Uncategorized
Judd Apatow on why Mel Brooks’ influence ‘will last as long as our jokes’
“May you live to 120” is a common Jewish blessing. This is the ideal age, the precedent set by Moses. A corresponding curse — some say it’s Chinese, but it feels palpably Yiddish — is “may you live in interesting times.”
At 99, Mel Brooks is still short of Mosaic longevity, but has undeniably lived, like his 2,000-year-old man, through interesting times. Often, he was the one who kept things interesting.
Into the whirl of the Brooksissance — an epoch witnessing a streaming sequel to History of the World Part I, the forthcoming Spaceballs II and a just-announced series Very Young Frankenstein — comes Mel Brooks: The 99-Year-Old Man! a two-part HBO documentary co-directed by Judd Apatow and Michael Bonfiglio. It is a deft portrait of the entertainer that earns its prodigious length. (Unlike a Brooks sequel, you won’t have to wait decades for the second installment — you can stream both starting Jan. 22.)
Structured around recent interviews with the comedian, and surfacing a wealth of rarely seen archival footage, the documentary distinguishes itself from previous efforts, like a 2013 American Masters episode, by going deep on Mel the man.
“Slowly he opened up and was willing to have that deep a conversation,” Apatow told me in an interview.
Apatow and Bonfiglio’s film addresses Brooks’ first marriage, his imposter syndrome and how his insomnia and chronic lateness on Your Show of Shows may have stemmed from PTSD from World War II, where he dug through German soil with a bayonet hunting for unexploded ordnance.
The film even explores a now quaint-seeming controversy over the Inquisition musical number from History of the World Part I (the St. Louis Jewish Light slammed him for indulging in “the kind of humor which would have received a standing ovation from an audience of stormtroopers and concentration camp commanders.”)
The documentary features interviews from across the world of comedy — perhaps the last occasion you’ll see Dave Chappelle and Jerry Seinfeld sharing a bill — including the bittersweet, invaluable insights of the late Rob Reiner.
“Fear is the main motivator for what he does,” noted Reiner, who also recounted Brooks’ heartbreak when Rob’s father, Carl, died. “The fear of not being funny, the fear of not being liked, whatever the fear is.. and because of that he becomes a lovable person.”
I spoke with Apatow and Bonfiglio about how one interviews a living legend, how Brooks’ example teaches us how to take on tyrants, and the surprising environmental message the auteur smuggled into Spaceballs. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Mel Brooks has been interviewed a lot, as we can see in the film — Judd, you even interviewed him for the Atlantic a couple years ago — but he told you that he doesn’t think people know the real him. How did you go about trying to get past the persona?
Judd Apatow: He’s been a private man throughout his life. When he’s been public, he likes to tell the old stories, and anecdotes. It’s funny because an old friend of Mel’s said to me, “You know, all his stories are bullshit. They’re all bullshit. They’re all made up.” And so in one of the interviews I said, “Mel, are any of these stories true?” And he goes “No!” So we’ll never know for some of it — the legends of Sid Caesar holding writers out the window — ‘cause he’s one of the great raconteurs. But I thought it would be really great to approach this as a person who does what he does, who has a life that is in some ways similar to his and to say, “What happened and how did you do it? How did it feel — what lessons can I learn from you?” And slowly he opened up and was willing to have that deep a conversation.
One of the great pleasures of this is the archive — him with Sid Caesar and the writers, outtakes of the Ballantine’s beer ad, behind-the-scenes footage — Michael, what was it like diving through that material. Was there anything that stands out as great or rare?
Michael Bonfiglio: It was so much fun. Mel has so many great stories, and when you go back through all the talk shows and stuff you notice he tends to tell the same one in different venues. Which we had a bit of fun with in the edit as well. We were always kind of looking for things where we said, “Oh, I haven’t heard him say that before, or talk about that in that way.” Some of those came from interviews we found on European television that we got from archives that probably have not been seen since they were on television and, sometimes he would be in a slightly different mode, maybe because it was a different audience.
There’s an interview where he’s talking about Spaceballs, and how air was the commodity in Spaceballs because the world was run by people who didn’t care about the environment. And it was like, “Oh, that’s not really something I got out of Spaceballs, but was clearly on Mel’s mind.” It was interesting to see how in Silent Movie how to him that was a commentary on media consolidation. Those ideas are there and I think those can be the comedic engine, as he would say, behind some of these films.
Apatow: Silent Movie was The Studio of its time.
Brooks wrote in his memoir “for the most part to characterize my humor as being purely Jewish humor is not accurate. It’s really New York humor.” What do you make of that assessment and how, to you, does the work seems Jewish?
Apatow: I’ve never known what defines Jewish humor enough to break it down. What is the difference between Jewish humor and the stuff Mark Twain was doing? Obviously you can say there’s humor that comes out of suffering. Joyous, brash humor that you tell because circumstances are so difficult. I’ve never been good at intellectualizing comedy. I always feel like comedy dies on the operating table. Mel, I think, is very proud of the fact that it works for everybody, so I’m sure for him he’s not trying to be specific in that way — but he may be doing it anyway. I don’t think of myself as someone working from a Jewish perspective, but clearly I am, whether I know it or like it or not!
I think it’s maybe reflexive for him. Even if he says it’s New York humor, growing up in Williamsburg everybody was Jewish!
Apatow: That’s his New York!
There’s a whole section about Brooks taking on Hitler. Judd, recently, very publicly, you suggested we’re living in a dictatorship. What can we learn from his example of making fun of autocrats?
Apatow: I think he fought in World War II and fought against authoritarianism and he felt it was important to speak truth to power. That’s why they attacked the Jimmy Kimmels and Stephen Colberts of the world. And I think we should all be inspired by his willingness to speak up. There are bad things happening right now. It shouldn’t be that shocking to say we’re living in a dictatorship. We don’t have a legislature that does anything. I think everybody should speak up, and everyone should be allowed to make fun of it ‘cause that’s why we’re in this country: for our freedom of speech.
On the question of legacy — he did so much. We didn’t even get into the short film The Critic, the first time the Academy recognized him. What do you think his legacy will be?
Bonfiglio: Laughter. Big, big laughter and I think that’s really what’s more important to him than all the awards and all of that, because I think that his work is gonna live on. It has. Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein are over 50 years old now and they’re still hilarious. The comedy and the joy will live on.
Apatow: In addition to being as funny as anyone who’s ever been on Earth, he also gave a lot of people opportunities through his writing and directing. He introduced the world to people like Marty Feldman and Gene Wilder and Madeline Kahn and Teri Garr and on and on and on. There’s a real butterfly effect to all the people that went into comedy because they loved him, and so I think his influence will last as long as our jokes.
The post Judd Apatow on why Mel Brooks’ influence ‘will last as long as our jokes’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
6 Jewish takeaways from the midterm elections
(JTA) — The sheer size and geographic scope of the Republican wipeout Tuesday makes it hard to read anything definitive into the results beyond a nationwide repudiation of President Donald Trump (and his candidate selections). But whether or not any other factors were at play in the GOP bloodbath, the fallout will have a range of reverberations. Here are 6 takeaways that point to what comes next.
1. A significantly weakened Donald Trump doesn’t bode well for Netanyahu
For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump has been a longshot bet that keeps on paying off. It’s hard to overstate how significant Trump’s improbable wins in 2016 and 2024 were in bolstering Netanyahu’s domestic standing and giving him space to advance his regional agenda. Trump also served as a security blanket, leaving Netanyahu and his allies with a sense for many years that they need not worry too much about skyrocketing Democratic and international anger with Israel.
In fact, there was even a hope in Bibi world that The Donald’s support could save Netanyahu from political defeat at home (and, to be fair, his 11th-hour endorsement may have). Whether Netanyahu holds on or chief rival Gadi Eisenkot succeeds in replacing him, Israel is entering uncharted territory. There is little chance that the combination of a weakened Trump and an emboldened Democratic Congress produces similar levels of support for aggressive action against Iran and its proxies, and other policies that a wide spectrum of Israelis see as crucial to their security.
2. Jeffries and Schumer have a massive headache coming their way
With Tuesday night’s Democratic wave, Hakeem Jeffries is on track to become Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chuck Schumer will likely get a second shot as U.S. Senate Majority Leader. These New Yorkers have longstanding ties to the pro-Israel community and are among their party’s strongest Israel supporters – putting them at odds with the growing number of congressional Democrats who want their party to take a much harder line against Israel. It won’t be long before members in each caucus are demanding concrete action, including meaningful limits on U.S. military sales.
Both Democratic leaders have ratcheted up their criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government in the wake of its war on Hamas in Gaza, but they have ultimately voted against various legislative attempts to punish Israel. This past April, Schumer was one of only seven Senate Democrats to vote against a pair of resolutions that together would have blocked the sale of D-9 bulldozers, widely used in military operations, and 1,000-pound bombs to Israel. In July, Jeffries voted against ending U.S. military aid to Israel, but the measure was supported by almost half of the Democratic caucus. As leaders of their respective chambers, Jeffries and Schumer will likely face immense pressure for more such votes and face much tougher scrutiny from the party base over continued support for Israel.
3. The impact of the anti-Israel vote was diluted
On the other hand, the massive Democratic victory dilutes the power of the anti-Israel lawmakers in Congress. Their numbers will grow, causing problems for party leaders trying to keep anti-Israel measures off the agenda. But they will remain a relatively small subset within a much larger Democratic majority that includes many moderates and Israel supporters.
Not only will anti-Israel members have less ability to hold Congress hostage, the overall issue of Israel loses some of its potency when the broader political winds indicate that all Democrats were boosted.
4. John Fetterman just lost his juice
Just as the sizable Democratic House majority makes Jeffries less dependent on anti-Israel lawmakers in his caucus, the next Senate Majority Leader won’t need to rely on Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman. For years, Fetterman has been driving fellow Democrats crazy with his cozying up to Republicans, with progressives especially upset over his die-hard support for Israel. Fetterman has even said that the one thing that could cause him to leave the Democratic Senate caucus would be his party turning decisively against Israel.
Had things broken differently, with Democrats grabbing a narrow 51-49 majority in the chamber, Fetterman’s influence would have been hypercharged. Now, not so much. The Democrats no longer need him to keep control of the chamber. So Schumer, should he regain the majority leader role, will have to worry much less about keeping the party’s top pro-Israel cheerleader happy. In 2028, he’ll be up for reelection and highly unlikely to survive the Democratic primary.
5. AIPAC has not found a formula for success
A few years back, the leading pro-Israel lobby decided the best way to counter the initial anti-Israel rumblings in Congress was to jump deep into the campaign fundraising business. Hundreds of millions of dollars later, the number of Israel critics in Congress – especially on the Democratic side of the aisle – has grown, with a fresh batch on the way. Moreover, in many races, anti-Israel candidates and AIPAC critics managed to turn the lobby’s backing into a liability.
Meanwhile, Trump’s seemingly impromptu announcement Tuesday that his administration would end aid to Israel after this year suggests that Republican backing for such support is dropping alongside Democrats’. And Tuesday’s results suggest AIPAC’s strong support for the U.S. and Israeli military strikes against Iran is out of step with the American public and many incoming lawmakers.
All of this indicates that AIPAC has yet to figure out how to manage the anti-Israel turn sweeping through American politics.
6. It was a great night for Jewish presidential hopefuls
U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff says he isn’t running for president in 2028. But that won’t stop the speculation from skyrocketing after his impressive reelection in Georgia – Georgia?! – with nearly 60% of the vote. More importantly, he probably just grabbed frontrunner status in the race to become America’s first Jewish president. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro also registered a similarly sized reelection victory in a state that Trump won just two years ago, but Ossoff – a fierce Trump antagonist and, increasingly, a critic of Israel’s military actions – cemented his rock star status among Democrats this cycle and has demonstrated an ability to bridge the gap between younger progressives and more traditional liberals.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker also cruised to reelection. Meanwhile in Michigan, moderate Elissa Slotkin – another senator and likely presidential hopeful (of course, which senator isn’t a presidential hopeful?) – may have at least propped open the door to some progressive support by campaigning hard for Abdul El-Sayed. All four have been highly critical of Netanyahu, with both Ossoff and Slotkin joining most of their fellow Democratic senators in voting in April for a curb on various weapons sales. Both senators have declined to label Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post 6 Jewish takeaways from the midterm elections appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
El-Sayed declares victory in Michigan Senate race that left many Jews uneasy
(JTA) — DETROIT – Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has declared victory in the hotly contested race for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat, capping a campaign that has prompted deep anxieties among Jews in the state and beyond.
With 88% of the ballots counted at around 2:27 a.m. ET, The Associated Press called the race for El-Sayed, who had 52% of the vote compared with 46% for his Republican rival, former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers.”
In his acceptance speech, El-Sayed thanked supporters whom he said had welcomed him into “your homes, your churches, your synagogues.”
He also referenced his ardently pro-Palestinian views, saying, “They try to call you hateful if you believe that Palestinian kids should get to grow up in the land of their forefathers without being martyred by our tax dollars… We don’t want our money to be sent to do apartheid or genocidal war.”
During his victory speech, chants of “Free Palestine” were heard throughout the crowd. Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian Columbia University activist who was detained by the Trump administration, was in attendance.
The race had been viewed as crucial to Democrats’ hopes of retaking the chamber. But for many of Michigan’s estimated 105,000 Jewish voters, the campaign was defined instead by El-Sayed’s tumultuous relationship to the community.
That animosity extended beyond the Democrat’s fierce criticism of Israel to encompass his statements about attacks targeting the state’s Jewish community and his early campaigning with streamer Hasan Piker, who has made several controversial comments about Jewish voters.
His uncompromising stances on Israel have also made him a target among pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC, which has spent heavily against him in both the primary and general election. AIPAC’s rare entry into a general election race was in support of Rogers.
One of El-Sayed’s positions on Israel — to end all U.S. military aid — was once thought a far-left pipe dream. But that has changed. On Election Day morning, Trump announced that, under his watch, nearly $4 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel would wind down by the end of the year. Trump said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in agreement with the need to end aid and deny Democratic critics a point of attack.
El-Sayed’s campaign has galvanized young voters and a range of other constituencies, and he pulled ahead in the polls in the race’s final stretch. But his questioning of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state and whether it or Iran posed a greater threat to the United States, as well as his prior associations with figures such as Hasan Piker, the streamer who has spread extreme rhetoric about American Jews, have sparked concern among Jewish Michiganders.
So, too, did comments the candidate made following the March terror attack on Temple Israel, a major synagogue in the state, in which El-Sayed appeared to link the attack to Israel’s war in Lebanon after reports that the attacker lost family in an Israeli strike. Hostile behavior from some of El-Sayed’s supporters toward pro-Israel Democrats, most prominently on display at the state party’s spring convention, has also alarmed Jews. El-Sayed has pledged to stand up to antisemitism.
Some Jews who had long considered themselves Democrats, including several local Jewish leaders, have cited such controversies in pledging to vote for Rogers. In some Michigan Jewish neighborhoods, yard signs proclaim that a vote for Rogers is a vote “against antisemitism.”
The post El-Sayed declares victory in Michigan Senate race that left many Jews uneasy appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Moskowitz wins Florida seat in race between two pro-Israel candidates
(JTA) — Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz beat Republican Scott Singer, the former mayor of Boca Raton, in a battle between two staunchly pro-Israel politicians in a redrawn district.
The redrawn district covers a stretch of Florida shoreline north of Miami and includes large Jewish communities in areas including Boca and Fort Lauderdale, and is seen as leaning slightly Democratic.
Moskowitz, who was endorsed by the lobbying group AIPAC, has touted himself as “the most pro-Israel Jewish Democrat in Congress.” Singer, meanwhile, was endorsed by President Donald Trump and the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Moskowitz has said there is an “ostracizing” associated with being staunchly pro-Israel in a Democratic Party that is increasingly including anti-Zionist voices. Singer seized on that sentiment, saying during a synagogue candidates’ forum that Moskowitz will be drowned out by the Democrats’ anti-Israel wing if he is reelected.
The candidates themselves have largely been aligned on the issue of Israel. Both have condemned accusations that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. They each oppose any effort to condition or cut off U.S. military aid to Israel. Both supported Israel’s strikes on Iranian facilities in 2025, though Moskowitz has since called for the U.S. to end its war with Iran, whereas Singer said during a forum that the U.S. needs “to ensure victory here.”
Both candidates have also emphasized combating antisemitism in their campaigns, and say they would push to expand the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to increase funding for security at Jewish schools, synagogues and other institutions. They also are both in favor of codifying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism into federal law; critics say the definition wrongly lumps in some criticism of Israel.
In a campaign ad targeting antisemitism, Moskowitz pulled from the story of his family, some of whom — including his great-grandparents — were killed in Auschwitz during the Holocaust.
“In every generation, they rise against us,” Moskowitz said in the ad.
The post Moskowitz wins Florida seat in race between two pro-Israel candidates appeared first on The Forward.
