fbpx

April 21, 2009

Zac Efron: Not just nice, he’s a gorgeous Jewish boy

If I were 13, I’d probably be swooning over Zachary David Alexander Efron. There would be photos of his heart-melting face plastered all over my bedroom (the way it was for Russell Crowe) and I’d have devoted countless diary entries to my unrequited love for him, hoping upon hope that—sigh—someday I could move to California and meet him. But my high-school heartthrob days have long since passed (don’t feel pity, I had Leo) and my heart will go on. I’ll leave this cutie (cute, like in a little brother way) for the generation who has already claimed him—that is, if “High School Musical” co-star/girlfriend Vanessa Hudgens lets him out to play…

But just how Jewish is Zac Efron? According to Wikipedia, Efron was “born in San Luis Obispo, California and later moved to Arroyo Grande, California. His father, David Efron, is an engineer at a power plant, and his mother, Starla Baskett, is a former secretary who worked at the same power plant as Efron’s father. Efron had a self-described “normal childhood” in a middle class family, and has a younger brother, Dylan. Efron is of Jewish ancestry and is an agnostic, having never been religious.”

Before he starred in the smash success, High School Musical, Wikipedia weighs in on how he fared in real-life high school:

“He has said that he would “flip out” if he got a B and not an A in school, and that he was a “class clown”.[9] Although self-described as not academically gifted, he remained focused enough to achieve an overall GPA of 4.3. Efron’s father encouraged him to begin acting when Efron was eleven. He subsequently appeared in theater productions at his high school, worked in a theater called The Great American Melodrama and Vaudeville, and began taking singing lessons. Efron performed in plays such as Gypsy, Peter Pan, Or The Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up, Little Shop of Horrors, and The Music Man. Efron was recommended to an agent in Los Angeles by his drama teacher, Robyn Metchik (the mother of actors Aaron Michael Metchik and Asher Metchik). He was later signed to the Creative Artists Agency.”

Efron graduated from Arroyo Grande High School in 2006, and was then accepted into the University of Southern California, but he deferred his enrollment while he worked on film projects. He plans to return at some time. Efron also attended Pacific Conservatory of the Performing Arts, a community college located in Santa Maria, California, which provided him with the opportunity to perform as a “young player” during the years of 2000 and 2001.”

One thing Wikipedia doesn’t tell you: “Efron” in Hebrew means “lark,” as in the singing bird.

At a tender 21-years-old, hasn’t been around long. His already epic career began in 2002 with some unmemorable TV appearances. He then played a recurring character on the WB series “Summerland,” but it was quickly canceled. Alas in 2006—just three years ago—he won his breakthrough role starring in Disney’s “High School Musical.” There, Efron played a high-school Basketball hunk who spends most of his time capering through the hallways, canoodling with his lady-love and exercising complete social authority over his classmates. The Disney Channel Original Movie became the most successful in the cable channel’s history and begot two sequels (with rumors of a third in the works), with High School Musical 3 enjoying the rare made-for-TV privilege of a theatrical release. Ever since, Efron has expeditiously ascended the ranks of Hollywood stardom, having won another hunky, dancing lead in John Waters’ “Hairspray” and yet another lead in “17 Again” which opened this past weekend and topped box office charts (yes, he surpassed my beloved Gladiator in box office appeal, but what do you expect when the NY Times publishes such hateful drivel as this story?) 

In an interview with Elle magazine last summer, Efron was candid about his newfound super-fame: “At first it was mostly kids who recognized me,” Efron said. “The Past eight months it’s completely turned around. It’s been moms and dads. And Mrs. Robinsons. Wink, wink.”

Check out these racy photos of Zac lying on the beach beneath a naked model…

And the corresponding story in Interview magazine where he chats with Oscar-nominated director Gus Van Sant (“Milk,” “Good Will Hunting”)

An excerpt from Interview:

VAN SANT: I wanted to ask you about this Richard Linklater film. Is it Orson and Me?

EFRON: Me and Orson Welles.

VAN SANT: Where did you shoot that?

EFRON: Rick was brilliant, because he found this great theater on the Isle of Man, which, after a little bit of work, looked a whole lot like the Mercury Theatre did in 1937. We took a beautiful theater and made it look rusty and old and dusty, and, once we filled it with extras dressed in 1930s attire, the place was very believable. It even smelled like an old theater. It was pretty neat because we were basically stuck there—you know, we couldn’t leave. There was nowhere to go on the Isle of Man. So we lived in that theater for several weeks. It was fun and exciting, but it was also kind of maddening. I went a little bit insane.

VAN SANT: The Isle of Man—they have a small community there.

EFRON: Yeah, so as soon as they figured out that we were filming there, everyone in the town knew. There was always a small group of onlookers out in front of the theater while we were filming. It was pretty funny.

VAN SANT: And so the play that they’re putting on in the film is Julius Caesar?

EFRON: Yeah. Orson Welles was doing Julius Caesar, but he had a unique adaptation. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but Stalin was Julius Caesar in the Orson Welles adaptation, so it put a whole new practical spin on the play at the time, which was really neat.

VAN SANT: Were there any Mercury Theatre players who were still alive that you met?

EFRON: I haven’t met any of them, but I know there aren’t many who are still alive. Norman Lloyd is still around. There’s a great documentary about Orson Welles, and it has to do with William Randolph Hearst and the making of Citizen Kane [1941] . . . Welles was just hungry. He was actually doing radio to fund his theater, because, as you know, they were in the hole for most of their shows. So they were going from paycheck to paycheck just to run the Mercury Theatre.

VAN SANT: And then eventually Welles went off and did Citizen Kane.

EFRON: Yeah. I don’t think that was too long after.

VAN SANT: How old is Orson Welles in your movie?

EFRON: He’s in his mid-twenties, but he’s got the wisdom and the presence of a 50-year-old . . . Well, you know, a 30-year-old guy. [laughs]

VAN SANT: A friend of mine was Welles’s chauffer.

EFRON: Oh, really?

VAN SANT: Yeah. Welles was in his sixties, and he was in L.A. This was in the ’70s. My friend would drive him in some giant 1950s car that was painted turquoise. It was a convertible. The top was always down, and Welles would wear a huge 10-gallon hat and ride in the passenger seat, because I think he liked that people would see him and recognize him. There’s still a movie of his that we haven’t seen. I think it’s called The Other Side of the Wind. I hear it has a bunch of people playing Welles. John Huston plays him at an older age. Peter Bogdanovich plays him at a younger age. It’s his last unfinished film. I don’t know where it is, but I haven’t met anyone who has seen it.

EFRON: That’ll be interesting. People always have such a different way of playing him. They tend to go for the Citizen Kane interpretation.

VAN SANT: When is Me and Orson Welles going to come out?

EFRON: I think some time later this year.

Read more of the ‘Interview’ interview with Efron and Gus Van Sant here

Zac Efron: Not just nice, he’s a gorgeous Jewish boy Read More »

Philanthropy and investing: ‘Both tax-deductible at this point’

The Atlantic has a great cover story this month from Jeffrey Goldberg, the veteran of Middle East politics. This article is a bit off the beaten path for Goldberg. Instead of Israel or Islamic terrorism or politics, it deals with the financial crisis and why he got such bad advice from his broker at Merrill Lynch.

If you were one of millions of Americans who did everything you were told to do and now find yourself in the worst financial position of your life, read Goldberg’s article.

In it, he visits with financial advisers and catching them stumbling over catch phrases and investment cliches. For example: a video of Richard Bernstein, the chief investment strategist at Merril, l telling clients they need to “lengthen their investment horizon.”

Goldberg writes:

To which I would add this observation from Keynes: “In the long run, we are all dead.”

This is what I heard Bernstein say: give up. You’re not going to make money on your investments in the next 10 years, or 15, or 20, so you should stop worrying about your portfolio and go to the movies like everyone else.

I called Bernstein and asked him if he was, in fact, advocating a form of Stoicism. He said I was misinterpreting his views. “This is not some sort of psychological compensation device. What I’m saying is that in looking for investment ideas, we should be looking over a five-, six-, seven-year time period. You have to give an investment strategy time to reach gestation.”

But my investment strategy gestated for 15 years. And then it died.

As I write this, the markets are back down to 1997 levels. In Japan, they’ve sunk to 1983 levels. I pointed out to Bernstein that 1983 was 26 years ago. The investor who bought Japanese equities in 1983 and held on to them has stayed absolutely flat. “That’s not correct,” Bernstein said. “That doesn’t take into account dividend payments.”

Even with all those munificent dividend payments, my net worth has dropped by a third, and new vistas of worry open up for me each day.

Goldberg mentions some of the bad advice he and others received from Merrill. Among the “buy and hold” picks was Nokia. To which I had to send Goldberg this e-mail:

Not to be disappointed, I saw you included Nokia in the can’t-miss picks from Merrill. This brought back memories far more traumatic than the 35 percent I’ve recently lost off the top of my FMA. When I graduated from high school, my grandfather gave me $5,000 to get started. I decided to invest $4,000 in the stock market and put the rest in my money market savings account. I didn’t have a stock broker, but my father’s referred me to one of his juniors. He talked a big game but actually knew less than nothing about investing and recommended putting all my money into Nokia—96 shares at $41 a piece. I didn’t know better, and before I finished my first quarter of college, the stock had fallen to under $12 a share. As you know, it never recovered.

Yeah, that was an expensive lesson.

You can read Goldberg’s article, “Why I Fired My Broker,” here. The money quote was found at a small gathering Goldberg attends of wealthy New Yorkers who want to give back.

“I thought this was a perfect time to talk about philanthropy and investing, because they’ve merged,” Bill Ackman, the founder of Pershing Square Capital and leader of the discussion, said in his opening remarks. “They’re both tax-deductible at this point.”

Philanthropy and investing: ‘Both tax-deductible at this point’ Read More »

Harman, AIPAC and lobbying for alleged spies

Rep. Jane Harman, one of the leading Democrats on intelligence issues, is in a bit of hot water over a report that she promised to intervene for two AIPAC officials accused of spying for Israel. The news was first reported in Congressional Quarterly, and I heard reporter Jeff Stein talk about it yesterday on KPCC’s Patt Morrison program.

The story seems to have legs, particularly because there is an NSA transcript of Harman’s conversation in question. Here’s the follow-up from The New York Times:

The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor — the media mogul Haim Saban — would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post.

Ms. Harman denied Monday having ever spoken to anyone in the Justice Department about Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, the two former analysts for Aipac. Her office issued a statement saying, “Congresswoman Harman has never contacted the Justice Department about its prosecution of present or former Aipac employees.”

The statement did not, however, address whether Ms. Harman had contacted anyone at the White House or had participated in phone calls in which she was asked to intervene in exchange for help in being named chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee.

David Szady, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former top counterintelligence official who ran the investigation of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, said in an interview Monday that he was confident Ms. Harman had never intervened. “In all my dealings with her, she was always professional and never tried to intervene or get in the way of any investigation,” Mr. Szady said.

The officials who were familiar with the transcripts, speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue involved intelligence matters, also said they knew of no evidence that Ms. Harman had intervened in the case.

In case you were wondering, Harman, who has been my congressional rep since I moved to the South Bay, is Jewish. But this story seems to have much more to do with personal politics than Israel’s best-interest.

For more on Rosen and Weissman, read this article Jeffrey Goldberg (see) wrote for The New Yorker in 2005.

Harman, AIPAC and lobbying for alleged spies Read More »

When Worlds Collide: Hollywood, Meet Hunger

Ruth Messinger was telling me how 1.1 million people in Darfur are at

risk for cholera when Matt McConaughey interrupted her.

The actor didn’t really interrupt her: he just happened to be walking

by. She stopped talking, and I stopped listening. On screen he’s

handsome, in person he’s shockingly, otherworldly cool and handsome, like he

just drove a Tesla down from Mt. Olympus.

We were sitting last Friday in the atrium of the Luxe Hotel off Sunset

Blvd in Brentwood, discussing Messinger’s activities on behalf of

American Jewish World Service, the organization she heads to extend

the Jewish value of tikkun olam, healing the world, to some of

the most wounded places on earth.

But wasn’t that Jennifer Garner?

Just as Messinger was detailing how every single woman in the refugee

camps had been raped—“Rape has become an accepted form of warfare in

these kind of wars”—Jennifer Garner, who must be 6 feet tall, perfect

everything, in high heels and a tight black dress, sweeps by in the

pocket of a V-formation entourage.

Hillary Lee, the regional director of AJWS, picks up her cell phone.

“I am texting the New York office,” she says. “They won’t believe this.”

Messinger sits on some fashionable outdoor couch, watching the

parade.  She’s dressed for shul as your favorite aunt would, a proper

black skirt, and blouse sensible shoes —she’ll be giving a talk later

that evening at Temple Emanuel. In Jewish and international aid

circles, Messinger, who was once also Borough President of Manhattan,

is famous, a visionary. Among the wattage that is amassing at the

Luxe, though, we’re barely extras. Messinger says she doesn’t know who

Jennifer Garner is, but still, who can keep talking when someone like

that walks by?

Lee prompts Messinger to tell me about her audience with Barack Obama.

It jars us back to the conversation— even among stars, the President

is still the Celebrity-in-Chief.

Two weeks ago, Messinger was one of six activists summoned to the

White House to meet with the President to discuss aid to Darfur.  Also

present were 12 members of Congress, including Rep. Howard Berman

(D-CA), and General Scott Gration, the Administration’s

newly-selected point man on the humanitarian crisis enveloping Sudan

and Chad.

“He was incredibly informed and focused,” Messinger said of Obama. “He

clearly knew as much or more about the issue as anyone there, but he

was gracious about haring people out.”

Messinger told Obama about the fate of the women in the refugee camps.

“I told him every single woman in the camps had been raped,” she says,

“ and I suggested that General Scott would benefit from having a woman

travel in his delegation in order to hear their stories.”

Obama called Scott over and told him to make sure a woman was a

senior part of the delegation.

Messinger had taken her message o the highest level of power, and left

feeling she had been heard.

“The president said that any issue that has so much horror associated

with it, that has bipartisan support and five yars of grass roots

activism behind it is high on the agenda, no matter how many other

important things he’s facing,” Messinger tells me.

Just then, another one walks by. She has long blonde hair and a red

dress that may just have been painted on.

Messinger shakes her head. “I don’t recognize her either.”

(Later that afternoon, as I drive beneath the huge electronic billboard at Bundy and

Santa Monica, I’ll see that Woman in Red in the background of an ad

for the movie.)

I get up and walk further down the atrium to where a woman stands with

a clipboard. She tells me there’s a press junket for a new movie

starring Garner and McConaughey, “The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.”

A ballroom is set up for the coming onslaught of print and broadcast

media. One hundred journalists will soon descend on these poor stars,

and rush to pump their every word around the world.  I saunter past a

buffet of fruit and croissant sandwiches back to Messinger, who begins

to tell me about how her organization is faring in this economy.

“People by and large don’t know this world,” she says of the

impoverished and war-torn countries where AJWS works. “And newspapers

don’t cover this world.”

Well, no, because “The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” is opening.

Still, this summer AJWS will send 20 rabbinical students of all

denominations to Senegal to work on a development project in a

village there. Another 68 college students will participate in AJWS

programs in Ghana, Uganda, Honduras and Southeast Asia.  The idea

of AJWS has clearly caught hold: to engage Jews in

mending the forgotten places in the world.

“We’re seeding the community,” she tells me. “We’re developing a

generation that asks, ‘So what can I do now?’”

At that point I am inspired.  I want to get up, walk over to

McConaughey, and drag him over to Messinger. Get him involved. Shift a fraction of the

energy aimed at celebrities at some of of the world’s ugliest

problems, and people will pay attention.  Just ask George Clooney, or

Bono. The Jewish genius that created the magic of Hollywood is part of

the same tradition that gave rise to Ruth Messingers of the world. I

don’t say one is better than the other; I’d say we’re blessed to have

both, and wise to figure out how one can help the other.

When Worlds Collide: Hollywood, Meet Hunger Read More »

Diplomats Make End Run With Early Ratification of Final Durban Document

GENEVA (JTA)—Durban II reached its conclusion, it seemed, three days early.

A day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tirade against Israel triggered a walkout by the European delegation and generated headlines around the world, diplomats at the U.N. forum scrambled to ratify the conference’s final document on Tuesday—three days before the parley’s close, when the document was scheduled to be adopted.

It was not immediately clear whether the move was meant to head off further debate over the text or to prevent additional walkouts by delegations in protest.

The document ratified by delegates includes the item that prompted Israel and half a dozen other countries to boycott the conference: reaffirmation of the 2001 Durban document, which singles out Israel, brands it a racist country and cites the Palestinians as victims of racism.

“Clearly they were panicking and had to get a quick victory before the text could spiral even further out of control,” Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, said of the delegates’ vote. “Of course, the text is unacceptable because it still ratifies the flawed 2001 text.”

Despite the document’s early ratification, the very public walkout by EU delegates during Ahmadinejad’s speech and the events surrounding the conference guaranteed that Durban II would not be a reprise of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Pro-Palestinian elements hijacked the original event in Durban, South Africa, and turned it into an anti-Israel free-for-all.

Geneva has had some similarities with Durban.

In 2001, the conference provided a platform for a polarizing leader from the developing world to rebuke Western nations: Cuba’s Fidel Castro, who was greeted enthusiastically by thousands of activists at the NGO Forum that preceded the conference. This time it was Ahmadinejad, the only head of state to address the conference, who called Israel a “racist government.”

But whereas the Durban conference was chaotic, noisy advocacy in Geneva was banned from U.N. grounds and activists were restricted to a few minutes per day to address its follow-up.

And whereas critics of Israel in 2001 went largely unanswered or drowned out pro-Israel voices, Ahmadinejad’s speech was met by denunciations in the media, including a rare rebuke by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. And after Ahmadinejad relinquished the podium, the very next speaker, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store, called the Iranian president’s speech “incitement to hatred, spreading politics of fear and promoting an indiscriminate message of intolerance.”

For their part, pro-Israel protesters went on the offensive, interrupting Ahmadinejad’s speech and providing context to the Israel-focused tone of the conference with their own news conferences, demonstrations and Holocaust commemorations—the conference coincided with Yom Hashoah—in Geneva and beyond.

While the singling-out of Israel surprised delegates at the 2001 conference, Israel’s allies worked hard in the months leading up to Geneva to ensure it did not devolve into a repeat of Durban.

To some extent, then, the document’s early adoption Tuesday could be considered a defeat.

The document had been the center of diplomatic activity in the weeks leading up to the conference in Geneva, which was supposed to evaluate progress toward the goals set by the 2001 event.

Diplomats worked late last Friday to hammer out details of the final draft of the document, in part to avoid threats of boycott by countries concerned about its implicit branding of Israel as a racist state. In the end, the changes were insufficient to satisfy concerns by the United States, Australia, Germany and a few other countries, which announced they would not attend the conference. Most European countries, however, did not pull out.

In theory, the document could have been debated and changed at the conference itself, for better or for worse. Indeed, the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference called for “open discussion on all issues” at the conference. But any such possibility ended when the draft document was ratified Tuesday with no additional changes.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told reporters the original scheduled adoption date of April 24 was “just in case the main committee needed that much time—just in case various debates reopened or questions were raised.”

“None of that happened,” she said.

Pillay called the document’s early adoption “great news,” saying it “reinvigorates the commitment” of states to combat racism and “highlights the suffering of many groups.”

B’nai B’rith denounced the document’s ratification, calling it “flawed and offensive” and blaming Libya for engineering its early and swift passage.

“We condemn this rubber stamp document in the strongest terms possible,” Richard Heideman, the head of the B’nai B’rith Delegation in Geneva, said. “The adoption of this document shows nothing has changed since 2001, no lessons have been learned.”

Though the document was adopted by consensus, it was tainted by the boycott of 10 nations, including the Czech Republic, whose delegates walked out in protest during Ahmadinejad’s speech and never returned to the conference. Along with the United States, Australia and Germany, the other boycotting countries included Canada, New Zealand, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland.

The extent of the boycott was cheered by Jewish and pro-Israel groups, which sought to discredit the Geneva proceedings.

After Monday’s theatrics and Tuesday’s ratification, the remainder of the conference was expected to be taken up by NGO activists criticizing the deprivation of human rights for various peoples, including the Palestinians.

Diplomats Make End Run With Early Ratification of Final Durban Document Read More »