Connect with us

Uncategorized

Is ‘Nuremberg’ the Holocaust movie we need right now?

Holocaust movies have become such a genre of their own that it is hard for them to find anything new to say. Yet directors keep trying — perhaps out of a sense of duty, or the assumed prestige of the subject matter — to keep the atrocities front of mind.

Nuremberg, a star-studded new film written and directed by James Vanderbilt (the writer of Zodiac and both installations of the Adam Sandler-Jennifer Anniston hit Murder Mystery), focuses on  the trial of Hermann Goering, Hitler’s second-in-command. The drama distinguishes itself from previous treatments of the trial by centering Douglass Kelley, the psychiatrist charged with assessing Nazis’ readiness to take the stand. Based on the book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai, the film stars Russell Crowe as Goering and Rami Malek as Kelley.

But Nuremberg’s two-and-a-half-hour runtime attempts to take on more than Kelley’s observations about the nature of evil; the entire second half is a courtroom drama, which follows the beats of the unfolding trial. The movie fits in the backstories of some of Goering’s co-defendants, the establishment of a new model of international law and a romantic subplot touching on the media circus surrounding it all. A late reveal in this overcrowded movie shows Kelley’s translator to be a German Jew, and we hear the story of his escape from the Nazi regime.

It’s a big project, with the cast to match, and it’s full of factoids designed to make its message about the horrors of the Nazis unmistakeable. But Nuremberg is an entry into a field crowded with Holocaust content. Is this the new Holocaust movie we needed?

Why now for a Nuremberg movie?

On the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and the start of the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis and their crimes remain topical. In October, a leaked group chat of the Young Republicans showed members openly joking about gassing Jews and proclaiming their “love” for Hitler; many of the members of the chat worked in state governments. (Vice President JD Vance defended them as “kids” making “edgy, offensive jokes.”) Tucker Carlson just interviewed avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes, legitimizing a man whose extremist rhetoric once relegated him to the fringe, and moving him into the mainstream. The current administration is engaged in a campaign of deportations, at least some of which have caught citizens in their dragnet.

The movie was in production long before any of these stories broke. But the rise of antisemitism, neo-Nazism and fascism in the U.S. — and Europe — has been apparent for at least a decade, fueled by social media and online forums where conspiracy theories and a resurgent white nationalism and nativism fester, sometimes breaking the internet’s containment to appear on political daises and in white supremacist marches.

Goering on the stand; the second half of the film becomes a courtroom drama. Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

“I think it’s important to not forget the past,” James Vanderbilt offered in an interview with The Catholic Review, adding that, “we have to be able to look backwards in order to move forwards.”

In this context, Nuremberg feels more like an urgent history lesson than a work of cinema, despite its aspirations to artistry; its clumsy exposition doesn’t help its schoolmarmish tone.

Why the psychiatrist?

In the film, Douglas Kelley arrives in Nuremberg hoping to discover what made the Nazis, and Germans, uniquely predisposed to, and capable of, great evils. “If we could psychologically define evil, we could make sure something like this never happens again!” he asserts. What Kelley found, in lieu of a diagnosis, was normal people. It’s the banality of evil, years before Arendt coined the phrase — and presents an opportunity for the movie to tee up a clear moral message.

Given that the Nuremberg trials lasted years and were extremely complex, narrowing the focus to Kelley and Goering’s dynamic could have helped to prevent overwhelming the audience while offering viewers a window into the minds of the Nazi leadership.

But we walk away with little insight into Goering’s own motivations. Kelley repeatedly emphasizes the Reichsmarschall’s manipulativeness and exhorts Justice Robert Jackson, the American prosecutor played here by Michael Shannon, to prey on the Nazi’s narcissism in his cross-examination. But we don’t see Goering do much manipulating beyond initially pretending not to speak any English, nor do we see much narcissism beyond remarking that he thinks he will escape the hangman’s noose.

Kelley mostly comes off as incompetent and eager for a book deal, not a masterful observer of the human condition, so we are given little reason to trust his insights.

How does this compare to other portrayals of Goering? Of the trial?

The most famous narrative film about the Nuremberg trials is Stanley Kramer’s 1961 Judgment at Nuremberg. Its characters are fictionalized and the action takes place at a later stage of the trial, years after Goering has escaped his hanging via a cyanide pill. Its focus is not on the high command, but the Nazi judicial system and everyday Germans. (It’s rooted in the 1947 Judges’ Trial, but reduces the number of defendants in the dock considerably.)

Much closer to Nuremberg is a 2000 TV miniseries, also called Nuremberg, starring Alec Baldwin as Jackson, the American prosecutor, and Brian Cox as Goering. Cox’s Goering is quite a bit more brash than Crowe’s, but, with his charm and chattiness with the guards, hits many of the same beats.

Crowe’s Goering is slickly charming, as most accounts say the real man was, but lacks any real depth of motivation. Photo by

The main difference between the two Nurembergs comes in the portrayal of Goering’s motivations. In the movie, the Reichsmarschall displays no antisemitism and speaks only of his patriotic duty to Germany; he insists he had no knowledge of the Final Solution. His weakness, it seems, and his evil, is encapsulated in his devotion to Hitler.

In the miniseries, though Kelley does not feature,  the psychiatrist Gustave Gilbert — who also briefly appears in Vanderbilt’s film played by Colin Hanks — serves much of the same function. In one memorable scene, Goering calls out the hypocrisy of America, with its segregation, trying Nazis for their race laws, and explains how Jews exploited Germans.

When Gilbert doesn’t see his logic, Cox’s Goering barks back: “You will never understand antisemitism. Why? Because you are a Jew.”

The moment implies, more than any scene in the movie version, that Goering could have been a true believer, rather than a career military man and opportunist.

How did the movie deploy its archival footage?

Despite the subject matter, the film mostly dodges direct discussion of the Holocaust — until it inserts archival footage of the concentration camps.

During the actual Nuremberg trials, a 52-minute film, directed by John Ford, showing the crematoriums, death pits, and abysmal conditions of the camps was played for the courtroom. The film uses an excerpt of the film in the trial scene. Vanderbilt chose to show the footage to the actors for the first time on set, wanting to capture their real, unfiltered reactions.

The use of archival footage reminds viewers that this story is not some Hollywood fantasy, but the rest of the film lacks this emotional power. Even when Kelley’s German-Jewish translator, Howard Triest (Leo Woodall), reveals his heritage to Kelley, a scene meant as an affecting turning point for the protagonist, its execution gives it the feel of something out of an afterschool special. The documentary footage gives the movie weight, but feels out of place in a film that otherwise has the sheen, waxy makeup and shallow characterizations of a Hollywood blockbuster.

What was the movie trying to do?

Nuremberg tries, often didactically, to spread the warning Kelley himself hoped to convey in his book, 22 Cells in Nuremberg: A Psychiatrist Examines the Nazi Criminals that all men have capacity for heinous deeds.

Highlighting the banality of evil has become a trend in recent Holocaust dramas like Zone of Interest. But unlike that film, Nuremberg relies on didactic expository dialogue. (“Jesus Christ, that’s Hermann Goering!” says an American soldier in the opening scene, before his comrade asks “Who?” and he responds with a Wikipedia precis.) It is much less interested in setting up a compelling story with deep characters than it is in lecturing the audience.

In the film’s opening scene, Hermann Goering turns himself into U.S. soldiers who aren’t quite sure who he is, giving the movie a chance to tell, rather than show, his importance. Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

And though, by the end, the movie disavows the idea that morality — or immorality — is inherited, it gives more airtime to Kelley’s pursuit of a diagnosis of evil than it does to his conclusion that such a thing does not exist. Though a brief final scene shows the psychiatrist on a radio show warning that evil is just as possible in the U.S., we don’t see him arrive at that conclusion in the movie.

Is this an effective Holocaust movie?

At their best, Holocaust movies are able to force audiences to feel the horror of the concentration camps or make the inhumanity of the Nazis palpable. The Zone of Interest‘s most impactful scenes showed Rudolph Höss’ children playing cheerfully in the garden with the smoky plumes of Auschwitz’s crematoria in the background.

Vanderbilt tries to pack too much information into Nuremberg, leaving us with a movie that has to tell rather than show. The result is something more educational than evocative, providing a hurried overview of how the Nuremberg trials came about and a crash course on the Third Reich’s hierarchy. Its lack of focus makes it, at times, feel like a slog, and the movie depends on its star-studded cast and the inherent solemnity of its subject matter for viewers’ attention.

For those hoping to understand more about Goering’s psyche, Kelley’s own book — or The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, on which the movie was based — might be a better resource. For those hoping to delve into the entire history of the Holocaust, no one movie can capture it.

The post Is ‘Nuremberg’ the Holocaust movie we need right now? appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Antisemitism is exploding on the right but the Jewish establishment is focused on the left

America’s antisemitism watchdogs are committing institutional malpractice.

While antisemitism explodes on the right, including throughout the Trump administration and popular right-wing online spaces, anti-antisemitism organizations are disproportionally focusing on left-wing anti-Zionists and Muslim politicians, minimizing if not ignoring white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, and Christian nationalists — many of whom are active in Republican political circles.

And now, with the release of the latest batch of Epstein files and the start of the Iran War, what was already an epidemic has become a plague. As the Forward’s Arno Rosenfeld has discussed at length, the incoherent rationales for the war have led many to the conclusion (mostly incorrect, in my view, though not without some basis) that America has been pushed into fighting Israel’s war — a view that slides quickly into antisemitic conspiracy theories on both the right and the left, as well as antisemitic ”revenge” attacks by Islamists, Muslims, or other Arabs, like the attempted murders at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, last week.

Our communal institutions are failing us. Antisemitism can be found all across the political spectrum, yet as the ADL convenes its annual “Never is Now” conference today, its agenda is and newsfeed are disproportionately focused on the left. Our community needs to engage in some serious soul-searching. And change course.

Almost two-thirds of young conservatives hold antisemitic views

It is shocking to learn how pervasive antisemitic views are among young conservatives, including many working for the government.

A November 2025 study by the conservative Manhattan Institute (not some left-wing org) found that “nearly four in ten in the current GOP (2024 Trump voters plus registered Republicans) believe the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated or did not happen as historians describe. Younger men are especially likely to hold this view (54% of men under 50 vs. 39% of women under 50).” (Interestingly, 77% of Hispanic GOP voters held this view, compared with 30% of white GOP voters.)

In another poll, 64% of young conservatives aged 18-34 agreed with at least one antisemitic statement in a survey. That is absolutely astonishing.

Here’s an even more chilling story. Also last November, Rod Dreher, the post-liberal, far-right conservative thinker, reported on a trip to Washington, D.C. (meeting with Viktor Orban and JD Vance, discussing “the survival of Christianity in Europe”) in his Substack newsletter. After meeting with a number of conservatives in the Trump administration, Dreher wrote:

The claim that I first floated in this space last week, quoting a DC insider who said that in his estimation, “between 30 and 40 percent” of the Zoomers who work in official Republican Washington are fans of Nick Fuentes — that’s true. Was confirmed multiple times by Zoomers who live in that world…. Even young Christians — especially trad Catholics, I learned — are neck-deep in antisemitism. They even use it as a litmus test of who can and can’t join their informal social groups.

Dreher speculated that a number of factors caused this phenomenon, including the losses of economic opportunity, trust in institutions and “common culture.” He continued:

[T]he issue of antisemitism on the young right is much deeper than I had guessed… [A] lot of this is reaction to how Jewish organizations like the ADL have policed speech critical of Israel, and of anything to do with Jews, so heavily over the decades that they have caused intense resentment among the Gentile Zoomercons. One man told me that for as long as he has been in politics, any criticism of Israel got you tagged as an antisemite, and that was a potential career-killer. So his generation has come to hate that, and to cease caring about the opinions of Jews.

Again, Dreher is not hostile to the right; he is part of it. But what he sees within his own movement shocks him. And this was before the Iran War. Dreher concludes:

The Groyper thing is real. It is not a fringe movement, in that it really has infiltrated young conservative Washington networks to a significant degree…. Irrational hatred of Jews (and other races, but especially Jews) is a central core of it. This is evil.

I encourage you to read the whole post. I disagree with almost all of Dreher’s ideological positions, but his serious confrontation with this crisis is a model of honest reflection. I would also recommend reading the work of journalist John Ganz, who has written powerfully of the nihilistic, antisemitic Groyper phenomenon and its significance within the GOP.

To be sure, there is antisemitism on the left as well. But there is absolutely no analogue to the scope of right-wing antisemitism and its proximity to power. Here are a few specific examples.

  • Kingsley Wilson has served as the Department of Defense press secretary since May 2025. Less than a year prior, she replied to an ADL post commemorating the lynching of Leo Frank that “Leo Frank raped & murdered a 13-year-old girl,” a noxious lie that circulates in the antisemitic underbelly of the internet — strong evidence that she spends a lot of time in such spaces. Last March, Rep. Ritchie Torres wrote to Hegseth demanding Wilson’s firing, describing her social media posts as a “minefield of antisemitic rhetoric, white nationalist conspiracies, and pro-Kremlin propaganda.” Instead, Hegseth promoted her.
  • Paul Ingrassia, currently acting general counsel of the General Services Administration, had been tapped to lead the Office of General Counsel until Politico exposed comments he made in a group chat including “I do have a Nazi streak in me from time to time, I will admit it.” On X (the post has since been deleted), Ingrassia called Fuentes “a real dissident of authoritarianism.”
  • Other examples are the often nameless staffers running the social media accounts of the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and other departments. As has now been well documented, these accounts routinely post images and slogans taken from Neo-Nazi and white supremacist communities like “One Homeland. One People. One Heritage” posted by the Department of Justice, “We’ll Have Our Home Again” posted by DHS, variations of “Which Way Western Man?” (a 1978 book claiming a conspiracy by “World Jewry” against the “Western Man”) and many posts (too many to be coincidence) exactly 14 words long, a probable reference to David Lane’s white supremacist “Fourteen Words” slogan. (The ADL has a database of such references online.) These are both dogwhistles to the extreme right and evidence that these staffers are swimming in the ultra-nationalist swamp.
  • And then there are the Young Republican group chats, which somehow keep turning up across the country filled with abject racism, sexism, homophobia and antisemitism. For example, a pile of Telegram chats among Young Republican leaders in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont (once again obtained by Politico) included, among hundreds of lines of abject racism, posts like “I was about to say you’re giving national [leaders] to [sic] much credit and expecting the Jew to be honest” and various jokes about gas chambers.

And that’s not even including Elon Musk, whatever his statements or hand gestures may mean.

To be clear, there are many Jewish voices on the right who have spoken out, including Laura Loomer and Ben Shapiro. So has Trump, who after all has many Jews in his family (even as he often traffics in antisemitic stereotypes about money). But they haven’t made the problem go away, and it’s not at all clear that they even represent the Republican majority anymore. What happens after Trump leaves the political stage?

Meanwhile, other Republican leaders have explicitly rejected calls to isolate or condemn the antisemites. Shapiro, for example, has called out Megyn Kelly for refusing to condemn Fuentes and Owens. And when conservative pundit Scott Jennings asked Vice President Vance, “Does the conservative movement need to warehouse anybody out there espousing antisemitism in any way?” he replied, “No it doesn’t, Scott.” While Vance did also say “I think we need to reject all forms of ethnic hatred, whether it’s antisemitism, anti-Black hatred, anti-white hatred,” that is a toothless statement if he refuses to take any action against those who express it.

So, they remain in office. Carlson, meanwhile, remains welcome at leading conservative institutions like Turning Point USA and the Heritage Foundation, despite a long torrent of antisemitic rhetoric, most recently blaming Chabad Lubavitch for the Iran war, which would be merely ludicrous were it not also exceedingly dangerous. (For good measure, Carlson has recently platformed not only Holocaust deniers but 9/11 “Truthers” who say that Israel was behind the terrorist attacks.)

Antisemitism is intrinsic to right-wing nationalism

This isn’t just a matter of a few bad apples. This is a massive, systemic trend. It is part of the rise of ethno-nationalism, Christian Nationalism, National Conservatism and the triumph of Pat-Buchanan-style America First politics. Despite the efforts of people like Loomer and Shapiro, and prominent Jewish NatCons like Yoram Hazony, it is impossible to somehow surgically remove antisemitism from that politics while leaving the anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, and racist strands in place — as Hazony appears to have recently found out. (“I’ve been pretty amazed by the depth of the slander of Jews as a people that there’s been online the last year and a half,” he said at this year’s NatCon conference. “I didn’t think it would happen on the right. I was mistaken.”)

Antisemitism is not incidental to the nationalistic worldview that is ascendent in the Republican Party; it is essential to it. As Ilya Somin recently wrote in the Unpopulist newsletter:

Nationalism doesn’t just historically correlate with bigotry — it consistently drives antisemitism and other racial and ethnic prejudices. Indeed, nationalism intensifies preexisting antisemitic impulses. To the degree that today’s conservatives decide to embrace — or even just make peace with — nationalism and dispense with the universalist liberal principles of the American Founding, they will find it difficult to impossible to stem the spread of antisemitism in their midst.

Antisemitism is also an integral part of the right-wing internet. The most popular podcaster of all, Joe Rogan, recently hosted conspiracy theorist Ian Carroll, a vicious antisemite who, according to reporting in this publication, “wrote last year that the U.S. was ‘controlled by an international criminal organization that grew out of the Jewish mob and now hides in modern Zionism behind cries of ‘antisemitism’ and claimed Jews control the media; and said that Israel had manipulated the Holocaust for its own gain.” (He also platformed Jake Shields, an MMA fighter-turned-far-right commentator who had said the previous month when he was on the show that Jews control America.)

And Rogan is just the tip of the spear. Andrew Tate routinely spouts antisemitic rhetoric with no corollary anywhere on the left. Influencer Nick Shirley just posted supportively of an antisemitic video by fellow influencer Tyler Oliveira. Right-wing conspiratorial antisemitism is taken for granted in the looksmaxxing and incel worlds. The Great Replacement theory (“Jews will not replace us!”) is routinely embraced on right-wing news media channels. Unambiguous, full-throated right-wing antisemitism is just part of the vibe.

But the ADL has been too busy worrying about Zohran Mamdani’s wife’s political views.

How is this happening?

Why, with an entire Jewish communal infrastructure dedicated to fighting antisemitism, are we failing to focus on the most troubling manifestations of the crisis? Why are our legacy organizations getting it so wrong?

There are several answers to those questions.

The first is obvious: hardline pro-Israel donors have distorted organizational priorities, directing resources and attention to what offends them personally, rather than what poses the greatest threat to Jewish safety. Their motivations may be sincere; clearly many organizational leaders are sincerely dismayed by anti-Zionism, and due to their own emotional connections to Israel and Zionism, they may sincerely experience it as antisemitism. But now, much of the Jewish establishment has concluded that harsh criticisms of Israel, and certainly anti-Zionist ones, are not wrongheaded political views but expressions of antisemitic bigotry. And that has warped organizational priorities and resource allocation decisions.

Again, it’s not that antisemitism does not exist on the anti-Zionist left: It does. And, of course, there is antisemitic violence perpetrated by anti-Zionists motivated by animus toward the State of Israel; we have seen that this week. But the overwhelming majority of that violence is committed by Islamists and terrorists, not campus protesters or obnoxious writers, artists and publishers. Yet the Jewish Establishment continues to paint with a broad brush, lumping together activists with principled objections to Zionism (as they understand or misunderstand it) with murderers and bigots targeting Jews with violence. There is no left-wing equivalent of the world Dreher describes, or the candidacy of James Fishback in Florida, or the popularity of Joe Rogan. And, love him or hate him, Mayor Zohran Mamdani repeatedly, vociferously condemns antisemitism even as he holds views on Israel that are well to the left of many American Jews.

Second, obviously, many of the leading donors to Jewish establishment organizations are either Republicans themselves, or so strongly supportive of the Netanyahu government that they would prefer to trade the American Jewish birthright for the porridge of Greater Israel. Yes, they might concede, right-wing antisemitism is a problem, but plenty of Republicans are against it and the benefits of aligning with the Trump regime – for Israel, for their conservative moral values, or for their own pocketbooks — outweigh the costs.

Whether that is correct or not is impossible to say. But I would suggest, broadly speaking, that ethno-nationalism rarely turns out well for the Jews. The neocons and fiscal conservatives are not in charge anymore, and the MAGA movement’s nationalist-antisemitic monster cannot be contained once it is unleashed. As I fear that today’s coddlers of the party’s antisemitic wing will, one day, look as misguided as those who minimized the threat of nationalists in the past.

It’s also clear that some of our leaders (mostly Boomers or Gen-Xers) are often simply clueless about online culture.  They seem not to even know the language. They may now know what a groyper is. But how about goyslop? Agartha? “Noticing”? 14:88? Have these donors ever been on Discord? Scrolled through TikTok? Watched Joe Rogan? Seen what happens to your YouTube feed when you watch a single video featuring conspiratorial content or a manosphere influencer?

Antisemitism is everywhere online, abetted by social media algorithms that are somehow immune to regulation. And if you don’t believe that matters, consider how Gamergate, Pepe the Frog, QAnon, and other online content moved into the mainstream and helped put Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Now imagine that happening with a figure who is closer to Fuentes or Fishback than Trump.

Of course, the ADL as an organization is aware of these phenomena; I’ve cited their own work several times in this article. But if you browse through the speakers at “Never is Now,” or peruse the ADL’s recent press releases, you will quickly see that the threat from the right is given far less prominence than the threat (real and perceived) from the left. The institutional knowledge is there, but the institutional priorities are disordered.

Worst of all, not only is the Antisemitism Industrial Complex failing to focus on the most dangerous forms of antisemitism, many of its efforts are making matters worse — including in the last few weeks.

First, by counting all anti-Zionist protests as antisemitic incidents, the ADL has destroyed its credibility as an objective monitor of antisemitism, making it much harder to track; we no longer have reliable data.

Second, by terrifying thousands, perhaps millions, of Jewish people — including many friends of mine — this emphasis on left-wing antisemitism obscures the more serious threats from white nationalists, Islamists, terrorists, and others who commit acts of violence.

And third, the Jewish establishment has imposed a hyper-woke regime of censorship in which statements in support of Palestine, or in opposition to Israel, or in opposition to Israel’s role in the Iran War, are deemed to be bigotry that merits permanent cancellation. (I have experienced this myself as well.) As Dreher noted, this only makes matters worse, as both conservatives and progressives can see that political speech is being censored by Jewish elites with significant political power — which is exactly what their antisemitic conspiracy theories tell them.

Obviously, it is not the case that if the Jewish community were to do or say a certain thing, antisemitism would disappear. Bigotry never disappears. But the question is not a binary one of existence or non-existence, but one of scope, size, and proximity to power. By way of analogy, racism will also probably never disappear, but when abject racism is espoused by government officials and leading cultural figures, that is measurably worse than when it is consigned to the margins. And that is precisely what has happened with antisemitism.

The anti-antisemitism world has become an echo chamber obsessed with left-wing anti-Zionism, while nationalist antisemitism is now widespread among young Republican activists and online influencers. I only hope our leaders change course before it is too late.

 

The post Antisemitism is exploding on the right but the Jewish establishment is focused on the left appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

‘Marty Supreme’ and everything else Jewish at this year’s Academy Awards

At last year’s Academy Awards, Anora — a frenetic, somewhat ambiguously Jewish look at a Jewish enclave of New York, took home best picture, original screenplay, director and actress for its Jewish lead Mikey Madison. This year, we have a film that feels, in some ways, quite parallel, while cranking the Yiddishkeit to 11: Josh Safdie’s breathless picaresque Marty Supreme, set on the Lower East Side, is up for best picture and its star, Timothée Chalamet is a favorite for best actor.

There’s also Blue Moon, Richard Linklater’s portrait of Jewish lyricist Lorenz Hart’s breakup with composer Richard Rodgers (Ethan Hawke is up for best actor). And One Battle After Another, a campy and absurdist satire about the infiltration of white supremacists in the U.S. government, is poised to have a massive night, with the blockbuster Sinners serving as its main competition.

That all goes to say that it’s another great year for Jewish stories at the Oscars, with some really compelling fodder for discussion about the place that Jews occupy today in arts and media. What stories are we telling and how are they received?

Here, as ever, the Forward culture team is here to break it all down for you, live as it unfolds. Of course, we cover Jewish movies all year. But at the Academy Awards, we get to see how the rest of the world feels about these movies. We will be updating this story with our thoughts throughout the ceremony.


Traditionally, as we begin these Oscars roundtables, we discuss what we’re all wearing and eating. What’ve we got?

Olivia: brown sweater and jeans; no food but aggressively chewing mint gum. I will later be drinking some of the seltzer I got from Brooklyn’s Seltzer Fest today.

Mira: I did a bunch of cooking for the week so I have vegetarian avgolemono soup and Alison Roman’s fennel salad. (I’m obsessed with this salad.) I am proudly wearing hard pants.

PJ: I am reheating some chicken from last night. Wearing a blue sweater with a little toggle and jeans. How many of Stellan Skarsgård’s large adult sons are here? In other l’dor v’dor news, Bill Pullman just mentioned how they filmed the Spaceballs sequel with his son Lewis.

Talya: I believe I’m wearing the exact same sweater I donned for this event last year — where’s my award for consistency? And, as always, sweatpants; I cannot comprehend suffering through this event in jeans.

Discussion of Israeli-Palestinian protests on the red carpet

Mira: Love a toggle. Speaking of outfits, anyone have thoughts on Odessa A’zion’s spangled red carpet set? She is one of the only people who styles herself on the red carpet, which I do respect.

Olivia: A’Zion’s outfit kind of looks like she forgot to tie whatever was supposed to be holding it up. I don’t think it looks bad, just like it’s falling down.

PJ: It wouldn’t look out of place hanging from the window of a VW van with shag carpet and some Tibetan prayer flags.

Mira: Of note, the past several years have seen protesters approaching people on their way into the ceremony, and a lot of pins on the red carpet taking a stance on the Israel-Hamas war, largely pro-Palestinian ones. We’re seeing less of that this year — though not none. Javier Bardem posted a photo of him wearing a pin reading “no to the war” in Spanish, along with another pin featuring Handala, a cartoon boy considered a symbol of Palestinians. The team of The Voice of Hind Rajab, nominated for best foreign film, are also wearing red pins with a white dove.

PJ: Those have replaced the red hand ArtistsforCeasefire pins, which some said recalled the bloody palms of Palestinians who killed IDF soldiers in 2000.

Olivia: A reporter for ABC in a pre-recorded segment asked executive producers and showrunners for the ceremony Raj Kapoor and Katy Mullan if anything would get bleeped, such as mentions of Trump, Israel and Palestine. Recently, the BBC removed director Akinola Davies Jr’s call for a “Free Palestine” from their BAFTA stream. Kapoor asserted that the night’s production team supports free speech, but we’ll see what transpires over the course of the night.

 

The post ‘Marty Supreme’ and everything else Jewish at this year’s Academy Awards appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

US Sends Additional Arms to Israel to Sustain Iran Operations

The first of two Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors is launched during a successful intercept test. Photo: US Army.

i24 NewsThe United States has recently increased shipments of munitions to Israel to support ongoing Israeli air operations against Iran.

According to reports broadcast by the public radio network Kan Reshet Bet, several weapons deliveries have arrived in Israel in recent days as part of what officials describe as an ongoing airlift aimed at sustaining the pace of military strikes.

Since the start of the campaign, Israeli forces are believed to have dropped more than 11,000 bombs on targets across Iran.

The shipments come as reports emerge about a potential shortage of ballistic missile interceptors in Israel. US officials told the news outlet Semafor that Israel’s interceptor stockpiles have been heavily used during the conflict.

According to those sources, Washington had already been aware for months that supplies could become strained, though it remains unclear whether the United States would be willing to share its own interceptor reserves. Israeli officials have since rejected claims that such a shortage exists.

Unlike the Iron Dome, which is designed to intercept short-range rockets and projectiles, ballistic missile interceptors serve as Israel’s primary defense against long-range missile threats. Fighter jets can also be used to attempt interceptions, though this method is considered a supplementary measure to missile defense systems.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government has taken additional budgetary steps to support the war effort. During an overnight vote between Saturday and Sunday, ministers approved a roughly 1 billion shekel reduction across various ministry budgets to help finance classified military purchases linked to Operation “Roar of the Lion.”

The government had already approved a 3 percent cut in ministry budgets, a move expected to increase the defense budget by approximately 30 billion shekels as the conflict continues.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News