Turner Classic Movies is airing a ‘Jewish Experience’ series of films this month
(JTA) — Turner Classic Movies admits that capturing the “Jewish experience” in a series of films is a daunting task, but the network is attempting to do so anyway.
Every Thursday night in January, the channel is showing movies spanning from the 1930s through the 1990s on the theme. According to an article on the TCM website, the series aims to show “how filmmakers have attempted to deal with such themes as assimilation, antisemitism, religion, family life and the Holocaust, sometimes with clarity and honesty, other times with varying degrees of distortion and caricature.”
There are a couple of films in the series set during the Holocaust, but notably none involve concentration camp settings. Instead, the general focus seems to be on portraying comedy, romance and the joy of everyday Jewish life.
Antisemitism does come up often in the Jewish experience, and that is reflected in the films, including in “Crossfire,” a film noir from 1947 about the murder of a Jewish man that helped kick off the series last week. The theme is also prominent in “Fiddler on the Roof,” which also aired on the series’ first night.
Here are the remaining movies to look forward to, in the order in which they will air in EST.
“Bye Bye Braverman” (1968), Jan. 12 at 8 p.m.
In this film adapted from the novel “To An Early Grave” by Wallace Markfield, four Jewish writer friends — played by George Segal, Jack Warden, Sorrell Brooke and Joseph Wiseman — travel to the funeral of their other friend after he dies suddenly. Though the film was not as well received as other films directed by Sidney Lumet (who started his career as a child actor in Yiddish theater), it includes a Black-Jewish character, which is still rare in cinema today.
“The Angel Levine” (1970), Jan. 12 at 10 p.m.
Speaking of Jews of color on screen: this movie has a Jewish angel played by Harry Belafonte, whose real-life father was of Jewish descent. The angel visits a poor Jewish tailor, played by Zero Mostel, who starred as the original Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof” on Broadway. It was directed by Hungarian-born Jew Ján Kadár.
“Annie Hall” (1977), Jan. 13 at 12 a.m.
This is the only Woody Allen film in the lineup. Before the scandalous accusations against the director picked up steam again over the past decade, “Annie Hall” was a landmark for American Jews in film, encapsulating the neurotic Jewish New York comedic archetype. Allen plays comedian Alvy Singer who falls in love with the titular character played by Diane Keaton.
“Soup For One” (1982), Jan. 13 at 2 a.m.
This is not a Woody Allen film, but his influence is all over this comedy written and directed by Jonathan Kaufer, in which a New York Jewish television producer played by Saul Rubinek tries to find his perfect woman.
“Set Me Free” (1999), Jan. 13 at 3:45 a.m.
Most of the movies in the series are American, but there are a couple of international films, including this French-Canadian coming-of-age story about a 13-year-old Jewish girl obsessed with the character that Anna Karina plays in Jean-Luc Godard’s film “Vivre sa vie.” Directed by Léa Pool, it’s the most recent film in the lineup, though it is set in 1963. Pool, whose father was a Holocaust survivor from Poland, is one of several women directors represented in the series.
“Crossing Delancey” (1988), Jan. 19 at 8 p.m.
Probably the most famous of the romantic comedies in the series, “Crossing Delancey” was also directed and written by women: Joan Micklin Silver and Susan Sandler, respectively. Amy Irving stars as Isabelle Grossman, a young New Yorker who works for a bookstore and is close with her grandmother — who wants to see her granddaughter settle down. She has a matchmaker set her up with Sam Posner (Peter Riegert), a pickle salesman, and Isabelle is torn between him and the intellectual world. The film also shows the Lower East Side from the era when it was bustling with Jewish immigrant shops and vendors, before gentrification irrevocably changed it.
“Over the Brooklyn Bridge” (1984), Jan. 19 at 10 p.m.
One can never have too many romantic comedies set in New York. In this one, directed by Israeli-born Menahem Golan, Elliott Gould plays Alby Sherman, a business owner whose wealthy uncle will only loan him money if he breaks up with his gentile girlfriend (Margaux Hemingway). The very Jewish cast also includes Sid Caesar, Carol Kane, Shelley Winters and a very young (and uncredited) Sarah Michelle Gellar.
“Girlfriends” (1978), Jan. 20 at 12 a.m.
This pioneering indie film — which according to The New York Times was the first independent American film to be funded primarily by grantmaking organizations — is also is notable for its portrayal of female friendship between Susan Weinblatt (Melanie Mayron), a Jewish photographer, and her ex-roommate Anne Munroe (Anita Skinner), who moves out to get married. Directed by Claudia Weill, who also wrote it along with Vicki Polon, the film is a precursor to so many contemporary indies, including Noah Baumbach and Greta Gerwig’s “Frances Ha.”
“The Frisco Kid” (1979), Jan. 20 at 1:45 a.m.
Jews are not usually associated with Westerns. But in this comedy, Gene Wilder stars as a rabbi from Poland who is set to lead a congregation in San Francisco. He gets stuck en route in the Wild West and befriends a bank robber played by Harrison Ford. Some scenes don’t hold up in contemporary times, especially ones portraying Native Americans, but TCM doesn’t shy away from showing how stereotypes are part of film history.
“Au Revoir, Les Enfants” (1987), Jan. 20 at 4 a.m.
This French film is one of the few in the series that takes place during the years of the Holocaust. Louis Malle’s autobiographical film is based on his time at the Catholic school Petit-College d’Avon, at which the real headmaster Pére Jacques (Pére Jean in the film) attempted to hide Jewish children from the Nazis. The film focuses on the friendship of two fictionalized 12-year-old boys, Julian Quentin (Gaspard Manesse) and Jean Bonnet, whose real name is Jean Kippelstein (Raphael Fejtö).
“Biloxi Blues” (1988), Jan. 26 at 8 p.m.
Neil Simon adapted his own play, the second in his semi-autobiographical trilogy about growing up in Brighton Beach, for the screen. Eugene Jerome (Matthew Broderick), a young Jewish Brooklynite, is drafted into the army during World War II and is sent to bootcamp in Mississippi. The movie is helmed by prolific Jewish film and theater director Mike Nichols, who was born in Germany and immigrated to the United States as a young boy in 1939.
“The Chosen” (1981), Jan. 26 at 10 p.m.
Many of the movies selected for this series unsurprisingly take place in Brooklyn, including this one based on Chaim Potok’s 1967 novel set towards the end of World War II. It shows the conflict between different sects of Judaism by focusing on the friendship of two Jewish teenagers — Reuven Malter (Barry Miller), who is Modern Orthodox, and Danny Saunders (Robby Benson), who is Hasidic.
“Portnoy’s Complaint” (1972), Jan. 27 at 12 a.m.
Richard Benjamin stars in this movie based on Philip Roth’s book, adapted and directed by Ernest Lehman. Though the novel — which is written as a monologue from Alexander Portnoy to his psychoanalyst — turned Roth into a celebrity author, the film adaptation was not critically or commercially successful, especially when compared to another Roth adaptation starring Benjamin: “Goodbye Columbus.”
“The Last Metro” (1980), Jan. 27 at 2 a.m.
The other Holocaust movie in the series is also from France, and is one of director French New Wave pioneer François Truffaut’s most commercially successful films. The manager of a small theater company in Paris (Catherine Deneuve) hides her Jewish husband (Gérard Depardieu) during the Nazi occupation.
“Tevya” (1939), Jan. 27 at 4:15 a.m.
The series closes with another take on Sholem Aleichem’s stories that makes a nice bookend with “Fiddler on the Roof.” Adapted and directed by Maurice Schwartz, who also stars in the titular role, the Yiddish film was thought to be lost until a print was found in 1978. In 1991, it became the first non-English film to be selected for preservation in the library of Congress National Film Registry for its cultural significance.
A little‑remembered Gilded Age millionaire helped make milk safe for American kids through his ‘retail giving’
The 1844 edition of the widely used schoolbook written by William H. McGuffey, “Newly Revised Eclectic Fourth Reader,” includes a dialogue about the difference between “true and false philanthropy”:
Mr. Fantom: I despise a narrow field. O for the reign of universal benevolence! I want to make all mankind good and happy.
Mr. Goodman: Dear me! Sure, that must be a wholesale sort of a job: had you not better try your hand at a town or neighborhood first?
As the discussion continues, the lesson becomes clear. Mr. Fantom’s approach is too ambitious to accomplish much, while Mr. Goodman’s, if narrower in scope, was likely to be more useful in practice.
Nathan Straus made his mark in philanthropy after a successful career running the Macy’s department store. Library of Congress Image by
Many of Straus’ contemporary philanthropists were setting lofty goals for their giving. In oil magnate John D. Rockefeller’s case, it was promoting “the welfare of humanity throughout the world.” For steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie, it was “to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.”
Straus pursued more mundane objectives that included championing milk pasteurization. Although his efforts are not as well known today as those of his more ambitious – and wealthier – counterparts, they accomplished a lot and showed that what might be called “retail giving” can have far-reaching effects.
Successful immigration story
The Straus family came to the United States from Germany in the 1850s during the first big wave of Jewish immigration. Lazarus Straus, Nathan’s father, followed a familiar path for Jewish immigrants at the time, beginning as a peddler and eventually establishing his own store in the small town of Talbotton, Georgia, where the members of his family were the only Jews.
He prospered, became a respected citizen and saw that his children received good educations, including in their religion.
Then the Civil War upended the family’s life, first by reviving antisemitic prejudices and then, eventually, by destroying the family’s business.
Starting anew in New York City, Lazarus and his older sons, Isidor and Nathan, began to sell imported china, glassware and other crockery to retailers in the Northeast and South. One was Rowland H. Macy, who had founded an eponymous store that was on the cutting edge of what Fisher calls a “retailing revolution.”
Macy’s innovations included stocking large inventories of many kinds of merchandise, competitive pricing, extensive advertising and providing a variety of services like public restrooms and a cafeteria to make shoppers’ experiences more pleasurable.
Aided by the rapid urban and economic growth of the late 19th century, the model flourished. Department stores displaced smaller, specialty shops. Other retail powerhouses, such as Bloomingdale’s and Lord & Taylor, soon competed with Macy’s.
The Straus family sold their wares at Macy’s. After Rowland H. Macy died, the Straus family became partners with its new owners. By 1896, the Strauses owned the store outright. And Macy’s was expanding: It bought another department store in Brooklyn and created a flagship building on Manhattan’s Herald Square, which Macy’s still occupies.
The landmark Macy’s department store in New York’s Herald Square opened in 1902 while Nathan and Isidor Straus ran the retailer. Library of Congress Image by
His philanthropy journey begins
While Isidor Straus oversaw the store’s internal operations, Nathan focused on the company’s external activities, such as purchasing, marketing and dealing with government and business leaders.
A third brother, Oscar, pursued a career as a politician and diplomat, eventually becoming secretary of commerce and labor under President Theodore Roosevelt and the first Jewish member of a presidential cabinet. Perhaps inevitably, this led to a series of public appointments for Nathan Straus.
However, as they became wealthier, Nathan and his wife, Lina, increasingly devoted their attention to a series of philanthropic projects.
In 1893, the U.S. entered a four-year economic depression, its worst until the 1930s. As unemployment in New York City rose, Nathan Straus used his merchandising skills to address the needs of the jobless and poor.
He created a number of “depots” near tenements and boarding houses that sold coal, food and fuel at discount prices. Fisher, Straus’ biographer, rightly calls these early examples of what is now known as “social entrepreneurship”: the application of business principles to solving social problems.
Making milk less deadly
As these efforts were getting away, Straus also launched what would become his major preoccupation: promoting pasteurized milk.
In New York City in the early 1890s, Fisher writes, “the annual mortality rate among children under five was about 15 percent,” or 18,000 infants and toddlers per year. A main cause was consuming raw milk, which, unless certified by inspectors, was likely not only to contain a variety of pathogens, such as tuberculosis bacteria, but spoil easily going from farm to table.
Although scientists had long known that heating could make milk safer, doctors and public health officials worried that sterilizing milk might also destroy its valuable nutrients.
Straus, who had lost one of his own children to what he believed was a milk-borne infection, built on his projects for the unemployed by working with New York social service agencies to develop pasteurization plants and infant-milk stations near low-income neighborhoods.
They sold sterilized and refrigerated milk at below-wholesale prices, or donated it to those who could not afford to pay. Businesslike efficiency kept costs low, as did donations. Multilingual ads publicized the product’s availability, doctors and nurses advised parents on child-rearing, and careful recordkeeping aimed at assessing the program’s health benefits.
Straus and his wife devoted much of their time and money to this work. In addition to establishing 297 milk stations in 36 cities, they also spoke and wrote widely about the merits of pasteurization.
By 1908, their efforts paid off when the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed pasteurization and state and local governments began requiring that milk sold in their jurisdictions be pasteurized. Raw milk remained available in many states, and debates over its safety continue to this day.
As a result of this and other Progressive Era measures, New York City’s health commissioner estimated that infant deaths dropped by two-thirds
during the first two decades of the 20th century, with similar declines elsewhere in the country.
The coastal Israeli city of Netanya was named after philanthropist Nathan Straus. Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images Image by
Other causes
While most of Nathan Straus’ efforts occurred in the U.S., he used his trips to Europe for Macy’s to promote pasteurization on the continent.
During a 1904 visit, he toured the Mediterranean and stopped in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire. Impressed by the early Jewish settlements and holy sites he saw, Straus became an ardent advocate for creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, an unusual position for a Jewish businessman of that era, according to Fisher.
On a subsequent trip, a broken leg kept Straus from returning to New York on the maiden voyage of the Titanic; his brother Isidor and sister-in-law Ida were not so fortunate.
In the U.S., Nathan Straus led Zionist organizations, while in Palestine, his chief contributions involved supporting a variety of health care and economic development activities, including Hadassah, the women’s health and community development organization founded by Henrietta Szold.
Nathan Straus’ achievements as a philanthropist are not widely known today because he did not create a grantmaking foundation that outlasted him, as Rockefeller and Carnegie did.
Instead, by the time of his death in 1931, Straus had donated much of his fortune. Fisher writes that Straus used to invoke an old Hebrew proverb: “Money given in health is gold. Money given in sickness is silver. Money given after death is lead.”
He also didn’t donate heavily to the burgeoning network of communal organizations set up to assist the growing population of Jewish immigrants, as did the financiers Jacob Schiff and Felix Warburg, who were also affluent Jewish immigrants from Germany.
As Fisher notes, this pattern of philanthropy resembles that of Straus’ friend – and pallbearer – Julius Rosenwald, the longtime head of Sears, Roebuck and Co. Both supported Jewish causes as well as major initiatives aimed at helping others: In Rosenwald’s case, it was schools for African American children in the South, while for Straus, it was milk pasteurization in New York City and beyond.
During and after World War I, they worked together to assist Jewish refugees in Europe. Fisher might have added that neither Straus nor Rosenwald sought much recognition for their work.
His thorough account should help give Straus the credit he deserves for his philanthropy. It should also show that donors do not have to aspire to “make all mankind good and happy” to make an important difference.
In many ways, Nathan Straus was an old-fashioned do-gooder, responding to the needs he saw with innovative solutions. As a result, he wound up accomplishing a lot of good.
“Emma,” a young Jewish woman who we met in 2019, didn’t belong to a synagogue. She didn’t have a Jewish partner. She didn’t observe Jewish rituals regularly. On most surveys about religion, she would not seem very engaged with Judaism.
But as Emma talked about what she did in her free time, a very different picture began to emerge. She visited Jewish websites and enjoyed listening to Jewish music. She read books about Jewish topics and had recently attended a retreat for young Jewish adults to learn Torah while also doing yoga.
She was highly invested in learning about Judaism, but she explored her identity without joining traditional institutions.
Most major surveys about religion ask whether someone belongs to a congregation, how often they attend services, whether they pray regularly and whether belief is important in their lives. Those measures help identify broad shifts, like the growing percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated: the “nones.”
But many Americans’ religious lives, like Emma’s, are not disappearing; they are moving away from membership of traditional institutions. To understand what religion looks like in 21st-century America, researchers may need to ask different questions.
Learning through art
As scholars of Judaismand education, we have been exploring how people learn about religion beyond traditional places like synagogues, Jewish schools and summer camps. Between 2019 and early 2023, we spoke with hundreds of people and explored different leisure time activities to discover what people learn about Judaism and Jewishness through cultural arts.
We interviewed dozens of audience members at Jewish-themed shows on Broadway, such as “Leopoldstadt”and “Parade.” We attended Jewish concerts and asked attendees what they learned. We explored how social media communities offer spaces to talk about different Jewish topics, like what fans learned about ultra-Orthodox Judaism from watching the television show “Shtisel.”
‘Shtisel,’ an Israeli series about an ultra-Orthodox family in Jerusalem, ran for three seasons.
Our research revealed that there is a vibrant ecosystem of people learning about religion in their leisure time. Through the arts, both Jews and non-Jews encounter Jewish history, Jewish religious practices and representations of Jewish communities.
Screen and stage
Most people we spoke with told us that they felt meaningful connections to Judaism during activities that would rarely appear on a standard religion survey.
“Joan,” an unmarried woman in her 50s from Connecticut, told us that she was deeply invested in Judaism, but felt that synagogues and Jewish community centers were not welcoming to single people without families. Instead of joining a Jewish institution, she watched Jewish-themed TV shows and movies on Netflix, and joined social media communities to chat with other fans.
“Luis,” who lived in Boston but was born in Argentina, was a Sephardic Jew, a group that traces their ancestry and traditions to Jewish communities who once lived in Spain and Portugal. His wife was Ashkenazi, meaning her ancestors came from Central and Eastern Europe. She considered herself secular, and so the couple joined the Worker’s Circle, a nonreligious Ashkenazi institution rather than a synagogue.
Yet Luis loved deepening his knowledge of Sephardic culture, and he often attended concerts of music in Ladino, a Sephardic language related to Spanish, with other Sephardic immigrants.
American singer Sarah Aroeste writes and performs in Ladino.
For Joan and Luis, these activities were not peripheral to their Jewish lives. Rather, they were central avenues for learning and community. We interviewed hundreds of Jews who told us that cultural experiences were opportunities to reflect on Jewish practices, explore questions of belonging, connect with family histories and find friends with common interests.
New questions
Some aspects of these patterns were distinctive to Judaism. Historically, many Jews have understood Judaism to be a cultural world, and not only a theological tradition. Learning about cultural dimensions of Judaism has long been part of Jewish education.
The broader phenomenon of informal learning, though, extended far beyond a single tradition. Across America, increasing numbers of people learn about religion through media, cultural productions and digital networks. Christians may study biblical themes through podcasts, online discussion groups or religious influencers. Muslims may participate in online learning communities that connect believers across the world.
The challenge for religion researchers, then, is not simply to determine whether engagement with religion is rising or falling. Rather, it is to develop more nuanced ways of understanding how people explore religious themes and practices, beyond traditional institutions. Only then can we more fully understand how contemporary Americans actually live their religious lives.
