Uncategorized
How Judy Blume’s ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ broke taboos around interfaith marriage
(JTA) — When Judy Blume’s young adult novel “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret” appeared in 1970, intermarried families were a small segment of the American Jewish population. Perhaps 17% of Jews were married to someone who wasn’t Jewish; today, 42% of married Jews have a spouse who is not Jewish, and in the past decade, 61% of Jews married non-Jewish partners.
Through the 1960s, middle-grade and young adult fiction rarely acknowledged the existence of these families, reflecting and reinforcing their outsider status. Today it is routine for authors to address the reality of inter-religious and culturally mixed families, portraying them with insight and compassion. (See “Not Your All-American Girl” by Wendy Wan-Long Shang and Madelyn Rosenberg, “Becoming Brianna” by Terri Libenson and “The Whole Story of Half a Girl” by Veera Hiranandani.)
This change was made possible partly by Blume’s story of sixth-grader Margaret Simon and her one-sided conversations with God.
Blume’s status as a pioneer in young adult literature is usually associated with her honest approach to the emotional, physical and sexual milestones of growing up, with her works still attracting readers and still finding an honored place on lists of banned books. That legacy is being celebrated in April with a new documentary, Amazon Prime Video’s “Judy Blume Forever,” and a theatrical release by Lionsgate of a feature film version of “Are You There God?”
Yet her treatment of contested identity in intermarried families is as revolutionary as her openness about bras, menstruation and sexual feelings. Actors Lena Dunham and Molly Ringwald, comedian Samantha Bee and many authors, including Raina Telgemeier, Tayari Jones and Gary Shteyngart, have cited Blume’s influence on both their lives and their work. Book lists for intermarried families frequently list the novel as a resource.
Margaret Simon is 11 years old at the start of “Are You There God?” Her Jewish dad and Christian mom have pointedly ignored the possibility that their daughter might have questions about her identity. Along with other issues of teen angst, she feels compelled to decide if she is Jewish, Christian or neither. Without any guidance, the last alternative leaves her in a frightening void. As she pointedly asks God, in her ongoing series of questions for Him, “I can’t go on being nothing forever, can I?”
Margaret’s parents, Barbara Hutchins and Herb Simon, fell in love and defied their respective parents by marrying out of their faiths. They assure Margaret that she has no religion, but can choose one when she is older, oblivious to the fact that this solution seems more of a burden than a promise of future freedom. Their avoidance of any serious engagement with either religion or culture renders any possible choice unlikely.
Blume situates Margaret’s search within the specific landscape of post-World War II America. When the Simons decide to leave their Upper West Side home in New York City and move to suburban New Jersey, their decision suggests a coded reference to their religious status. Long Island is “too social,” an implied euphemism for “too Jewish.” Living there might have made it harder for their relatively unusual situation to be discreetly ignored. On the other hand, the more affluent Westchester and Connecticut are “too expensive” and “too inconvenient.” Farbrook, New Jersey has enough Jews for it to feel right for Herb, but not so many as to make their mixed family stand out.
Margaret also suspects that her parents’ are determined to put distance between the Simons and Sylvia, her paternal grandmother, who lives in New York City. This gregarious woman shows up at their new home unannounced and toting deli foods, making it clear that Margaret’s one unambiguous connection to Judaism is not going to disappear. While Barbara’s parents utterly rejected her when she married a Jew, Sylvia has pragmatically decided to accept what she cannot change. In the postwar era, more Jews began to abandon or minimize religious practice, while still maintaining ethnically distinct customs. Like holiday observance or synagogue attendance, ethnic Jewish culture is also absent from the Simon home. Sylvia’s Jewish food, her frequent trips to Florida, even her combination of sarcasm and smothering warmth, provide Margaret with markers of the tradition her parents have eschewed.
Still, when Sylvia repeatedly asks Margaret if her (nonexistent) boyfriends are Jewish, the young girl is baffled. Given her own lack of consciousness of herself as Jewish, why would Margaret care?
Rachel McAdams and Abby Ryder Fortson in the forthcoming film adaptation of “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.” (Dana Hawley/Lionsgate © 2022)
In the larger world of Farbrook, Margaret’s new friends seem to have more secure identities, conveniently defined by membership either in the “Y” (Young Men’s Christian Association) or the Jewish Community Center. Perfunctory attendance at Hebrew school until after one’s bar mitzvah is the furthest extent of her peers’ Jewishness. Margaret explains that her parents are “nothing” and that, prior to their marriage, they were Jewish and Christian, as if those identities could be cast off like an article of clothing. When Mr. Benedict, her enthusiastic young teacher, distributes a questionnaire, Margaret completes the prompt “I hate” with “religious holidays.” He attempts to draw her out about this troubling answer, and she scornfully observes that her teacher acted as if “he had uncovered some deep, dark mystery.”
On one level, he has. Her mother’s blandly universal definition of God as a “nice idea,” who “belongs to everybody,” is clearly a denial of the fractures in her family members’ lives.
Blume also captures the essence of mid-century non-Orthodox Judaism as comfortably accessible, yet also somewhat empty. On a visit to Grandma Sylvia’s elegant temple, the atmosphere is quietly decorous, the sanctuary filled with well-appointed congregants and beautifully arranged flowers. Sylvia’s rabbi greets Margaret with an enthusiastic “Good Yom Tov,” which he translates as “Happy New Year,” although it is actually a generic holiday greeting.
When Margaret later visits Presbyterian and Methodist churches, she notes the remarkable similarity among all three experiences.
The novel’s one incident of specific religious practice involves Margaret’s brief, unfinished confession in a classmate’s Catholic church. Having participated in bullying, Margaret tries to assuage her guilt through a ritual alien to both her father’s Judaism and her mother’s Protestant Christianity. She even momentarily confuses the priest with the silent God of her conversations. Nothing could be further from her parents’ rejection of religion, or from Grandma Sylvia’s loving assurance to Margaret that “I knew you were a Jewish girl at heart.”
When Margaret’s Christian grandparents decide to resume contact, the suppressed anger in the Simon home finally erupts. Herb is furious, and accuses his in-laws of only wanting to meet Margaret “to make sure she doesn’t have horns!” — a caustic reference to a persistent antisemitic myth. Blume had subtly foreshadowed this disruption of the status quo in a parallel event at school. When a Jewish student, backed by his parents, refuses to sing Christmas carols, the implicit agreement of the town’s Jews to quietly conform is broken. A Christian girl, in what seems an act of retaliation, then refuses to sing Hanukkah songs. These acts of resistance reinforce Margaret’s marginal status. Her intermarried family represents neither conformity with postwar norms nor an assertion of Jewish pride.
Blume appears to tip the scales in her portrayal of Mary and Paul Hutchins, Margaret’s maternal grandparents. Entirely unlikeable, simultaneously pushy and cold, they insist that the granddaughter they had never acknowledged is Christian. After their failed visit, Grandma Sylvia returns, along with her sweet and obviously Jewish new boyfriend, Mr. Binamin (“rhymes with cinnamon”). Readers rooting for the triumph of Margaret’s Jewish roots may breathe a sigh of relief here, but hope for a satisfying ending is illusory. Margaret’s search for a stable sense of self is still unfinished, and will not be satisfied by choosing membership in either the Y or the JCC.
For young readers, the novel’s discussion of religious identity proved as life-changing as its honest portrayal of puberty and menstruation. “I related to that kind of conflict of religion,” the comedian Chelsea Handler, who grew up in a mixed Jewish-Mormon home, told Blume in 2020. “At that time, I just found out my mom was Mormon, on top of thinking she was Jewish, and your books were such a reprieve for me and such a joy.”
More than 50 years ago, Judy Blume tackled a difficult subject, about both changing demographics and the search for authenticity in American Jewish life. Margaret’s conclusion that “twelve is very late to learn” about the essence of who you are still poses a challenge, while her persistent search for a meaningful identity offers a degree of optimism.
—
The post How Judy Blume’s ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ broke taboos around interfaith marriage appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israel’s culture minister called this documentary about IDF tactics ‘vile.’ It deserves to be seen.
VENICE — At its premiere here last week, towards the end of the 83th Venice International Film Festival, Naza, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor’s documentary about Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, received a 25-minute-long standing ovation, a record at the festival. Two nights later, the film won the festival’s Special Jury Prize. By Sunday, Israel’s culture minister, Miki Zohar, was calling the film “vile,” describing it as treason and threatening to revoke its directors’ citizenship. Zohar invoked his reform of cinema funding, saying Israelis should no longer have to pay for work that harms the army and the state.
I left the press screening of Naza angry, depressed and utterly convinced of its importance. Its account of the procedures that govern the deaths of civilians is devastating precisely because so much of the testimony sounds like people describing an ordinary working day. The film will have its North American premiere at the New York Film Festival on Sept. 26. It deserves to be seen, and debated with considerably more patience than some of its detractors have displayed.
Venice has traditionally worn its politics more lightly than Berlin, where a filmmaker’s acceptance speech can cause an international incident. This year, however, festival director Alberto Barbera programmed a competition that invited controversy. Alongside Naza was Ilya Khrzhanovsky’s DAU, which drew Ukrainian objections over the production’s Russian connections (including to Sergei Adoniev, a businessman who has been sanctioned by Ukraine and the U.S.) In the run-up to the festival, Barbera defended DAU as a denunciation of totalitarianism. Both films are international productions by directors whose countries have become objects of international opprobrium. Both venture into their societies’ heart of darkness. Barbera deserves enormous credit for programming them both in the main section of the world’s oldest film festival despite the objections of many.
Berlin supplies a cautionary precedent. No Other Land, the Oscar-winning documentary Abraham and Szor made with Palestinians Basel Adra and Hamdan Ballal, premiered there in 2024, where it won the festival’s documentary prize. After Abraham and Adra gave speeches condemning Israel’s policy of apartheid in the West Bank, the German culture minister Claudia Roth, caught on camera applauding at the ceremony, clarified that her applause had been intended for the Israeli director. I shudder to imagine the official response Naza might have elicited there. Venice at least offered an opportunity to discuss what was on screen.
The film, which presents testimonies from 24 serving and former military personnel, grew out of years of investigative reporting. Produced by the British newspaper the Guardian and JW Films, in collaboration with the Israeli-Palestinian magazine +972 and its news website Local Call, it builds on Abraham’s investigations into Israeli intelligence and his work with Guardian journalist Harry Davies. Revelations about targeting systems had appeared in print while filming was underway and were subsequently reported on by both The New York Times and Washington Post. All this means that the disclosures made in Naza are not brand new. However, the stark, focused and lean approach that Abraham and Szor take in the documentary ensure that the information hits home with chilling force.
The film’s unusual title is the Hebrew term for collateral damage — specifically, the anticipated civilian toll of a military strike in Gaza. Speaking to Abraham from a series of Tel Aviv rooftops at night, the interviewees, whose appearances and voices are digitally disguised, explain with patient detachment how targets in Gaza are identified and eliminated. One of the tools used to identify suspected militants is an AI system called Lavender. The frightening efficiency of such technology is discussed alongside the human decisions that determine what constitutes an acceptable loss.
One of the most disturbing claims has prompted a specific military rebuttal. An interviewee says a strike was once approved with 500 civilian deaths anticipated; he does not know how many were actually killed. The IDF claims it has never planned, approved or conducted a strike expecting anything near that toll, and challenges the filmmakers’ ability to verify the account. It also maintains that humans authorize strikes and questions the witnesses’ competence to discuss broader strategy.
The film’s restraint gives incendiary testimony such as this time to register. For the majority of the film, we only glimpse the interviewees’ faces in silhouette and watch as they crudely draw diagrams to explain the logistics of a military strike, say, on a crowded building. Every so often the camera wanders off the roof, peering into the illuminated homes and high-rise office buildings of Tel Aviv at night. The point is precisely to convey an unsettling sense of normalcy.
I was particularly struck by the absence of the racist invective I had half expected. Some interviewees describe themselves as educated, liberal people. Their accounts nevertheless reveal a callous disregard for civilian causalities. One recalls the pleasure of a job well done. “It’s so much fun,” he says of reaching his targets and we hear in his voice how the remote killings he takes part in gives him an indescribable rush. After a pause, he tells Abraham that as someone raised in the Israeli context, someone who had got to visit the death camps in Poland, he always considered and asked himself how they could do what they did. “For me the Nazis are evil,” he says. “So what does that make me?” It is perhaps the film’s most damning exchange.
One of Naza’s strength as a documentary is that it does not demand agreement that Israel is committing war crimes, including genocide, before its investigation begins. That gives it a chance to reach people who have defended Israel and remain capable of reconsidering their position.
Some of the most vociferous criticism of Naza has not come from IDF spokesmen or other Israeli officials. Almost immediately after the premiere, footage from the film’s lengthy ovation (where Abraham and Szor stand looking intensely uncomfortable and withdrawn) went viral, with numerous commentators on X and other platforms making ugly accusations against the filmmakers, including for granting anonymity to the whistleblowers who feature in the film.
“A viscerally nauseating spectacle. Imagine SS officers, shielded and protected by anonymity, getting a 25-minute standing ovation for recounting their tortures and murders. Criminal perpetrators should only be heard at their trials not at gala celebrations,” read one tweet that has been viewed close to 150,000 times. Though the language of that post is particularly incendiary, the sentiment it expresses is surprisingly widespread on social media.
Confidentiality was a condition of obtaining these accounts, a standard journalistic arrangement that confers no clemency. At the press conference, Abraham described that his sources were motivated variously by remorse and professional pride. He affirmed that his goal was to keep the victims of Gaza at the film’s center — and not to congratulate its witnesses.
The tenor of this debate recalls Nadav Lapid’s withdrawal from the Marseille film festival in June after boycott calls. His Yes, an infernal satire of post-Oct. 7 society, is a ferocious attack on Israeli complacency. It would take considerable ingenuity or imagination to claim that either it or Naza is an apology for Israel.
Accepting his award in Venice, Abraham said that he made Naza because “the denial of a crime is what helps it persist.” He later pledged to distribute the film as widely as possible in Israel. The interviewees, he explained, “spoke in Hebrew because they wanted to reach out to the Israeli public.” Not surprisingly, the film, sight unseen, has already been widely condemned within Israel. Former defense minister and opposition politician Avigdor Lieberman called the directors “haters of Israel” and accused them of turning Oct. 7 into a blood libel. Such accusations should make the necessity to reach Israeli viewers even more urgent.
Days after the film’s victory in Venice, Haaretz ran an editorial with the blunt headline, “Israelis Must Finally Confront What Israel Has Done in Gaza.” After years of trying to “air dirty laundry at home” with limited success, Abraham and Szor now had found in the Venice Film Festival a major platform where the conclusions of their investigations were impossible to ignore. The editorial’s key sentence is also its shortest: “Israel’s problem is not public relations, but reality.”
Naza only leaves the rooftops of Tel Aviv for two brief occasions. In the first of these, we see archival footage of a young Benjamin Netanyahu promoting his 1995 book Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism, In the clip, a much-younger Netanyahu defines terrorism as a policy of deliberately killing and maiming civilians to advance political goals. Bibi’s words hang uncomfortably over the rest of the film, inviting and daring viewers to draw their own conclusions.
The post Israel’s culture minister called this documentary about IDF tactics ‘vile.’ It deserves to be seen. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Macklemore dropped from Ed Sheeran tour after ‘Free Palestine’ backlash
Macklemore has been dropped from the remainder of Ed Sheeran’s stadium tour following backlash to pro-Palestinian comments the social justice rapper made onstage.
The promoter of Sheeran’s U.S. tour said several stadiums refused to allow Macklemore to perform after his headline-grabbing “Free Palestine” plea during a Sept. 4 show at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. Ensuing backlash to the comments included a petition by the Israeli-American Council to get him canceled from the tour.
Macklemore was set to open for Sheeran at eight of the remaining 10 tour dates. Seven of the eight host venues said the concerts could not go on with Macklemore, according to Rolling Stone: Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia; Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts; Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta; Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis; Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina; AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas; and Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida.
Macklemore’s long record of pro-Palestinian remarks predates the tour, including a song, “Hind’s Hall,” about the 2024 takeover of a Columbia University building by student protesters. During his controversial Sept.4 speech, he said his ambition on the Sheeran tour was to promote the Palestinian cause.
In a statement on Instagram, Macklemore claimed Robert Kraft — the Jewish owner of the New England Patriots and Gillette Stadium, and arguably the NFL’s most powerful figure — pressured Sheeran to drop him.
“Ed told me that Kraft said I would not be allowed to perform in his stadium,” Macklemore wrote. “Ed also told me that Kraft had rallied some of the other stadium owners and collectively they gave him an ultimatum: if Macklemore stays on the tour, you will not be allowed to play in our venues.”
The post had received 1.6 million likes on the platform within four hours of its posting.
The controversy over Macklemore’s comments also embroiled the Jewish pop star Pink, who faced backlash for sharing a post by the pro-Israel organization StopAntisemitism. Pink later said she did not agree with all of the post’s contents, but felt alarmed as a Jewish person who had grieved both sides of the conflict and didn’t like being told she supported genocide.
She also brought up a 2014 incident in which Macklemore wore a fake nose, beard and black hair onstage in a costume some criticized as playing on antisemitic stereotypes. (He later apologized, saying that he had no antisemitic intent and linking to the Anti-Defamation League website.)
“Every Jew I know knew exactly what it was,” Pink wrote on Instagram. “But he apologized, and I let it go, because that’s what we do. We let it go. Then last weekend he stood in front of a stadium full of music-loving families, with violent images from a war on the screens, dedicated a song to the movement of his choice, and then took the mic to tell all of the Jews in the stadium that it wasn’t about them. You don’t get to decide that for us.”
The ADL was part of the 2026 anti-Macklemore movement, calling his speech “performative, biased and hateful anti-Israel ‘activism.’”
The post Macklemore dropped from Ed Sheeran tour after ‘Free Palestine’ backlash appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jewish sleepaway camp made them comedians, so they made a movie about it
Jewish sleepaway camp is where parents send their children to forge a lasting connection with their ancient peoplehood. Perhaps regrettably, many also leave having developed something else: shtick.
“It’s a breeding ground for comedy bits,” said filmmaker Michael Lewen, 36, a proud alumnus of Camp Modin in Belgrade, Maine. “Everyone learned how to be a comedian at summer camp. This is where you first try out your stuff.”
Years after retiring his color-war uniform, Lewen, a regular collaborator of Judd Apatow, is returning to the cradle of his comedy career. His sophomore feature Tiny Fugitives, hitting theaters Sept. 18, takes us to Camp Fineman, where 12-year-old Jacob Udell (Benjamin Pajek) commands a cool-kid cachet apart from his public-school tormentors.
Jacob’s goals for the summer start off simple — a bunk-wide record for “ask outs” to the social and telling his longtime crush how he feels. But when his parents show up on visiting day to announce their divorce, and that they may not have the money to send him for another season, Jacob and his best friend Charnis (Aaron Harris) hatch a plan: When the buses leave camp, they won’t be on them. They will live at camp year-round.
It’s a notion not completely foreign to Lewen’s co-writer, Jacob Kaplan, 28.
While Kaplan spent less time than Lewen at his own camp (Young Judea in Amherst, New Hampshire), he keeps finding fresh material in the experience. He toured a standup show, Kings of Camp, about those halcyon days of canteen privileges and Capture the Flag. Lewen connected with Kaplan after reading a cartoon pilot he wrote about an alien child who sends dispatches back to his home planet from a Jewish summer camp, mistakenly believing his idiosyncratic environs to be representative of human civilization.
Kaplan remembers camp as his first brush with independence. The divorce plot is drawn from his life and he remembers it as a merciful break from parental logistics.
The jokes are an amalgam of his and Lewen’s field notes from back in the day and ideas from their capable cast of 12-year-olds, one of whom does a credible impression of Barack Obama saying kiddush. The foil to Jacob and Charnis’ great escape is a “lifer” named Bob, played by Johnny Knoxville, who gives chase and is often grievously injured in the pursuit. Thank Hashem for the infirmary.
“There was definitely some push and pull with the stunt coordinator,” Lewen said of Knoxville’s presence on set. Coming off of the later Jackass films, he wanted to drive his ATV without his glasses and urged people to hit him harder.
But for all the slapstick, Bob, based on a familiar archetype of a fanatical counselor is, along with Charnis and Jacob’s friendship, the heart of the film. His message, and one I’ve heard from many a counselor of my own: camp is special because it ends.
If it didn’t quite end for Lewen and Kaplan, who got to relive those days on the set of a couple different Toronto camps, and recreate some of the magic for their actors, they insist they’ve now had enough.
Tiny Fugitives Lewen said, is indebted to Stand By Me, includes visual nods to Francis Ford Coppola films like Apocalypse Now and The Conversation and seems to have no anxiety about the influence of another raunchy two-hander like Superbad (Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg produced). It owes a less obvious debt to Michael Mann’s Heat, Lewen said, only “instead of De Niro and Pacino, it’s Johnny Knoxville and a 12-year-old who both want the same exact thing out of life, and only one of them is going to get it.”
Among the comedy’s most understated features is its ambient Jewishness, in no way essential to the plot, as it is in another recent camp film The Floaters, but key to its sensibility.
The kids find ancient Manischewitz in a dining hall. Jacob pads his elbow with a loose kippah to break the frame to a map of the old camp grounds. In a fanciful moment, he suggests laundering petty cash in $18 sums to skirt suspicion. A line, delivered out of context and without elaboration: “Charnis, what do you mean a three-state solution?”
Asked if the film might have been more marketable with a generic sleepaway camp, Kaplan and Lewen seemed to have heard that note a lot.
“For the comedy you want to go from what felt the most true to your life and the situations and what actually happened and painting as vivid a picture as possible,” Kaplan said, invoking Wet Hot American Summer, which presented a Jewish summer camp without ever quite announcing that it was one.
Lewen said they focused on the bigger idea when they went out to pitch: “When you’re young, there are places where you feel like you make sense. For some people, it’s the baseball team. For some people, it’s debate camp. For some people, it’s your cousin’s house. And for us, it was Jewish summer camp.”
The producers are betting big on Tiny Fugitives’ cross-quadrant appeal, making it a rare R-rated comedy to play theatrically. Among the hoped-for viewers are some actual 12-year-olds, who will need a parent or guardian owing to the film’s coarse language, which is likely not very scandalous to the tween set it’s depicting.
“I actually think it’s a totally good movie for young people to see,” Lewen said. “I just remember being that age and watching stuff that felt a little bit real, and like I actually saw myself in it, and it’s so satisfying and cathartic.”
To that end, he said, Knoxville is chartering a bus to take camper-aged kids to the theater.
“I think it’s cool for there to be a cool movie that’s also Jewish,” Lewen said. “It’s the same reason I like Jewish summer camp and want my kid to go there.”
The post Jewish sleepaway camp made them comedians, so they made a movie about it appeared first on The Forward.
