To mark IDC Herzliya’s 20th anniversary, we spent a day following Prof. Uriel Reichman, IDC’s founder and president, and Jonathan Davis, VP for External Relations, around its delightful campus.
I have been hooked on movies from the moment I saw “Fantasia” and “The Red Shoes” at the Windsor Movie Theatre in Boro Park when I was six or seven years old. Movie-going, like book-reading, became permanent habits and I eventually turned to foreign films in the same way that I turned to classical theatre, music, poetry, and literature: in order to understand the human condition. A little bit of dazzle and drama were fine too.
Increasingly, movies have morphed into mere entertainment; sensationalism and vulgarity have become routine. An addiction to sadistic action, serial killers, car crashes and “romantic” crime families dominate. But things have now taken a turn for the worse.
The celluloid presentation of the Intifada of 2000 is characterized by sophisticated doctoring of film footage and lethally anti-Semitic story-lines. This has now “leaked” or infected filmmaking in general as unchecked plagues always do. The Big Lie may no longer be as blatant as it once was – which makes it more, not less, dangerous.
Many Hollywood movies no longer function merely as escape entertainment. More and more we can detect a coded propaganda sub-text to the most escapist of movies and a failure to connect the dots in the so-called serious movies.
Three examples will do. “The Nativity Story,” which premiered in Vatican City and opened everywhere else last December, depicts Mary (played by the vaguely “ethnic” Keisha Castle-Hughes of “Whale Rider” fame) and Joseph as Palestinian Arabs – not as the Jews they really were but as anti-historical pre-Islamic Muslims with faintly Arabic accents. Thus, the family of Jesus is depicted as persecuted Palestinians on the run from the evil Jewish King Herod.
Since Christians on the West Bank today are in actuality persecuted by Muslims and protected by Jewish Israel, is this film meant to hide these facts? Or merely to inflame audiences against Jews?
Take Alfonso Cuarón’s adaptation of P.D. James’s “The Children of Men.” The film is set in London in the year 2027 – and a very bleak time it is. Nuclear wars and ceaseless terrorism have devastated the planet; violence is pandemic, the British government is ruthlessly brutalizing “refugees.” Human extinction looms. No woman has gotten pregnant in 18 years.
You might think this is something Swift, Orwell, or Atwood might have written, but the film has no real politics. It is, however, rife with symbols that substitute for a real story line. A nasty “resistance” or terrorist movement is at war with a fascist British government. Immigrants are horrifically herded into prison camps that bear the heavy-handed logo “Homeland Security” – which many on the Left have made a present-day equivalent to Auschwitz’s “Arbeit Macht Frei.”
In a final apocalyptic showdown, the in-camp “resistance” has degenerated into a mob of angry, armed, and keffiyah-bedecked shooters who are carrying signs and shouting slogans in Arabic. The scene bears absolutely no relationship to the rather poignant story of the miraculous birth of a black girl-child who is shepherded through Hell to the safety of the mythical “Human Project.” But because we have all been subjected to similar scenes of Islamist demonstrations on our television screens, the very sight triggers and symbolizes “relevance” or “important politics” precisely when none exist.
My point: even “escape” movies are increasingly functioning as pro-Islamist propaganda.
And now for a presumably serious political film: Emilio Estevez’s “Bobby,” a fictional account of the lives of 24 people who were present in the Ambassador hotel when Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. The film boasts many stars including Anthony Hopkins, Helen Hunt, William H. Macy, Sharon Stone, Demi Moore, and Laurence Fishburne. It also has historically accurate archival footage of Robert Kennedy’s speeches.
When the movie ended, audience members lingered and engaged in hushed and somber conversations. Clearly they felt this was a serious film about a serious matter. Pardon me? The film pointedly erased all facts about Kennedy’s killer and his motives.
Three women in their 70s and 80s asked aloud, “But who actually killed Kennedy?” I stopped and told them: “Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, killed Bobby Kennedy.”
“But why?” one woman asked.
“Because Sirhan was angry that the American government had sold military equipment to Israel.”
This omission is ominous. In 1973, Yasir Arafat’s Fatah and Black September terrorist groups kidnapped American diplomats George Curtis Moore and Cleo Noel Jr., and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid in Khartoum, Sudan. They demanded that Jordan release a Black September leader, Germany release some members of the Baader-Meinhof gang – and America release Sirhan Sirhan.
About the Author: Dr. Phyllis Chesler is a professor emerita of psychology, a Middle East Forum fellow, and the author of fifteen books including “Women and Madness” (1972), “The New Anti-Semitism” (2003), and her latest, “An American Bride in Kabul” (2013). Her articles are archived at www.phyllis-chesler.com.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
In a world where people question whether they should be engaged, we are a reminder that all Jews are responsible for one another.
My son is seventeen; he didn’t want to talk about what happened, or give any details of the Rosh Yeshiva’s words of chizuk.
All involved in the Ferguson debate should learn the laws pertinent to non-Jews: the Noahide Laws.
Abbas has been adding new layers of rhetoric to his tactical campaign to de-Judaize Jerusalem
Hamas’s love for death tried to have as many Palestinian civilians killed as possible
Israel recognizes the fabrication called a Palestinian nation; So what do we want from the Swedes?
Arab attacking Jews in the land date back a century, long before Israel was created or in control.
Creativity without clarity is not sufficient for writing. I am eternally thankful to Hashem for his gift to me.
Golden presents a compelling saga of poor but determined immigrants who fled pogroms and harsh conditions in their homelands for a better life in a land of opportunity.
It seems to us that while the Jewish entitlement to the land of Israel transcends the Holocaust, the Jewish experience during that tragic time is the most solid of foundations for these “national rights.”
Too many self-styled civil rights activists seemed determined to force, by their relentless pressure, an indictment regardless of what an investigation might turn up.
Few of the volunteers were experienced sailors, (Greenfield had been in the Merchant Marine). Few were Zionists.
My good colleague Kay is wrong about the early demise of conspiracy theories and blood libels against the Jews.
“I am surprised those Zionists are not outside protesting,” says one woman.
“Miral” is a film that has garnered an inordinate amount of media attention. In interviews, the director, Julian Schnabel, defends his right to tell the Palestinian “narrative” for what he claims is the first time. He seems not to know that many others before him have specialized in this particular line of work.
Our beloved, miraculous Jewish state is under siege.
It was assumed that the ceaseless persecution of the Jews in exile would cease once we again had our own sovereign homeland, our own army, navy, and air force.
In 1947-1948 I lived in Boro Park where, against parental and rabbinic advice, I joined a Zionist group. By 1950 I was packing machine-gun parts for Israel in a home not far from the Young Israel. But what I did as a child does not compare to what my friend and colleague David Gutmann did for love of Zion at that very time on the dangerous open seas.
Reality has become somewhat Scandinavian. It grows dark early and it is bitterly cold here in New York City and over a good portion of our fair land. Our Prince of Peace (The Norwegian Nobel, not the noble variety) is not yet asking whether “to be or not to be.” Perhaps he is not entirely convinced that “that is the question.”
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/celluloid-fantasies/2007/02/14/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: