The Rabbinical Assembly is distributing this Prayer for Haiti by Rabbi Naomi Levy, founder and spiritual leader of Nashuva in Los Angeles.
People of any denomination or faith can ” title=”To find ways you can Help Haiti Now, click here”>To find ways you can Help Haiti Now, click here.
A PRAYER FOR HAITI [Shabbat download] Read More »
I first saw “Psycho” in an order that must be unusual among Hitchcock devotees: it was the last of his American movies that I watched. I had avoided it for a long time, imagining that it must be exploitative, terrifying, akin to the “slasher” movies so popular at slumber parties. In fact, its big “moments” had become so canonical as to have lost their shock value. It seemed to have three merits: Bernard Herrmann’s unforgettable score, thrilling despite its future entrenchment as a musical cliché; Anthony Perkins’s haunting performance; and the most famous set piece, the impressive, disturbing shower scene. But even these merits were reminders of the film’s many obvious deficiencies. The technical challenges were the raison d’etre. The psychology was farfetched and over-explicated. The feeling of the film reflected the way it was made: on a low budget with a crew from the “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” television show. The structure was problematic; had the film actually been an episode of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents,” it could have ended after the shower scene, followed by Hitchcock himself invisibly wiping the blood from the corners of his mouth as he said, “This young lady has discovered that crime doesn’t pay. I don’t think she will attempt any more thefts, do you?”
In “The Moment of ‘Psycho’: How Alfred Hitchcock Taught America to Love Murder” (Basic Books, $22.95), David Thomson, one of the cinema’s most prolific and idiosyncratic chroniclers, offers an informal tour around this dubious landmark of cinema. While acknowledging “Psycho”’s morally ambiguous status as a pioneer of violence-as-art, and purporting to trace its influence, Thomson also takes a close look at the 1960 film. His chatty, free-associative remarks resemble nothing so much as a DVD commentary track; we can almost hear throat-clearings and chuckles above the muted swells and scrapes of Herrmann’s score.
Thomson fails to acknowledge that America’s love of murder—at least in films—had been fed by gangster movies, film noir and even war movies, long before Marion drove up to the Bates Motel. (Surprisingly, Thomson applies the term “noir” to the spirit of 1960s films.) Certainly Hitchcock himself had specialized in murder for over 30 years before “Psycho.” Thomson prefers to view “Psycho” as separate from the rest of Hitchcock’s oeuvre; in fact, the four-page entry on Hitchcock in Thomson’s Biographical Dictionary of Film is a model of unreliable criticism. There is not a single mention of “Shadow of a Doubt,” Hitchcock’s own favorite of his films, while the dreadful “Under Capricorn” is rated one of his 10 best. After proposing the intriguing idea that Hitchcock’s obsession with fear constrained him philosophically, Thomson then proclaims, apparently with a straight face, that Hitchcock cannot compare to Bach, Proust or Rembrandt as an artist. Perhaps not, but then, Nicole Kidman—to whom Thomson published a 300-page paean—was no Virginia Woolf, Oscar-winning proboscis notwithstanding.
Thomson’s filmography of “Psycho”’s celluloid legacy could have been the cornerstone of this book. While some inclusions are insightful—such as “The Conversation”—many of the films are there simply because they further advanced the cause of gore. And surely Brian De Palma’s trashy reveries should be omitted—or put in a category with Mel Brooks’s “High Anxiety” as Hitchcock burlesques. William Castle’s 1965 exploitation thriller “I Saw What You Did,” not included in Thomson’s list, contains a graphic shower murder. Hitchcock’s own “Frenzy” is cited for its violence and ugliness, but his 1964 “Marnie”—which, like “Psycho,” is the story of a female thief—is left out. While “Psycho” turns into an exploration of the psyche of the heroine’s murderer, “Marnie” is an exploration of the (living) heroine’s own, which is more satisfying. Does “Psycho”’s gritty black-and-white photography make it more legitimate to Thomson than “Marnie”’s gorgeous, high-gloss finish?
For someone who so often writes about classic Hollywood films, Thomson disavows them in a disappointingly conventional way. True to his generation, he is sentimentally enamored of the French New Wave and holds it up as the highest standard. Thomson even disavows Hitchcock himself, invoking Robin Wood’s idea that the director did not understand his own films. This is cowardly, flattering the writer while justifying any interpretation. Thomson belittles Hitchcock in the familiar ways—as a relic of a stuffier age; an intellectually limited craftsman who knew nothing but movies; a pitiful, lovelorn obesity case panting over his blondes—and, perhaps most cruelly, an insecure puddle of gratitude over admiration from Francois Truffaut at the beginning of the latter’s career.
Sometimes the very subject of Hitchcock is rejected. Thomson readily lurches into observations on any area of life, from college computer studies to NASCAR. In the final chapter of the book, he indulges in truly excessive digression. Perhaps fearing that he had left some big subjects unaddressed, Thomson opines of driving through the west, “the unfolding views are done with skill and taste. If only the country could do education, welfare, health with the same grace.” And now, back to our movie…
Thomson the road warrior reassures us that, in fact, the motels of rural California are run by normal, sane people. He declares, “You see, divas like Norman Bates don’t actually get to run motels. It’s too much work. …You need the bathrooms cleaned.” Never mind that Thomson had made much of Norman’s lengthy and dogged clean-up of the motel bathroom after the shower murder, which reveals “how innately obedient and tidy-minded he is.” These kinds of contradictions do a disservice to Thomson, whose obvious devotion to film is palpable and inspiring. It is this that makes his recklessness tolerable (up to a point).
Thomson has all of the qualities one would want in a film writer: breadth of knowledge, unpredictable prose, humor. His off-the-cuff responses to “Psycho” are provocative and offer much to argue with. At his most outrageous—for example, proposing imaginary additions to the film—he can be most rewarding. But perhaps Thomson’s position of authority has given him too much freedom to transfer his every thought to the page. As Norman Bates says, “We all go a little mad sometimes.”
Remy Holzer is a freelance writer living in New York City.
The Moment of Psycho Read More »
Don’t trust me. Look for yourself.
Sarah Palin had her beauty pageant, but she was no centerfold. Scott Brown was.
Long before the Massachussets Republican won the race to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, Brown was a 22-year-old law student and the winner of Cosmo’s contest for America’s Sexiest Man. Part of the honor must have included reclining naked in the pages of the lady lad mag. This isn’t news, but it’s been getting a lot of play today; Cosmo rehashed the story in September:
“Here at Cosmo we’ve had bachelors go on to be actors, models, and reality show stars, so we’re thrilled that one has gone on to become a politician,” says Kate White, Cosmo’s editor in chief. Obviously we know how to pick ’em. This particular bachelor has always had political ambitions and even admitted to being “a bit of a patriot” when we interviewed him.
The Washington Post’s PostPartisan blog quipped that Brown has broken the centerfold barrier.
I’m not sure the Republican constituent base ever thought Playgirl’s Jackie Robinson would come from the Grand Ol’ Party. But we could always blame it on Massachusetts.
Scott Brown looks good naked Read More »
Harman v. Winograd
It is puzzling that Rob Eshman supports Jane Harman rather than Marcy Winograd for the 36th Congressional District Democratic nomination (“” title=”Fishel Reflects on Challenging Tenure”>Fishel Reflects on Challenging Tenure,” Jan. 15) does a fine job of summarizing John Fishel’s contributions to this community. When Fax interviewed me at considerable length, I noted the bulk of his accomplishments as reflected in the article in last week’s Jewish Journal and especially empathized with the nature of a very pressure-laden job coupled with the unstable situation he was confronted with when he arrived.
Fax quoted my observation that an overarching vision was never presented to the community by both the lay leaders and him. By not putting my comment in context, it leaves the impression that I give him no credit for performing as he did in the most difficult job in the Jewish community. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Gerald Bubis
via e-mail
Illuminating Mason
The Journal interview with Jackie Mason provides a valuable public service (“” title=”A Shandah in Spain”>A Shandah in Spain,” Dec. 18). He states that it was a halachic conversion. The term “halachic conversion” by any Conservative and Reform rabbi is an oxymoron. Did the rabbi who performed the conversion inform the family that the conversion would not be accepted by the Orthodox branch of Judaism and what that would mean concerning any aspect of Judaism? I would venture not, or if it was discussed it would have been glossed over as being of no consequence. Did the Conservative rabbi tell the family that the Conservative movement does not believe in all of Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Faith and therefore it would be impossible for any Orthodox rabbi to accept any conversion? I believe that the answer to this is probably also “no.” The fault does not lie with the Orthodox but with the Conservative and Reform rabbis who do not explain the dire consequences of their conversions and cause an untold amount of grief to families when the results are found out. The families involved then tend to blame the Orthodox instead of the real culprits, the Conservative and Reform rabbis involved in these conversions.
The Conservative movement is losing members and synagogues while the Reform and Orthodox are increasing in number. The Reform is becoming more Conservative while the Conservative instead of being for “Tradition and Change” is now more Change and less and less Tradition. It is now change on a whim. It’s a good thing that the Conservative rabbi who promoted the change on homosexuality didn’t have a daughter who wanted to marry a chimpanzee because then chimps would also be counted in a minyan. This is what Rabbi Rembaum should be bemoaning and is the real “shandah.”
Mort Resnick
Oxnard
Beware of All Discrimination
Gina Nahai’s article that deals with the LAX incident at the Delta counter (“ Letters to the Editor: Harman v. Winograd, Fishel Reflects, Read More »
As seen at ” title=”TippingGuide.org”>TippingGuide.org.
To pose a question anonymously, click Tipping Etiquette Read More »
With more than 10 years of talk therapy under her belt, Merissa has waded through life’s dilemmas with a constant reflective therapeutic bird on her shoulder. Add a few rabbis, a Buddhist-inspired education, monks, stupas, shrine rooms and the like, stir, and you get a ” title=”here”>here to find out.)
In May of 2008, Merissa graduated with an MFA in Writing and Poetics from ” title=”Santa Fe Art Institute”>Santa Fe Art Institute and the Norman Mailer Writers Colony.
The presidents of two Pacific islands who vote consistently with Israel at the United Nations visited the Jewish state to enhance their relationship.
Emanuel Mori, of the Federated States of Micronesia, and Marcus Stephen, of the Republic of Nauru, met Thursday with Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres, who also was hosting a dinner in their honor later in the day.
The presidents and their ambassadors, accompanied by Aaron Jacob of the American Jewish Committee and Michael Ronen of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, visited Yad Vashem and laid wreaths at the Memorial Hall.
Following meetings with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, both presidents signed a Memorandum of Understanding on visa issues.
Mori and Stephen are scheduled to meet Thursday night with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Pacific islands delegation will discuss issues of global and strategic importance with Israeli officials and be briefed on security issues.
The weeklong visit, inaugurated by an official invitation by Peres, is being implemented under the auspices of Project Interchange, an institute of the American Jewish Committee, in collaboration with Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Pacific islands leaders visit Israel to solidify ties Read More »
“American exceptionalism,” the notion that the United States is unique among the nations of the world, dates back to de Tocqueville, but it has become one of the besetting problems of American foreign policy. We tell ourselves that we are uniquely good, a shining city on a hill, and we are baffled when our friends and enemies alike fail to see us as the cowboys in the white hats.
To address the disconnect between our national myth and world public opinion, publisher and editor James Atlas has assembled an impressive collection of short essays about America by 21 men and women from other countries in “How They See Us: Meditations on America” (Atlas & Co.: $18.00). It’s a fascinating, provocative and sometimes deeply troubling opportunity to look across the chasm that has opened between how we think of ourselves and how we are perceived by others.
“It’s not a book about politics or policy, through inevitably they figure in the discussion,” Atlas writes. “It’s a book about the deep bond that ‘foreign’ writers — that is to say, writers who aren’t American — form with the most powerful nation on earth.”
Inevitably, the book is concerned with the events of the very recent past, and especially the decision of President George Bush to use the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as a rationale for going to war against Iraq in 2003. “One of the most amazing feats of the Bush administration was the sheer speed with which it transformed the United States from a victim to an aggressor,” Atlas observes. “Coursing through many of these essays is a bitterness that only the betrayed can know.”
Bush wanted the world to think of us as liberators rather than Americans, but Iraqi-Canadian writer Leilah Nadir (and millions of others) don’t see us that way: “America is a pair of heavy black boots dangling out of a low-flying army helicopter, a machine gun cocked down at me, as I huddle in my nightgown in my cot on the rooftop of my Baghdad house,” Nadir writes. “America is my crippled brother, a crutch where his left leg used to be.”
Atlas, a distinguished biographer (“Bellows”) and memoirist (“My Life in the Middle Ages”), tells us that he did not want to produce “a Bush-bashing book,” and his anthology is much more than that. Most of the writers who contributed to “How They See Us” are novelists, and they bring intimacy and passion, poignant anecdote and telling detail to their essays. Indeed, many of the pieces are more like short memoirs than political tracts, and at least a few of the writers fully embrace the American dream.
“I came to America at the age of 23 with a bamboo flute, $30 in my pockets, and the intensity of hope,” writes Chinese-born writer Da Chen. “The $30 did not last long but that flute is still with me, a vintage now, mellowed with my spittle.” He recalls how his father, a playwright, warned him not to become a writer: “If you wrote from your heart, speaking the truth that couldn’t be spoken, it would be the most dangerous job you could ever have.” Only in America, writes Da Chen, was he able to write and publish freely. “In China,” he concludes, “I would have been swept into a dark prison, known by a number and not a name.”
For Israeli journalist and historian Tom Segev, during his childhood, in the 1950s, America was symbolized by the peanut butter in the care packages sent by a relative in America, and he sees other linkages between American exceptionalism and the Zionist dream: “The deeper they plunged into the American sphere of influence, the more Israelis began to include America as part of their collective identity,” Segev writes. “[M]any see Israel’s success as part of America’s achievement.” But he points out that “Israelis have also learned to marvel at America’s great failures,” including what they see as America’s inability “to defend itself against the terrorists who obliterated the World Trade Center.”
Not surprisingly, Palestinian poet Mourid Barghouti offers among the hardest-edged contributions in the collection. “Hysterical calls to condemn anything American are the product of second-rate analysis and miserable over-simplification,” he concedes. But he goes on to complain that “[t]he American elite automatically adopt the Israeli narrative and refuse to acknowledge our rights or suffering,” to characterize the peace process as not merely a failure but something downright “obscene,” and to advise our current president that “the core of the [Arab-Israeli] conflict is Occupation.”
American readers — and, especially, Jewish readers — are likely to be angered, frustrated or baffled by some of the essays in “How They See Us.” If so, Atlas has succeeded in his self-appointed mission. The whole point of his book is to crack our mirror of complacent self-regard and allow us to glimpse the face of America as others see it.
Jonathan Kirsch, author of 13 books, is the book editor of The Jewish Journal.
Reflections on America From Abroad Read More »
Mel Gibson and a Jewish broadcaster sparred over the actor’s anti-Semitic rant in 2006.
In a recent interview, Gibson became irritated when Sam Rubin of Los Angeles television station KTLA 5 asked about the remarks Gibson made during his arrest that year on suspicion of drunken driving. A Jewish policeman had pulled over the actor.
Gibson is on a media circuit to promote a new movie.
After Gibson bristled over Rubin’s questions about the anti-Semitic comments, he asked the reporter, in an allusion to his being Jewish, “I gather you have a dog in this fight? Do you have a dog in this fight? Or are you impartial?”
The interview continued without incident after Rubin changed the direction of his questions.
Gibson reportedly became aggressive during his 2006 arrest and then said, “F*****g Jews—Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” He also reportedly asked the arresting officer if he was Jewish.
Jewish organizations condemned Gibson, who apologized for the statements.
Gibson, Jewish reporter spar Read More »
