted on Gaza,” he wrote on X, introducing his statement. “It’s why I’ve been clear I won’t support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore.”
Wiener is running for the seat being vacated by Nancy Pelosi, a pro-Israel stalwart. His comments mean that all three Democratic candidates for the seat have firmly taken the position that Israel is committing genocide, a charge that Israel and the United States reject.
In the video, Wiener elaborated on his thinking.
“As a Jew, I am deeply aware that the word genocide was created in the wake of the Holocaust, which was the industrial extermination of 6 million Jews. For many Jews, associating the word genocide with the Jewish state of Israel is deeply painful and frankly traumatic,” he said. “But despite that pain and that trauma, we all have eyes, and we see the absolute devastation and catastrophic death toll in Gaza inflicted by the Israeli government. And we all have ears, and we hear the genocidal statements by certain senior members of the Israeli government. And to me, the Israeli government has tried to destroy Gaza and to push Palestinians out, and that qualifies as genocide.”
Wiener’s statement comes as harsh criticism of Israel becomes de rigueur among Democrats amid a bottoming-out of support among Democratic voters. Anti-Israel sentiment is on the rise among Republicans, too, shattering a decades-old consensus on the right about support for Israel.
Wiener has faced sustained protest from pro-Palestinian activists over his liberal Zionist stances. He has also long faced right-wing scorn as well as antisemitism-laced criticism over his stance on transgender rights, which he supports.
The post After facing backlash, California congressional hopeful Scott Wiener says Israel is committing ‘genocide’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran threatens to attack Israel if Trump strikes Tehran over crackdown on protesters
(JTA) — Iranian leaders say they could attack Israel if the United States strikes Iran over its response to a sweeping anti-government protest movement.
“Let us be clear: in the case of an attack on Iran, the occupied territories as well as all U.S. bases and ships will be our legitimate target,” Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a former commander in the country’s Revolutionary Guards, said on Saturday. Iranian officials use “the occupied territories” to refer to Israel, which the Iranian Islamic Republic regime has sworn to destroy and attacked repeatedly.
Qalibaf was responding to U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated comments signaling potential U.S. retaliation against Iran in the event that Iranian officials begin killing anti-government protesters who have been demonstrating with increasing strength since late last month.
On Monday, Qalibaf reportedly escalated his threats at a pro-government rally in Tehran, saying Iran would deal Trump “an unforgettable lesson” if he follows through on his continued threats to intervene. Agence France Presse reported that he spoke in front of banners reading “Death to Israel, Death to America” in Persian.
Trump has openly said the United States is considering weighing in against the Iranian government. “Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before,” he wrote on Truth Social, his social media network, on Saturday. “The USA stands ready to help!!!”
On Sunday, amid reports that the Iranian regime had embarked on a bloody crackdown, Trump said again that he was considering “very strong options” against Iran, though he also said Tehran had reached out to negotiate. Amid reports that he expected to be briefed on military options against Iran on Tuesday, Trump indicated that the United States could act sooner.
“Iran wants to negotiate, yes. We may meet with them — I mean a meeting is being set up,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One late Sunday. “But we may have to act, because of what’s happening, before the meeting.”
Protest leaders said hundreds if not thousands of protesters had been shot to death in Tehran on Sunday, though official numbers were much lower and impossible for independent news organizations to verify in part because of an internet blackout that the government put in place last week.
“There seem to be some people killed that aren’t supposed to be killed,” Trump said. “These are violent — if you call them leaders, I don’t know if they’re leaders or just if they rule through violence. And we’re looking at some very strong options. We’ll make a determination.”
The potential for armed conflict between the United States and Iran, Israel’s sworn enemy, has prompted sharp concerns in Israel, which last year waged a 12-day war with Iran that ended under U.S. pressure following a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke on Sunday to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Reuters reported that Israeli intelligence officials said the country was on “high alert.”
At least one Israeli official has indicated that Israeli agents are active on the ground in Iran during the swelling protest movement, fueling criticism from Tehran that the protests have been stoked by foreign actors.
Demonstrations in support of the Iranian protesters, who are responding not only to the country’s repressive religious leadership but also an economic crisis, took place in cities around the world over the weekend. Some of the protests included Jewish Iranian expats and expressions of support for Israel.
The post Iran threatens to attack Israel if Trump strikes Tehran over crackdown on protesters appeared first on The Forward.