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
A poet’s reaction to this summer’s terrorist attack in Berlin
דעם 25סטן יולי איז דער פּאָעט דזשײק שנײַדער געפֿאָרן קײן װײַמאַר כּדי צו מאָדערירן אַ כּמו־טעלעװיזיע־פּראָגראַם אױף ייִדיש מיט דער אַקטריסע עלענאָר ריסאַ, אַן אונטערנעמונג אין משך פֿונעם פֿעסטיװאַל „ייִדיש־זומער װײַמאַר“. אױף מאָרגן איז ער אַהײמגעפֿאָרן קײן בערלין, װוּ ער האָט מאַרשירט אינעם יערלעכן שטאָלץ־פּאַראַד – אײדער אַ טעראָריסט האָט אַטאַקירט דעם פּאַראַד, דערמאָרדעט אײן פֿרױ און פֿאַרװוּנדיקט מער װי 30 מענטשן. אָט דער „פּאָעטישער באַריכט“ דאָקומענטירט כראָנאָלאָגיש זײַנע פֿראַגמענטאַרישע געדאַנקען און אײַנדרוקן פֿון דעם דאָזיקן מעת־לעת.
װאָס איז טײַטש „לײַװ“?
פֿון דזשייק שנײַדער
פֿאַרבײַגעגאַנגענע רעקלאַמעס׃
פֿאַרטאָפּלט אײַער עקראַנצײַט!
װערט אַ זעלנערין פֿאַר דײַטשלאַנד!
אײַער דירה־געלט איז צו טײַער!
איך דאַרף נאָך מסרן מײַן ראָװער־גנבֿ.
כאַפּן די פֿאַרלאָזלעך פֿאַרשפּעטיקטע באַן.
שױן זיצט מײַן סטודיאָ־עולם און װאַרט.
פּונקט אַזױ װי די װערטער פֿון דער װאָך.
אונטערװאַרטן, אָפּװאַרטן, צוּװאַרטן.
פּונקט אַזױ װי יאַנקלס נײַער װערטער־װידעאָ.
עס װאַרט אַ שיסל מיט ברױנע עם־ען־עמס.
איך האָב שױן אײן מאָל פּראָבירט דעם קלאַנג.
אַ שמועס־שעה אױף פֿאַרשטומטן ייִדיש.
אַ טעלעװיזיע־פּראָגראַם אָן טעלעװיזיעס.
אַ לעבעדיקע לאַכטאַשמע, דאַנקען גאָט.
„אונדזער עולם“ איז דאָך דאָ אין װײַמאַר.
איך דאַרף נישט איבערחזרן אױף כינעזיש.
פּאָסטקאַרטלעך פֿון װאַרשע, סאַו־פּאַולו.
אַכט מדינות… אָבער נישט דײַטשלאַנד.
עלענאָר באַװױנט אונדזער נישט־טעלעװיזיע.
ליבע־בריװ פֿונעם אונטערװעש־שופֿלאָד.
דאָס טײַערסטע קלײד פֿון אַ גאַנץ לעבן.
אַז מען דערמאָנט פֿראַנק לאָנדאָנען…
כּדי צו שטראָמען באַדאַרף מען נײַעס.
אַזאַ מין איצט באַדאַרף אַן איצטיקײט.
אַנישט קומט דער נעטפֿליקס־עפֿעקט.
אָן־סופֿיקע אַפֿישן אַדורכצובלעטערן.
בײַ ממשותדיקע נײַעס קומען שטױס־מעלדונגען.
די מאָבילקעס, טאַבלעטן און זײגערלעך װיברירן.
און שױן איז אונדזער שמועס־שעה פֿאַרבײַ.
שױן האָבן מיר געבענטשט עלעקרטישע ליכט.
געריסן די חלות, געגעסן די אוגערקעס.
אֵין כּל, אֵין כּל, אֵין כּל…. „טײַ“.
נישטאָ קײן צײַט פֿאַר אַ חצות בײַם טײַך.
די באַן פֿאָרט אומהײמלעך איצטיקיסטיש.
אינסטאַגראַם האָט פֿאַרגעסן זײַן ייִדיש.
שױן אַהײמגעפֿאָרן מיטן דינג־ראָװער.
שױן געגלעט מײַן הינטלס קאָנוס־קאָפּ.
שױן אָנגעטאָן מײַן בער־קאָסטיום.
שױן געפֿאָרן צום פּרײַד־לחײם.
שױן געקװעטשט אױפֿן נײַנטן קנעפּל.
שױן איבערגעקערט אַ טעלער מיט נאַשן.
שױן געהערט מעשׂיות פֿון נעכטן בײַ נאַכט.
שױן פּאָזירט אינעם יערלעכן באַלקאָנבילד.
אַלע טראָגן װי תּמיד די סאַמע מאָדישע זאָקן.
אַ פֿרײלעכן פּרײַד. פֿרײלעך צו זײַן פֿרײלעך.
אַראָפּ און אַרױס מיט די אַנדערע פֿײגעלעך.
אַן אַנדער שׂימחה־גרופּע װאַרט שױן אין דרױסן.
איך טאָר נישט קװעטשן דאָס פֿרײלעך־קנעפּל.
איך טאָר נישט נאַשן קײן שװאַמעלע־שאָקאָלאַד.
מיר יאָגן זיך נאָך די אַנטלאָפֿענע פּאַראַד־װאָגנס.
הײַיאָר פּראָקלאַמירט מען כּמו־פּאָליטישע לאָזונגען.
דעות זענען רײצנדיק. די „גוטע גבֿירים“ בלײַבן.
מיר מאַרשירן טאַנצעװדיק, טאַנצן מאַרשירעװדיק.
ס׳איז דער הױפּטשטראָם־פּרײַד, דער באַנאַלער.
נישט דער לעסבישער, נישט דער פּאַלעסטינישער.
מיר פֿאַרלירן אַ חבֿר אַלע פֿינף מינוט.
מיר װאַרטן אױפֿן קלאָזעט־הײַזעלע.
מיר האַלטן זיך אָפּ בײַ נאָלנדאָרף־פּלאַץ.
דאָרט אױבן אַרבעט מײַן צײנדאָקטער!
דאָרט װוּ עס הענגען די נחת־פֿענער!
אַ ביר פֿון אָרגאַנישן סופּערמאַרק.
כּדי אַרײַנצוגײן דאַרף מען זיך אָנטאָן.
איך דאַרף נאָך ענדיקן דאָס „לײַװ“-ליד.
איך דאַרף שפּאַצירן מיטן קאָנוס־קעפּל.
איך דאַרף נאָך שרײַבן עטלעכע רשימות.
קודם־כּל, פֿאַר װאָס נישט אַ שניצל?
די קיך פֿאַרמאַכט זיך צען אַ זײגער.
מיר באַשטעלן אין דער לעצטער מינוט.
מיר עסן דאָס אױסגעפּלאַטשיקטן פֿלײש.
מיר שפּאַצירן אַהײם דורך די געסלעך.
צװײ פֿײגעלעך פֿון אַ גאַנץ יאָר מיט אַ הינטל.
שױן קומען די שטױס־מעלדונגען.
שױן שטײען מיר אױף דער שװעל.
איך דאַרף זיך שױן „מעלדן בשלום“.
איך דאַרף נאָך מעלדן מײַן ראָװער.
איך דאַרף נאָך ענטפֿערן אױף די בריװלעך.
צי בין איך בשלום? װער איז בלשום?
די מלחמה קעגן מלחמות איז אױס.
עס בלײַבן אונדז בלױז מײנונגען.
יעדער אײנער האָט זײַן אָפּרוף.
יעדער אײנער האָט זײַנע דעות.
יעדער אײנער האָט קלוגע פּירושים.
װער זשע װיל זײַן אין די נײַעס?
בערלין קײן װײַמאַר קײן בערלין, 26-25 יולי
The post A poet’s reaction to this summer’s terrorist attack in Berlin appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
These Bundist pioneers were heroes in their time. Would they be in ours?
Academic stars in high school, Abrasha Blum and Luba Bielecka shared a slow burn romance and fervor for radical change. That hardly set them apart amid the ferment after the tsarist empire crumbled in 1919. No one would have predicted that Bielecka would go on to be awarded global nursing’s highest honor and Blum Poland’s equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor.
But their story poses a provocation in today’s hyper-polarized politics: Blum and Bielecka were devoted Bundists, and as such, they were not only socialists but anti-Zionists.
That combination can get you labeled today as anti-Israel and antisemitic, and even anti-American. Yet at the time they were Jewish heroes.
Bielecka repeatedly risked her life smuggling children out the Warsaw ghetto under Nazi occupation while directing the sole Jewish nursing school, sustaining its rigorous professional standards even as it was squashed into oblivion. Blum, a physically frail man, was dubbed the “ideological father of armed resistance” in the Bund; he led his band of militants into joining forces with the detested Zionists in the historic Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. When the insurgency was crushed — as all the combatants knew it would be — Blum, an engineer by training, led the surviving remnant through the cavernous sewer system to safety. But soon thereafter, in fleeing the police, he plummeted three stories from an apartment building. Badly injured, he was taken to Gestapo headquarters and never seen again.
Blum and Bielecka engaged the world as they found it and fought for justice for Jews and humanity. Blum’s photo is on display at Yad Vashem, Jerusalem’s Holocaust museum.
A lot has changed in 85 years. In 1939, most Americans Jews opposed Zionism and feared it would be misused by antisemites to justify allegations of dual loyalty. At the time, twice as many Jews lived in Warsaw as in all of British Palestine. The Bund swept 17 of 20 Jewish-designated seats on city council (Blum held one of them), far outdistancing all the Zionists parties together. Socialism made sense to Jewish voters, who were overwhelmingly “blue collar.” And so did doikayt (“hereness”), the doctrine that Poland’s three million Jews belonged there, not in a far-off desert, as the Zionists maintained.
The Holocaust radically and irrevocably changed the landscape. Ninety percent of Polish Jewry was exterminated. Even after the Nazis were vanquished, Jews continued to endure pogroms and were largely purged from Poland’s ruling communist party. By then, Israel was the sole destination in the world that welcomed large numbers of Jews.
Blum and Bielecka’s daughter, 17-year-old Aviva (née Victoria), was among the pioneers who migrated to a kibbutz in the new State of Israel. Zionism offered her the promise of milk and honey in a sanctuary free of antisemitism.
For years, her younger brother, Olek, held fast to his parents’ politics. But he too ultimately exited Poland, not for Israel but for the US, saddened that his father’s dream of “a prosperous Jewish minority inside Poland was impossible to realize.”
Like their parents, Aviva and Olek too engaged the post-WWII world as they found it and sought a better world.
Today, socialism and anti-Zionism are each experiencing something of a revival in the U.S. Self-described socialists have won mayoral elections in New York, Seattle and Washington, D.C. DSA-supported candidates won the Senate Democratic primary in Florida and narrowly lost Wisconsin’s gubernatorial primary. A recent CBS News poll found that 58% of Democrats now hold a favorable view of socialism, whereas only 32% view capitalism positively. The gap is even wider among young people. Jews, despite their relative affluence, remain among the most liberal voters in the U.S., although their current views on socialism have not been scientifically surveyed.
Anti-Zionism looks quite different in 2026 than in 1939, at least to Jews. Israel, approaching its 80th anniversary, is far from the desert mirage ridiculed by pre-war Bundists. While only a minority of American Jews self-describe as Zionists, an overwhelming majority support Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Yet they are deeply troubled by Israel’s direction: Polls show that Zohran Mamdani, a socialist and anti-Zionist, is more popular among American Jews than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
We’re left with this thought experiment: What if Abrasha and Luba resided in America today? What would they view as justice and how would they engage to achieve it? What if they resided in Israel?
And finally, a question about the rest of us: Would we recognize them as heroes?
The post These Bundist pioneers were heroes in their time. Would they be in ours? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
AIPAC couldn’t stop Michigan’s El-Sayed in the primary. Now it’s trying again.
AIPAC’s super PAC has re-entered Michigan’s closely watched U.S. Senate race less than a month before the general election, spending nearly $100,000 on mailers attacking Abdul El-Sayed, despite earlier concerns by allies of his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, that it would boost the Democratic nominee.
The spending of $94,620 by United Democracy Project (UDP) on direct mailers was disclosed in a Friday campaign finance filing. It comes after Rogers publicly welcomed AIPAC’s support during a televised debate last week, reversing the position initially taken by people close to his campaign who worried the pro-Israel group’s involvement could hurt his chances.
A spokesperson for the group told Jewish Insider that the mailers target 130,000 identified Jewish voters in the swing state. It focuses on El-Sayed’s response to an attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield earlier this year. El-Sayed drew criticism for saying “hurt people hurt people” when discussing the attacker, whose brother was reportedly a Hezbollah commander killed in an airstrike on Lebanon. El-Sayed later apologized, saying he had been trying to provide broader context for the attack.
UDP spent more than $30 million trying to defeat El-Sayed in the Democratic primary this summer and in support of Rep. Haley Stevens, who lost by about one percentage point.
Following the primary, allies of the Republican nominee reportedly asked AIPAC not to run ads to boost him, fearing that the group’s involvement would give El-Sayed the same political foil that helped him overcome its massive spending in the primary. Axios reported that AIPAC officials didn’t take that rejection easily.
But Rogers appeared to change course last Thursday when asked whether he’d welcome AIPAC’s support.
“Anybody that wants to help my campaign stop a guy who can’t condemn terrorism in our own country because he’s so close to the people who are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, again, I’ll take all of that help,” Rogers said at Thursday’s televised debate. El-Sayed interrupted to say he had condemned terrorism.
A new super PAC, Together for Michigan, aired an ad during the debate featuring Taylor Weintraub, whose child attends the Temple Israel preschool that was attacked in March.
Rogers went further on Friday at a campaign event with Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, accusing El-Sayed of being “so anti-Jewish” that a single mailer had upset him. Rogers said he welcomed help from Jewish supporters seeking to defeat his opponent. Kennedy also attacked El-Sayed, saying AIPAC would not be involved in the race if the Democrat did not “sleep in a Bin Laden jersey.”
El-Sayed, an Israel critic who has made opposition to AIPAC a central part of his campaign, responded by accusing Rogers of desperation. “You know Mike Rogers is in trouble when he begs AIPAC to start spending against me,” he wrote on X.
Some Jewish Democrats are publicly supporting Rogers, saying El-Sayed has failed to assuage concerns in his outreach to Jewish voters and in campaign appearances in recent months. If elected, El-Sayed would become the first Muslim member of the U.S. Senate.
Recent polls show El-Sayed with a narrow lead in the race to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters. Recent elections in Michigan have been decided by narrow margins. Trump won the swing state in 2024 by about 80,000 votes, while Democratic incumbent Elissa Slotkin defeated Rogers in the Senate race that year by fewer than 20,000 votes. Four years earlier, Joe Biden won Michigan by about 2.8 percentage points.
The post AIPAC couldn’t stop Michigan’s El-Sayed in the primary. Now it’s trying again. appeared first on The Forward.
