Charlton Heston wears a costume with the Star of David for the film, ‘Ben-Hur,’ directed by William Wyler. (Photo by MGM Studios/MGM Studios/Getty Images) How much influence can entertainers such as Frank Sinatra and Burt Lancaster and films such as “The House I Live In” and “Exodus” have on American-Israeli relations? Quite a bit, according to a new book that chronicles the ways in which Hollywood films and Israel have influenced each other over the past century.
“Hollywood and Israel: A History” shows the ping-ponging of historical events and the films portraying them. It describes the power of film to influence public perception on geopolitical events, and prominent Hollywood stars who had direct effects on international relations.
The two authors are well-versed in these topics: Tony Shaw is Professor of Contemporary History at the University of Hertfordshire and Giora Goodman, a historian, chairs the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies at Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee.
The authors dive deep into when a particular film was released, what it portrayed and how it related to that particular moment in Israel’s modern history. It is an entire semester’s worth of material condensed into a 273-page primer on international relations and its impact on cinema 7,500 miles away (and vice versa).
“In popular culture, in all kinds of films, those who aspire to be serious, and those who aspire to just be a good laugh, you can find some very, very serious messages about Israel — about its relationship, its position with American Jews with the United States, the way it’s perceived, and what it means to be an Israeli,” Goodman told The Journal.
They reference hundreds of films from “Ben Hur” to “Iron Eagle” to “Munich” and even to Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess With The Zohan” and where they fit into a detailed history of modern-day Israel.
“Movies reflect what’s happening in the world, but they also put a twist on what’s happening in the world,” Professor Shaw told The Journal. “And it’s that twist, it’s how it projects events. That’s really what we’re interested in. Why are events projected [on screen] in a particular way? Who has a role in making the movie or financing the movie? Is it for ideological reasons, commercial reasons, personal reasons?”
The authors lay out their motivations in the introduction:
“’Hollywood and Israel’ contends that the American entertainment industry acts as a valuable bridge between the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ ways of viewing the U.S.-Israel alliance. Over the years, several scholars have highlighted Hollywood’s on-screen contribution to Israel’s positive image in American popular culture, notably via movies like ‘Exodus,’ Otto Preminger’s 1960 blockbuster that celebrated the birth of the Jewish state. Others have condemned Hollywood’s apparent on-screen romanticizing or ‘demonization’ of Arabs stretching back decades. But, as this book makes clear, the American entertainment industry’s engagement with Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict goes far beyond what has appeared on screen, important though that is given the pulling power and global influence of Hollywood movies. The book shows that Hollywood’s engagement with Israel includes the extensive involvement of directors, producers, actors, and religious leaders—many though not all of them Jewish—in philanthropy, public relations, and political activism relating to Israel.”
“Hollywood and Israel” also examines the role of prominent Hollywood figures over the years, both Jewish and non-Jewish, and how they have influenced American-Israeli relations. To expand on this, the authors often use the term “propaganda.”
“Hollywood and Israel” contends that the American entertainment industry acts as a valuable bridge between the “hard” and “soft” ways of viewing the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Goodman and Shaw have spent much of their careers researching propaganda, and when they use the term “propaganda” in the book, they use it to refer to the act of trying to persuade somebody else of one’s case or position. Their use of the term is neutral, referencing the act of using various means for influence. They do not intend for it to be read as only a negative approach to persuasion.
“You can use negative means such as distortions and lies, or you can use positive means such as trying to bring across what I believe is the truth,” said Goodman. “I would say that a lot of the propaganda involved with Hollywood films — and this is not just in the Israeli case, but anyone and everybody Israeli — it’s out there in the open in a film.”
Goodman said that there is no modern state that has not used propaganda in the last few decades. Propaganda (in the neutral sense) can be an effective means of public diplomacy and can have further reach than just the news media.
The book describes how Hollywood and the American Jewish community were generally staunch Zionists following the Holocaust in the late 1940s. These sentiments waned comparatively in the 1950s, although some celebrities, including Kirk Douglas, Danny Kaye and Frank Sinatra, remained big supporters of Israel after visiting the Holy Land.
“Sinatra’s first visit to Israel, in 1962, was a perfect marriage of political activism, public diplomacy, and show business. The visit came soon after Sinatra had started to release records on his own label, a risky move that required him to get back on the road, and was part of his long-running international children’s charity work. Sinatra gave seven concerts across Israel, more than in any other country. One show took place at the borderland amphitheater of Ein Gev, Teddy Kollek’s former kibbutz, right under the Syrian-held Golan Heights. The Syrians were reportedly forewarned not to mistake Sinatra’s long convoy for Israeli troop movements. The money from the performances went to the Frank Sinatra International Youth Center in the Arab town of Nazareth, to be built by the Histadrut, which had sponsored Sinatra’s visit and for which the star was a fundraiser in the United States. Sinatra envisioned his center bringing together Jewish and Arab youngsters and the star laid the cornerstone for it during his visit.
They discuss the influence of Rabbi Max Nussbaum from the 1950s to the early 1970s as “The Rabbi to the Stars.” He was the leader of Temple Israel of Hollywood from 1942 to 1974, where he would use his position to share “a historical, spiritual, and religious appreciation of Zionism.” The book discusses how “Nussbaum provided advice on or helped to publicize a number of high-profile Jewish- themed Hollywood movies, such as DeMille’s 1956 production of ‘The Ten Commandments,’ Preminger’s ‘Exodus’ and George Stevens’s ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ (1959).”
During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, consummate entertainer Danny Kaye conducted the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra in a concert for injured IDF soldiers. Around the same time, actor Burt Lancaster was in Israel filming a television show. As a Zionist, he used his time and fame to “appear on Israeli television and was cheered at a fundraising concert in Jerusalem when introduced by Mayor Teddy Kollek.”
“Hollywood and Israel” also takes a hard look at the proliferation of films depicting Arab terrorists, dating back to the 1970s with Otto Preminger’s “Rosebud” (1975).
“‘Rosebud’ extols the virtues of the U.S.-Israeli partnership by centering on a CIA agent, Larry Martin (Peter O’Toole), who foils the Black September plot by allying with Israel’s security agency Shin Bet. Martin has been tasked with freeing a group of European and American heiresses whom the Palestinians have kidnapped from a luxury yacht in the Mediterranean in order to weaken the west’s support for Israel.”
As the decades wore on, more and more films depicting Middle East violence continued to burn into the American psyche through film:
“’Iron Eagle’s’ tale of a violent and vengeful POW rescue mission spoke, like Sylvester Stallone’s blockbuster ‘Rambo II’ (1985), to an American nation desperately trying to kick the ‘Vietnam Syndrome.’ This, combined with images that made aerial warfare look like a point-of-view video game, particularly electrified young viewers. Many people turned up to watch ‘Iron Eagle’ in theaters dressed in military garb; some stood up and cheered during the scenes in which scores of maniacal Arabs were killed. ‘Iron Eagle’ made $24 million at the box office in the United States but its international distribution was then hampered by tensions caused by Washington’s controversial air strikes on Libya in mid-April 1986. Later, ‘Iron Eagle’ grew into a major hit on the video market, and spawned three sequels. ‘Iron Eagle II,’ also made with the IDF’s cooperation and released during an upturn in East-West relations in 1988, centered on a joint U.S.-Soviet military team using a base in Israel from which to destroy a nuclear site in the Middle East. The plot was loosely based on the Israeli air force’s surprise attack on a nuclear reactor in Iraq in June 1981.”
Another excerpt depicts how closely some Hollywood directors made direct appeals to Israeli government officials when making films depicting the nation:
“Showing again how on-screen performances could often merge with off-screen advocacy, while he was making ‘Remembrance of Love,’ Kirk Douglas worked closely with hasbara officials to convince the international media that Israel’s invasion of Lebanon had been necessary. A personal briefing about the war from Ariel Sharon, now minister of defense and the driving force behind the invasion, strengthened the star’s views. The Israeli military treated Douglas to a tour of the Lebanese battlefield, taking him first to Beirut and then to the Bekaa Valley, where he was photographed with Israeli soldiers. Douglas subsequently praised the Israelis (‘our ally’) for having shot down Syrian-piloted Soviet aircraft, thereby placing the Israeli war in Lebanon in a wider, Cold War context.”
Other notable films featuring the Arab terrorist trope that are explored in the book include box office hits “True Lies” (1994), “Executive Decision” (1996) and “The Siege” (1998).
However, the authors point out that after 9/11, the depiction of Arabs in blockbuster films took a 180-degree turn: “In the years following the initial shock of 9/11, Hollywood actually turned toward depicting Arabs more sympathetically than in previous decades. Several movies that did this seem to have been inspired, implicitly or explicitly, either by the need to understand why Arabs hated America so much or by the desire to foster closer U.S.-Arab relations.”
“In the years following the initial shock of 9/11, Hollywood actually turned toward depicting Arabs more sympathetically than in previous decades.”
In their examination, the authors mention Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Babel” (2006), documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004), and Stephen Gaghan’s thriller “Syriana” (2005).
One film that takes center stage in the book is Steven Spielberg’s “Munich” (2005). The film centers around the secret Mossad response to the Black September Murders of Israeli Olympians at the 1972 Olympics. “Munich” received mixed reviews from critics and garnered boycotts in both the United States and Israel. The film sparked many levels of debates on the overall creative license taken by the filmmakers, as well as the depictions of the motivations of the depicted terrorists and their Israeli pursuers.
“Sometimes a film doesn’t have to do well commercially for it to have a political impact,” Shaw said. “I think ‘Munich’ is an example because it caused such controversy in Israel and amongst the American Jewish community because it was perceived to be almost a betrayal of what Spielberg thought of Israel. Whereas it, in fact did — I don’t think it was more of a plea for peace, but the fact that it can cause such controversy and get people talking means sometimes that’s more important than just cash it makes.”
“[‘Munich’] caused such controversy in Israel and amongst the American Jewish community because it was perceived to be almost a betrayal of what Spielberg thought of Israel.“
The last chapter is called “A Resilient Relationship,” in which the authors stress how underneath the sub-structure of the relationship between Hollywood and Israel, there still is a very strong bond. They name a significant number of major figures within Hollywood — producers, directors and film stars who are at times critical of some of the Israeli government’s policies but still remain Zionists.
“Hollywood and Israel” is written not just for scholars but also for enthusiasts of Hollywood history and Israel’s longstanding bond with not just the United States, but also with power players of Los Angeles. The authors wrote it for a general audience because they see it, in the words of Shaw, “as simply a really fascinating topic for ordinary readers not just scholars.”
The links between Hollywood and Israel are many, and this book will give the reader a detailed course in both.
“So certainly when we look at the relationship between Hollywood and Israel today, I think that it resembles the relationship as a whole between the United States in terms of the political forces, but also the Jewish community with Israel,” Goodman said. “And this is something that’s been there from the inception of Hollywood, and certainly the American Jewish community in Hollywood.”
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.