Three new scholarly reports on intermarriage argue for increasing Jewish educational opportunities, encouraging Jewish behaviors among both intermarried and inmarried Jews and opening the doors even further to intermarried couples and their children.
One report, the result of a new study, shows an intriguing correlation between rabbinic officiation at an intermarriage and how “Jewish” the family becomes.
“I would encourage the community to think more broadly,” said Leonard Saxe, a professor of Jewish community research at Brandeis University and a co-author of one of the three reports. “The ‘tragedy’ is not intermarriage but that we haven’t created an engaging Judaism that Jews, whether married to Jews or non-Jews, want to take part in.”
Saxe’s report, “It’s Not Just Who Stands Under the Chuppah,” is about to be released by the Steinhardt Social Research Institute and Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis.
It analyzes intermarriage data from several sources, including the 2000-2001 National Jewish Population Study and a 2007 Reform movement leadership survey, concluding that intermarriage itself is not as critical in determining a family’s Jewish involvement as the Jewish partner’s background and education.
In addition to that report, the Combined Jewish Philanthropies (CJP) of Greater Boston just completed an in-depth investigation of its 2005 Greater Boston Community Study of Intermarried Families and Their Children. The investigation follows up on the study’s much-debated finding, reported in November 2006, that 60 percent of children in the city’s intermarried homes were being raised as Jews.
Also, the National Center for Jewish Policy Studies, an affiliate of Hebrew College in suburban Boston, will soon release a new study of 140 interfaith couples in Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis and San Francisco that describes an intermarried population whose eagerness to explore Jewish involvement is often stymied by communal barriers.
With all of the reports and debates over intermarriage in the past two decades, some might think three more studies are overkill.
Saxe disagrees.
“This is all a positive development,” he said. “The simple, end-of-the-world take on intermarriage that came out of a simplistic interpretation of the National Jewish Population Study data is now being better understood. It means people are paying attention to intermarriage in a more serious and thoughtful way.”
The “Chuppah” report, like the other two, goes beyond hand wringing to suggest policies aimed at greater Jewish engagement for both the intermarried and the underinvolved.
Relying both on national and internal Reform movement data, it shows that the Jewish behaviors and practices of intermarried families who are raising their children as Jews is almost identical to those of inmarried Reform Jews.
Saxe and his co-researcher, Fern Chertok, caused a stir when they presented that finding at the Reform movement’s biennial in December.
Their policy recommendations — that Reform Jews in particular must participate more actively in Jewish life if they wish to model Judaism for their children, and that this is more important to the Jewish future than staving off intermarriage — dovetailed with the initiative announced at the same convention by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism, urging greater Shabbat observance among Reform Jews.
Creating a home filled with Jewish rituals and Jewish learning, Saxe and Chertok conclude in their report, has more influence on Jewish continuity than whether or not one marries a Jew. Thus the Jewish community would do well to encourage the former rather than worrying overly about the latter.
The newly released CJP report came about in part as a response to widespread criticism of its central finding that twice as many children in Boston’s intermarried households are being raised Jewish as was reported by the latest National Jewish Population Study.
“People asked, what did we mean by ‘raised Jewish?'” said Gil Preuss, vice president for strategy and planning at the CJP. “They said the way we asked the question led to a higher number of families saying they were raising their kids as Jews. So we looked at what that means in terms of real practice: day to day, week to week, what are these families doing?”
The result of that investigation not only confirmed the earlier findings, including the 60 percent figure, Preuss said, it also showed that a couple’s initial decision to raise their children as Jews is the critical factor in determining an intermarried family’s level of Jewish involvement.
Once a couple decides on a brit milah, or baby naming, for their newborn, he said, “the rest follows,” from synagogue membership to religious school to Shabbat observance.
The CJP report also showed, as did the Steinhardt report, that at least in Boston, intermarried families in which the children are raised as Jews look pretty much like inmarried Reform Jewish families in terms of Jewish practice. Nearly 70 percent of the children in both groups become bar or bat mitzvah; similar percentages are enrolled in religious school and are members of congregations, although the intermarried families tend to join later and leave sooner, and both groups attend services with the same frequency.
That didn’t happen on its own, local Jewish leaders say.
One major difference was noted in the religious education of teenagers. Whereas 37 percent of inmarried Reform families and 61 percent of Conservative families enroll their children of high school age in Jewish education, that number drops to 13 percent among intermarried families who are raising their children Jewishly.
The CJP is using this to beef up its financial support for Jewish education for teens and younger children as part of its strategic plan to be unveiled in May.
“The CJP will now spend a lot of time and money to strengthen the Jewish educational experience for 9- to 16-year-olds and their families,” Preuss said.
Also this week, the National Center for Jewish Policy Studies is releasing the findings of a new and extensive intermarriage study headed by University of Connecticut sociology professor Arnold Dashefsky.
Researchers interviewed 149 intermarried couples, mostly Jews married to Christians, in four cities, asking about their Jewish behaviors, degree of involvement with their Jewish communities, and negative and positive experiences with those communities.
Senate Democrats are circulating a letter asking President Bush to target Iran’s central bank for sanctions. The letter comes on the heels of a recent report in The Wall Street Journal that Bank Markazi was providing cover for commercial banks already targeted for sanctions for dealing with Iran’s energy sector and with those involved in its suspected nuclear weapons program. The Journal quoted intelligence officials in three countries.
Targeting Bank Markazi with U.S. sanctions could have a crippling effect, making it virtually impossible for Iran to deal with any entity that has dealings with the United States. At least 26 Democrats have signed on to the campaign spearheaded by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Among them is Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The American Israel Public Affairs Committee strongly backs the letter.
Clinton Campaign Drops Celebi
The Clinton campaign is no longer taking contributions from a Turkish American who financed a film that depicted an American Jew trading in Iraqi body parts.
Mehmet Celebi had been listed on the presidential campaign Web site of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as a “Hill-raiser,” someone who had raised more than $100,000 for her presidential bid.
Celebi had co-produced “Valley of the Wolves: Iraq,” a 2006 film based on a popular Turkish TV series about a crack Turkish combat unit. The film depicts a Jewish American doctor harvesting organs from prisoners.
“We were unaware of Mr. Celebi’s involvement in this film and we obviously do not agree with it,” Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to the campaign said Friday in response to a query from JTA. Lewis, who plays a lead role for the campaign in dealing with the Jewish community, added: “He is no longer raising money for this campaign.”
Power Quits Obama Campaign
Samantha Power quit the presidential campaign of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Friday over a recent interview in which she described his rival, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as a “monster.”
Power, a leading expert on genocide, had advised Obama as senator for two years and her work on the topic is widely admired in the Jewish community, particularly for how she exposes non-intervention during the Holocaust. However, she also angered some in the pro-Israel community for her withering criticism of how Israel handled the Lebanon war and its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, going so far as to accuse Israel of war crimes.
McCain to Visit Israel
Israeli media reported this week that Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate in the U.S. presidential race, will visit at month’s end in a bid to shore up his American Jewish support base. The U.S. senator from Arizona is popular in Israel and the Diaspora for his hard-line views on foreign policy.
Vatican Done Changing Good Friday Prayer
Cardinal Walter Kasper, speaking to a German television audience this week, said there was no need to change the Good Friday prayer because “it is entirely correct from a theological perspective,” Catholic World News reported.
Kasper, the Vatican’s point man on Jewish relations, reportedly is slated to meet with Jewish leaders this week to discuss the controversy.
In June, Pope Benedict XVI upset many veterans of Catholic-Jewish interfaith encounters when he moved to revive the Latin, or Tridentine, Mass, a liturgy that includes a prayer for the conversion of the Jews.
In February, the pope released a revised text of the prayer that removed the most offensive passages — such as one referring to the “blindness” of the Jews — but retained the prayer for Jewish conversion.
HIAS Refutes Internet Refugee Claim
The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) refuted an Internet campaign falsely claiming refugees receive higher Social Security benefits than other Americans. The scam e-mail, already exposed as a hoax by Snopes.com, has been targeting newspaper editors. It claims that refugees are entitled to benefits of $1,890 a month, while Americans born in 1924 are entitled only to $791.
The HIAS sent news editors an e-mail countering the campaign, noting that the most that elderly refugees and those granted asylum are entitled to is $637 a month along with a one-time grant of $425.
“The U.S. government requirements for eligibility in these categories are extremely strict, and non-governmental organizations, like HIAS, work to help these individuals find refuge here within the guidelines set by U.S. law,” the HIAS letter said.
‘Death to Jews’ Scrawled on El Al Plane
The phrase “Death to Jews” was hand-written in an El Al jet that flew to Milan Italy’s Malpensa Airport on Monday, apparently by a local Arabic-speaking baggage handler, Yediot Achronot reported.
The discovery sparked an investigation by Italian and Israeli counter-terrorism officials, rattled at the prospect of someone violently hostile to the Jewish state being able to freely access an El Al plane.
El Al, which generally posts guards full-time around its aircraft at foreign destinations, had no immediate comment.
Last week�(tm)s terrorist attack at a Jerusalem yeshiva and the new Israeli national intelligence assessment presented to the Cabinet on Sunday underscore the acute security problems Israel faces this year and beyond.
The terrorist shooting spree in the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, which left eight students dead, raised questions about the vulnerability of Jews in western Jerusalem to terrorists emanating from the mostly Arab eastern part of the city. The gunman was from Jabel Mukhaber, a Palestinian village on the southeastern outskirts of the capital.
While the new intelligence assessment downplayed the risk of war in 2008, it painted a gloomy picture of an Iranian-sponsored missile buildup by Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. It also said Iran is expected to pass the point of no return on creating a nuclear bomb in 2009.
As if all this were not enough, Israelis had another, more immediate concern: Did the terrorist attack in Jerusalem herald the start of a third Palestinian intifada?
Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter and the intelligence assessment say no. Dichter says there is no evidence of it, and the assessment says the probability of a widespread, sustained Palestinian uprising in the West Bank is low.
But the report added an important caveat: A new intifada could erupt if Jewish extremists attack Muslim holy sites on Temple Mount, or if new Israel Defense Forces actions in the Gaza Strip cause a high Palestinian death toll.
The fact that last week�(tm)s gunman was from eastern Jerusalem has been especially concerning here. There are no barriers or checkpoints to stop Jerusalem�(tm)s Arabs from crossing into western Jerusalem.
Since Israel officially annexed the eastern portion of Jerusalem in 1968, Arabs from eastern Jerusalem carry Israeli ID cards, making it easier for them than for West Bankers to slip through police or army cordons. That is why Jerusalem often is seen as a soft target for Palestinian terrorism.
On the flip side, the Palestinian standard of living in Jerusalem is higher than in the West Bank. Moreover, as Israeli residents, the Palestinian Arabs in eastern Jerusalem receive Israeli health care and unemployment services. Many are loath to put their relatively comfortable lifestyle at risk with a campaign of terrorism.
Nevertheless, 20 percent of Jerusalem�(tm)s 220,000 Palestinians have been involved directly or indirectly in terrorism, according to Israeli police sources.
The special status of Palestinian Arabs from eastern Jerusalem makes measures against would-be terrorists difficult. Dichter says he would deport to the West Bank all Jerusalemites involved in terrorism and their accomplices. But legal experts say that because the Arabs in eastern Jerusalem qualify as Israeli residents, Israeli law does not allow such deportations.
Danny Yatom, a member of the Labor Party and former Mossad chief, advocates building a fence between Jerusalem�(tm)s Jewish and Arab neighborhoods. But right-wing critics say that would be tantamount to acquiescing to divide Israel�(tm)s capital.
In the wake of last week�(tm)s deadly attack, the situation in Jerusalem is even more volatile due to the nature of the target.
Mercaz Harav yeshiva, founded in 1924 by then-Chief Rabbi Avraham Isaac Hacohen Kook, is religious Zionism�(tm)s most influential theological seminary. It is one of the prime sources of messianic Jewish settler ideology, which sees Jewish settlement of the West Bank and Gaza as a holy mission.
Its rabbis and students are highly critical of Ehud Olmert government�(tm)s attempts to negotiate a territorial settlement with the Palestinians, which they believe flies in the face of the divine order.
That strong anti-government sentiment was reflected in an angry confrontation Sunday with Education Minister Yuli Tamir, who was jostled and heckled when she visited the yeshiva to offer her condolences. Tamir left quickly after some students called her âmurderer.â
Prime Minister Olmert later was told by yeshiva leaders that he, too, would not be welcome at the school.
Israeli police fear right-wing extremists might take the law into their own hands and wreak vengeance against eastern Jerusalem�(tm)s Palestinians. Already this week, police blocked right-wing activists from heading to the terrorist�(tm)s mourning tent in Jabel Mukhaber.
The alienation of religious Zionists from government — both because of Olmert�(tm)s willingness to negotiate with the Palestinians and perceived past government betrayals, including Ariel Sharon�(tm)s withdrawal of troops from Gaza in August 2005 — have Israeli police worried about Jewish right-wing violence.
Jewish threats aside, Israeli security�(tm)s main focus is on the external threats to Israel. They were summed up harshly in the intelligence assessment on Iran.
The Israeli estimate is that without any preventative measures, Iran will be capable of producing a nuclear weapon in late 2009 or early 2010. This, the intelligence agencies agree, constitutes the gravest existential threat Israel faces.
In addressing the threat, the agencies suggest Israel is more or less on its own. They do not expect any U.S. military action against Iran, and they argue that international sanctions are having no effect on the pace of Iran�(tm)s nuclear program.
The assessment has a wide regional sweep, providing a country-by-country and issue-by-issue accounting of the updated âthreat mapâ as seen by Israel�(tm)s intelligence agencies.
The main points include:
Lebanon: The Lebanese government is tottering and a real danger exists that Hezbollah will take over the country. If that were to happen, Israel would find itself facing a significantly enhanced Iranian forward base on its northern border. In any event, Hezbollah is preparing for another missile war against Israel, possibly on two fronts: Lebanon in the north and Gaza in the south.
Gaza: Hamas is building up its rocket capacity, training personnel in Iran and preparing for a showdown with Israel.
West Bank: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas needs to be able to show his constituency achievements on the ground, such as the removal of Israeli checkpoints, if he is to make progress in peace talks with Israel.
Israeli Arabs: There is a worrying radicalization among Israeli Arabs, evident in demonstrations and stone throwing in response to Israeli military operations against Hamas rocket crews in Gaza.
Syria: The regime is stable, with President Bashar Assad firmly in control. Assad is focusing on a long-range rocket buildup in an attempt to reach a measure of strategic parity with Israel in the event of peace negotiations between the two countries. He may be ready to break with Iran and the axis of evil in return for a peace deal with Israel that entails the return of the Golan Heights to Syria and massive U.S. economic aid.
The probability of war this year with Syria is low, even though Damascus may still seek revenge for the reported Israeli raid last September on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility.
Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia: Despite ongoing radicalization in the Middle East, there is no threat to the stability of these so-called moderate regimes.
Tzachi Hanegbi, the chairman of the Knesset�(tm)s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, described the threat map as the âmost serious in Israel�(tm)s history.â
Still, Olmert told his Cabinet he is confident that Israel can meet whatever challenges it faces.
âWe have answers for all future threats,â he said.
Two distinct kinds of Diaspora Jews have emerged over the millennia: the two “P” Jews. One is Persecuted Jew, the Jew who has lived through governments and regimes that have been most unkind to their endemic Jewish populations. Sadly, this has been the majority of our Diaspora history.
The other is Patriot Jew. This is the Jew who has lived during a time of relative tolerance and benevolence, and who has reacted in kind to his government with gratitude and civic service. In fact, Patriot Jew has typically been more fervent in his fealty to the ruler of the land than his non-Jewish counterpart.
Small pockets of time for Patriot Jew have existed over the past 2,000 years. The 10th and 11th centuries were known as the Golden Age of Spanish Jewry. So welcomed were Jews into the general Moorish society that great Jewish civic servants also emerged, such as Chasdai ibn Shaprut (d. 990), vizier to the caliphs Abd al-Rahman and Hakem. Half a millennium later and in a different part of Iberia, Rabbi Don Isaac Abravanel (d. 1508) was treasurer to King Afonso V of Portugal.
So great was the patriotic spirit of Jews that it became common practice for the Shabbat liturgy to include a prayer for the welfare of the government. One may still detect German Jews’ patriotism before the Third Reich from the few still extant old German siddurim containing a prayer for the welfare of Kaiser Wilhelm.
Considering Jews’ tendency to obediently serve their governmental leaders, what was Mordechai’s problem? Why did he so boldly refuse to bow down to Haman, as recorded in the Book of Esther (3:2)? This was, after all, the king’s edict, that all should be obeisant to Haman. It was the law of the land.
Furthermore, when Haman realized that Mordechai was breaking the law, why didn’t he just have him arrested and/or executed for this act of sedition? We also never find that Haman ever reported Mordecai’s offense directly to King Ahasuerus.
Perhaps we’re looking at the story the wrong way. It wasn’t Mordechai’s disregard for the king’s law that prompted him to break it. It was his high regard for Ahasuerus and the monarchy that prevented him from bowing to anyone other than the king.
Mordechai was conscientiously objecting to any subordinate of the king being accorded that kind of honor. He viewed it as compromising the king’s power and command. Mordechai genuinely felt it was his patriotic and civic duty to peacefully disobey this one law in order to strengthen all the other laws of the king.
We could then understand why Mordecai was not arrested on the spot by the king’s officers. How can you arrest someone who is upholding the honor of your king? We also understand why the officers present reported Mordecai’s refusal to bow directly to Haman instead of to the royal police or courts, who might have let the case get buried out of respect to their king.
Looking at the story in this light, we find that ultimate salvation came to the Jews of Persia because of Mordechai’s insistence on supporting the honor of his government.
As the Talmud states: “A person should strive to greet non-Jewish kings.” Out of one’s respect and loyalty to his non-Jewish rulers, he will eventually merit his own powerful Jewish government.
Not only did the Jews gain salvation from Haman’s death squads in the Purim story, but they later received permission to rebuild the Temple and return to Israel.
Some recent negative press in our community indicates, lamentably, that some Jews in America still view themselves as Persecuted Jew instead of Patriot Jew. Of course, we all can learn from Mordechai how to maintain a pristine patriotism for the country that has been so good to us.
Perhaps one way to strengthen our people and our Jewish leaders — both in Israel and in the Diaspora — is to show proper respect for the laws of our land and commit even more to civic duty. When it comes to preserving this sweet land of liberty, we, too, must refuse to bow.
Happy Purim!
Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin is rosh kehilla of Yavneh Hebrew Academy and director of community and synagogue services for the Orthodox Union West Coast Region.
This is one in a series of articles and essays on myriad topics related to Israel that will run weekly as we approach the Jewish state’s 60th anniversary on Yom HaAtzmaut, Israel Independence Day, in May.
Noam Chomsky was interviewed in the summer 2004 issue of Heeb magazine:
On March 14 at the Cinerama Dome,
Elvis will return, one more time, in a special 40th anniversary screening
of the “Singer Presents Elvis†special from 1968, or “The Comeback Special†as
it is more popularly known, as the kickoff event of the Paley
Center for Media’s PaleyFest 2008.
A panel discussion afterwards will feature Priscilla Presley, his widow; as
well as Steve Binder the producer and director of the special – which is the
reason I’ll be attending the event.
The Elvis
special is far from Binder’s greatest accomplishment. A complete list of his
film, TV, and record productions would dwarf this column but suffice to say
that when Entertainment Weekly listed “The Top 100 Greatest Moments in
Television,†six were Binder’s work.
So who is
Steve Binder (beyond being my friend Dana Sigoloff’s Dad) and what why was “Elvisâ€
so special that 40 years later people still regard it as one of the greatest
Television musical performances ever?
Binder is a
Los Angeles native. His father ran
a gas station downtown and Binder grew up in Carthay
Circle and recalls that when Disney premiered
Bambi, the Carthay Circle Theater had a live fawn penned outside that he would
pet. He attended Los
Angeles high and served in the Army. A friend told him
that working at a television studio was a good place to meet women, so he
applied for a job in the mailroom at KABC-TV, the local ABC station affiliate.
The mailroom led to the mimeograph department (remember mimeographs?), which in
turn led to being an Operations Director at KABC, which led to a summer stint
as a local director – directing local programming as well as some of the local
commercials.
Many of the non-fiction programs we
watch today, such as dancing competitions, singing shows, court shows, cooking
shows, originated as live local formats, providing Binder with invaluable
training. But the show he enjoyed most directing in those early days was “The
Soupy Sales Show.†Who wouldn’t like spending your working day convulsed in
laughter?
When Sales’
show went national, however, Binder was fired in favor of a network approved
director. Binder quickly rebounded, hired to direct “Jazz Scene, USAâ€
a Steve Allen produced half-hour program that featured a different single
artist in each episode, such as Nancy Wilson, Shorty Rogers, Lou Rawls, Joe
Pass, Cannonball Adderly, among
many others.
In November
1962, Steve Allen got a late night five night a week syndicated show, “The
Steve Allen Westinghouse Show,†and asked Binder to be his director. Jazz Scene
wasn’t finished so Binder, somehow, directed both shows, prompting the LA Times
to remark that Binder “has the hardest job in television†and for Binder to
reply that his job is the easiest “because the show is such a delight to do.â€
Steve Allen
became Binder’s mentor and his graduate school in directing. Binder says that
Steve Allen’s admonition to “never stop shooting if anything funny or exciting
is happening on or off the stage,†became his mantra.
In 1964,
Binder was asked by showman Bill Sargent to produce and direct the West Coast
portion of a special for the NAACP, a “Freedom Spectacular,†which would be a
fundraiser and would be shown in movie theaters through a closed circuit
distribution network. The notion was to have two benefits produced, one on the
East Coast, one on the West, and show a two hour movie of both benefits as the
biggest closed circuit show in history.
Binder
assembled stars such as Burt Lancaster, Edward G. Robinson, Gene Kelly, Tony
Bennett, Nat King Cole, Bill Cosby (in one of his first filmed appearances), and
Benny Carter in a series of sketches, songs and readings that didn’t lecture
but subtly addressed issues of race in America.
The show was an artistic success, but not a financial one and as far as I can
tell, was never subsequently released on TV, cable, or on DVD.
Bill
Sargent next approached Binder with the idea of filming a rock concert as a
benefit for a foundation that awarded music scholarships to talented teenagers.
This became the Teenage Music International show, or “The T.A.M.I Show,†one of
the greatest rock and roll performance films of all times. Jack Nitzsche
recommended many of the acts and put together the house band which included
Glen Campbell and Leon Russell. Filmed at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium,
this 1964 who’s who of artists included Chuck Berry, Marvin Gaye, Lesley Gore,
Jan & Dean, The Beach Boys, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, The Supremes,
The Rolling Stones and James Brown and the Flames.
Soon
thereafter, Rock and Roll became network fare. ABC had “Shinding†so on January 12, 1965 CBS
launched “Hullaboo†a Gary Smith production that Binder was asked to direct and
for which he moved to New York, filming the show in NBC’s studio 8H in
Rockefeller Center (home to Saturday Live since 1975). Binder had been to LA’s
Whisky a GoGo which featured women dancing in cages and imported the idea for
Hullaboo, which became it’s signature feature along with performances by The
Byrds, The Animals, Judy Collins, Simon & Garfunkel, Sonny & Cher, and
a young English singer Petula Clark.
Binder next
took on a variety of TV assignments. Directing the Danny Kaye show was a
nightmare; a Lucille Ball special flopped, and when offered a chance to direct
an episode of a sit-com rather than scoffing, Binder accepted, leading to directing two episodes of“Gilligan’s Island,†“Don’t
bug the Mosquitoes,†and “The Second Ginger Grant.â€
Although he
enjoyed directing the episodes, Binder observed that in sitcoms the director
was not the name people remembered. Binder had stumbled into Television and
directing almost by chance and although he had found a talent, and even a
passion for making television events memorable, he now had to ask himself: What
sort of a career did he want to have?
Binder had a realization: If he
wanted to control his destiny, he would need to produce and direct unique
programs for unique talent, or as he put it “tailor-made musical specials for
individual stars.†That insight led to some of televisions’ most memorable
moments, and of course, to Elvis.
But before
we get to “The King,†it is worth mentioning the special that got Binder the
job, a show in many ways more historic and precedent setting, “Petula.â€
Petula Clark was a blonde,
pixie-ish British singer, who had a #1 hit worldwide, called “Downtown†(it was
the first single record that I asked my parents to buy for me). NBC had made a
deal with Plymouth and their
advertising agency, Young & Rubicam, for a special to star Nancy Sinatra.When Sinatra dropped out, Clark
was in. Only problem was Clark had not yet agreed to do
the show.
Binder who had barely met her on
Hullaboo, got the assignment of both convincing her, and then producing and
directing the show. Once on board, Binder decided to pair her with a guest star
and convinced Harry Belafonte to sign on. Some Plymouth executives objected – but Binder insisted.
Although it was 1968, manufacturers
and advertisers were anxious about a white woman and a black man appearing in a
national Television program together. I know it sounds crazy and
hard-to-believe, but there was a moment in the show, unscripted, when Petula
Clark touches Harry Belafonte’s arm – “the touch†Binder calls it, that was
taken to be of such historic importance to race relations in America
that Newsweek sent over a photographer and the New York Times and others ran
articles about it. In spite of this (and perhaps because of it), the show was a
success. And that led to Binder receiving a call to meet “The Colonel.â€
TV producer
Bob Finkel told Binder that NBC’s Tom Sarnoff had struck a deal with Colonel
Tom Parker, Elvis’ manager to do a TV special but Elvis was reluctant to return
to TV.Finkel felt Elvis and Binder
would hit it off, and that, based on Binder’s experience on the Petula special,
Binder would be able to stand up to the Colonel. Binder was not an Elvis fan,
but his partner Bones Howe, a successful music producer said he would be crazy
not to meet him.
After a
successful meeting with Finkel, Binder and his partner Howe went to meet
Colonel Tom Parker at his offices on the MGM
lot (what is today the Sony lot in Culver City).
The Colonel dominated the whole meeting, telling grotesque stories from his
carny circus roots and bragging about his deal-making business acumen (Binder
was repulsed by the former and unconvinced as to the latter). Parker ended the
meeting by handing Binder an Elvis gift box with his outline for an Elvis
Christmas special. Binder thanked him but had no intention of doing a Christmas
special (although in the end, Elvis did perform “Blue Christmas†as part of the
special).
The first
meeting with Elvis took place, Binder recalls, on May 10, 1968, at the Binder-Howe offices on
Sunset Boulevard (next to the old Tower Records store). Elvis arrived on time
with his entourage of four friends, who sat in the waiting room as Elvis met
with Binder, Howe and Alan Blye and Chris Bearde who would write the special.
Elvis was
concerned because he had not appeared in front of a live audience in years and
the few times he had appeared on TV, such as on Steve Allen or Milton Berle’s
show, he had been made fun of. It was only the controversy surrounding his
appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show†that had served his career well. Binder reassured
Elvis telling him that if they worked together “He could focus on making
records while I would put pictures to his music.†Elvis signed on.
The
rehearsals took place at the Binder-Howe offices. One day Binder saw Elvis
looking out at Sunset Boulevard – and in what is now a legendary Elvis story –
Binder asked Elvis what he thought would happen if he walked out on Sunset by
himself.Elvis asked Binder what he
thought would happen. Binder thought about it, and said: “Nothing.†A few days
later, Elvis turned to him in the office and said, “Let’s go.â€
Much has
been made of what happened next – Elvis stood with Binder on the street in
front of the office building, at first tentative, then surprised that no one
recognized him, then somewhat disappointed that no one recognized him, and then
finally, uncomfortable. Elvis retreated back to the offices.
The special
was recorded at NBC’s Burbank
studio #4. Elvis was so impressed with the dressing room suites there that he
decided to live at the studio during the recording, asking that an upright
piano be brought into his suite.
Binder
noticed that Elvis and his musicians would hang out in the suite’s living room,
before and after rehearsals, joking around, playing songs, talking about old
times. Binder realized that this is where Elvis was most comfortable, and that
the public had never seen this side of him. Binder decided that he wanted to
film these “jam sessionsâ€, and after consultation with The Colonel, they
decided to recreate that feeling by having Elvis and his original band members
(who at first were not part of the special) seated in a circle on chairs on a
small stage, surrounded by an audience. The special itself used these
performances sparingly, but to great effect. (Over the years those
“improvisations†have taken on a life of their own, as reassembled into a
separate special aired by HBO, “One Night With Elvisâ€).
Watching
the Elvis special recently in my office, I was struck by how good it was.
Opening on Elvis’ face and then pulling back to reveal him on the large stage
with the Elvis imitators in silhouette behind him and then the giant ELVIS lit
up in lights still works. As do the scenes of Elvis by himself on the small
stage as well as Elvis jamming and fooling around with his bandmates. The use of extreme closeups, a technique Binder pioneered on the T.A.M.I. show, give “Elvis” a great intimacy. Only some
of the choreographed dance sequences feel dated or out of place. But it is the
vitality of Elvis, his sense of humor, his charisma, his sex appeal, and his
connection to his music and his love of performing that come through in an
indelible fashion. No one who sees the “Elvis†special can doubt his appeal or
his talent.
The special aired on December 3, 1968, and
captured 42 percent of the entire viewing audience. It was NBC’s biggest ratings
victory for the entire year and the season’s #1 top rated show. However, after
the show aired, Binder never really spoke to Elvis again (he believes that was The Colonel’s doing).
For the Elvis special Binder was paid a contractual one time payment of $32,000
for producing and directing that included the first two re-runs of the special;
and a $3500 payment for each of the third and fourth re-runs. That was it. No DVD
or ancillary rights (they didn’t exist). And certainly no “artistic rights of
controlâ€: every re-edit or re-release of the “Elvis†show since, in regular and
“deluxe†editions, including the HBO special, and whatever will be screened at
the Cinerama dome, were done without consulting Binder (or paying him a penny
more).
Nonetheless, Binder recalls “Elvisâ€
fondly.
Binder
believes that during the making of the special, Elvis reconnected to making
music he believed in. Elvis told Binder he had found his “freedom†– the ability
be himself again. But that freedom was short lived.
After the
special a galvanized Elvis recorded such hits as “Suspicious Minds,†“In the
Ghetto†and “Kentucky Rainâ€. He also appeared for several record breaking
concert performances in Las Vegas
before embarking on a national tour.
Binder saw Elvis perform then,
saying “he was fantastic.†However, a year later, he saw Elvis perform again
and found that he had lost his spark and was bored. (neither time did he go
backstage to see Elvis). “I knew then,†Binder said, “that it was over.â€
Over the next several years, Presley
did several other filmed performances including “Elvis: That’s the Way It isâ€
(1970) and “Elvis on Tour†(1972) and the satellite broadcast of “Aloha from Hawaiiâ€
(1973), said to reach a reported billion viewers and which kept the show’s
album on the charts for a year. But none ever achieved the legenday status of
“The Comeback Special†he did with Binder. In his last Vegas performances, an
overweight Elvis became a parody of himself, a Liberace-like performer who
turned his back to his audience and increasingly found it hard to finish a
show, or a song for that matter.
On August 16, 1977, Elvis was found dead in his Memphis
home, Graceland, the victim of a heart attack, his
health having been compromised by drug abuse. He was 42.
For Binder
the Elvis special was but one landmark in a career that continued to expand and
unfold. Binder went on to direct many, many, many more specials for a wide
variety of stars including (to name but a very few) Barry Manilow, Diana Ross
(including the memorable “Diana Ross in Central Park,â€) Patti Labelle, “Divas
2000†for VH-1 (featuring Ross, Donna Summer, Mariah Carey, Faith Hill,
Beyonce), events such as the half-time show at the 1996 Superbowl and many
years of Disney Ice Skating specials, films such as “Give ‘Em Hell, Harry†(for
which James Whitmore was nominated for best actor), and was involved in the
careers of many recoding artists, among them Seals & Croft. He is currently
managing the career of Italian singing star Nicola Congiu. He’s won Emmys,
Cable Ace Awards and the Director’s Guild Diversity Award among many others.
Binder, for one, certainly never
imagined that 40 years later audiences would still be gathering to watch the
“Elvis†special.
But people
keep coming back to the “Elvis†special. I think I know why:
“The Comeback Special†presents
Elvis at a juncture: his past, his potential, his talent – and the intimation
of the tragic path he would unfortunately choose.
In the special
it is all up there on the screen: The softness in his face that made him look
boyish, the full lips that look almost feminine (and that would appear so
strongly in the face of his daughter Lisa Marie). There he was in black
leather, with his animal grace, and his magnetism – his sex appeal as much at
his command as his laugh. His self-deprecating humor, and the easy familiarity
with which he kidded around. You see the way he responds to the audience, and
the audience responds to him. You see Elvis, in full command of his talent and
power, “The King†with the potential to remain one of the greatest rock and
roll entertainers of all time.
At the same
time, the show contains all the foreshadowing of what was to come. The face
that would bloat, the distracted manner of starting a song and not finishing
it, stopping to break into a joke, not taking his talent or his songs
seriously, changing the lyrics as a goof, wiping the sweat off his brow with a
handkerchief for a woman in the audience, the large production numbers, the
faked emotion, all the signs of his impending tragedy are present.
That’s why
the show has remained memorable. Because we catch Elvis at the crossroads. He
has emerged on Sunset Boulevard, and he has a choice, to embrace his music and
his audience, or to retreat into the “Elvis†cocoon.
Binder’s
career has been one of granting the audience memorable performances by singular
talents. However, in Elvis, he caught a legendary artist at the intersection of
his talent and his destiny, at a crossroads to which he would never return.