fbpx

December 31, 2011

Craig Hanoch: We all deal with the question of nihilism

Craig Hanoch lives with his wife and children in Highland Park, where he enjoys woodworking, breadmaking, the occasional kumzitz, and long Shabbos meals with his family and friends. He is writing a book about nihilism and faith. An essay written by Hanoch recently won first place in Moment Magazine’s inaugural Elephant in the Room Contest. The topic this year was “Can there be Judaism without belief in God?

If “[T]o be a Jew is to stand trembling in the embrace of the essential mystery of humanity” how is being a Jew different than being a member of other religions?

Speaking philosophically, the difference between Judaism and other faiths is in some cases a difference of form and in others of first principles and ontology. At this level, Judaism is exemplary (even if not entirely unique), in that rather than deny existential doubt, our faith integrates the problem of nihilism directly into religious practice. For example, as mentioned in the essay in Moment magazine from which the quote in the question is taken, Shabbos and kashrus integrate into practice and faith our radical doubts about the origin and meaning of time and the process of differentiation. These practices exemplify the core Jewish concept of kedushah (sanctity or holiness), which is a manifestation of the separation of God and being, a signpost of the absolute uniqueness of God.

Not surprisingly, the two monotheistic faiths that self-consciously based themselves on Judaism share these same characteristics, integrating into practice or dogma the question of God and being, while locating holiness in God’s radical separation from being. Christians situate this dynamic at the center of their faith: the mysterium of the Trinity is a reflection of this potentially nihilistic dilemma. Islam, too, places this inner struggle at the heart of faith and daily practice: Islamic aniconism, for example, honors the special place of humanity and all sentient life as instances of the Creator’s separation from being. While there are certainly important differences, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all grounded in a sacred process of transforming nihilism into faith.

However, if we look at ancient idolatrous religions, such as practiced in Egypt, Greece, and Canaan, the essential difference shifts to first principles and ontology, as paganism blurs the distinction between the gods, humankind, and the world of everyday things. The race of nephilim (giants) and anakim (lords) occupying the Promised Land during our time in the desert, and against whom we are commanded to wage holy war, are described in Genesis as the progeny of unions between gods and humans, much as the Greek and Egyptian heroes and kings descended from such mythological relations. The fulfillment of our covenant with God requires the repudiation of the idolatrous, mythological world of demigods and heroes.

However much we may appreciate Homer and other ancient poets, paganism grounds faith and the sacred in a mythology that badly misrepresents the relationship of God, being, and nothingness. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam strive to extricate their adherents from such metaphysical confusion, attempting instead to integrate our struggle with nihilism into practice in ways that affirm God’s uniqueness, the true basis of sanctity.

Can there really be Judaism (i.e., long-term Judaism) without belief in God?

Well, this is pretty much Moment’s question, notwithstanding the parenthesis, which I suppose I did not answer there to your satisfaction. Not to quibble, but I think any direct response would depend on defining narrowly what we mean by Judaism and what we mean by belief and maybe even what we mean by long-term. If by Judaism we mean the religious observance of the so-called black hat community, then no, such Judaism probably can’t survive long without belief in God, even if some continue to observe halakhah, Jewish law (literally, the way), simply because it’s a good lifestyle. If we mean the Judaism disrespectfully derided by some as bagel-and-lox Judaism, for which your question seems to assume a complete lack of faith in God (an assumption I reject), then I suppose that these secular Jews will survive until the last few abandon Jewish practice and identity entirely, which would probably take centuries – or at least until the bagels run out.

I suspect, though, that there is a lot more movement between these much-caricatured extremes than we realize. Countless Jews raised in non-traditional homes have wandered over to halakhic Judaism, enriching it immensely. So, too, the Orthodox community seems to provide the larger Jewish world with a steady stream of souls who have abandoned halakhic practice generally but who still celebrate Pesach and light Hanukkah candles. We should bear in mind that this debate raged even in the time of the Sages, which is a sign that Judaism will survive this question. Our faith and people are wiser than the narrow confines of our contemporary approach to such issues.

Needless to say, though, we cannot dismiss entirely the practical consequences of this question by taking refuge in metaphysics or demographics – or even in my own attempt here to avoid the implications of your question. I cannot escape the fact that the halakhah imposes certain burdens and limits on us, at times painfully dividing – or at least separating – us. So, too, I trust that non-traditional and entirely secular Jews recognize that many of the positions they have taken on heartfelt, carefully-considered humanistic grounds have also caused deep and often hurtful divisions in the Jewish world. In these things, I have abiding faith in Judaism’s underlying structure, which speaks to the essential despair and joy within us all and has time and again survived these conflicts despite our insistence on casting them as existential threats. And fortunately, almost everyone enjoys the occasional bagel.

If there`s no belief, should there be practice? What kind of practice?

For sure, I can’t speak to what others should practice. I recall a remark from a friend many years ago when I was learning to observe halakhah that the tradition understands us better than we do ourselves. I have been observant for over 25 years now, but only in the last five or six have I found a satisfying answer to the basic question of my own faith. What does that say of my earlier practice, that it was a waste or empty? But without it, I never would have had the foundation to understand the place of faith in my life today. So, too, without the prior decades living a secular life, I would not have come to recognize in Judaism’s transcendence of nihilism the life-sustaining force of the halakhah I live with today. I suspect I am hardly unusual in this regard.

Pirkei Avos (Chapters of the Fathers) teaches that one mitzvah leads to another. I believe firmly that for each of us, there is a mitzvah that holds the key to our faith. I suppose that I do believe that everyone should practice something – or at least that everyone indeed is practicing something that evinces a deeply personal, transcendental struggle with the question of God and being.

Your “disbelief” still leaves a lot of doubt about God and worrying about God, which is not exactly liberation from God. Can liberated Jews, who don`t even think about God, still be part of the tribe?

Stephen Hawking, in his recent work The Grand Design, argues extensively that the origin of being and time may be found in the universe itself, that being came spontaneously from nothingness. While arguing against the need for a prime mover, his entire œuvre is testimony to the centrality of the question of God not only for science but for all human activity. The recent celebrations regarding the so-called God particle, the Higgs boson, is yet another example of the decisive role of the question of God in science and secular life. I have no doubt, however, that if the Higgs boson is found, science will refocus itself on the more fundamental question of the origin of the Higgs field, returning once again to the question of being and God.

We cannot escape the reach of modern science, which is entirely grounded in this question. From electronically-controlled blenders to chess-playing supercomputers and gamma-ray-gun brain surgery – every benefit we enjoy of modern science testifies to the fundamental problem of being and nothingness and God in our lives. Consciously or not, those you have deemed liberated Jews live in the shadow of the question of God and being every bit as much as I do singing zemiros on Shabbos or laying t’fillin or helping the poor.

So, yes, to think along with you to your question’s logical conclusion, we are all part of the tribe. Whether we think about God consciously or not, from the physicists searching for the God particle to the Hasidim chanting niggunim Friday night to the Jew driving to the mall on Shabbos, we are all engaged in the same struggle with nihilism that stands at the foundation of our faith and humanity. We can liberate ourselves from certain halakhic practices or commit ourselves to others, but there is no escaping the all-too-human shackles of the question of God and being.

And speaking about the tribe: can there be Judaism without tribalism?

Judaism’s tribalism is a manifestation of the profoundly human struggle with our origins and the central questions of metaphysics, especially ontology. The tribal structure and roots of Judaism are part of a national and personal encounter with being that connects each of us to the origin of our ancestors, who established the foundation of our religious practice, to humankind in the pre-historical and pre-scientific paradise described in the story of the Garden of Eden, and ultimately to the raw material from which God fashioned the universe and separated being from nonbeing.

Every particle of every one of us and everything around us was there at the moment of the first dawn’s light, when God illuminated an infinite void – a rather humbling thought, at least for me. Tribalism is an essential part of a collective narrative that connects us to this first moment, to the singularity (to use the modern scientific term) when God created the universe, giving our lives an historical shape and identity that transcends the radical isolation we all feel in the face of a cold, indifferent universe. The tribe shares both the ecstasy and pain of our struggle with nihilism and faith and the question of God and being, and supports across time and place the form and practice of the halakhah, the way, as a resolution of our individual and collective encounter with a universe that is at once all-too-familiar and at the same time infinitely beyond our reach. Not for nothing does Pirkei Avos teach us not to separate ourselves from the community.

Craig Hanoch: We all deal with the question of nihilism Read More »

The Cinderella stories of Aline Brosh McKenna

When Aline Brosh McKenna pitched her very first script in her first screenwriting class circa 1990, her words were met by a hushed, possibly startled, silence.  The setting was an extension course at New York University: “I just remember somebody writing something about an art gallery owner that was going to have a lot of surrealism, dream sequences and was heavily Ingmar Bergman-inspired,” said McKenna, now 44 and one of the most successful scribes in Hollywood.

Her idea was far more mainstream:  “a caper comedy about two girls, one of whom falls in love with someone she thinks is a criminal, but who turns out to be an FBI agent,” she said in her office not far from Temple Israel of Hollywood, where her two sons attend day school. “I just wanted to write a commercial film inspired by all the screwball comedies of the 1930s and 1940s that I loved.  I was always looking for a way to update those movies, which had such great female roles.”

By her mid-20s, McKenna had sold her caper film; she went on to become a go-to scribe for romantic comedies about plucky female underdogs who often get the job and the guy:  modern-day Cinderellas.  “The Devil Wears Prada,” based on the novel by Lauren Weisberger and starring Meryl Streep, embroils Anne Hathaway in more than fashion hell when she becomes the editorial assistant to an ice queen of the couture magazine world.  A New Yorker cartoon of Streep as the publishing doyenne hangs on a wall in McKenna’s office. 

“27 Dresses” stars Katherine Heigl in a part based on a friend of McKenna’s who participated in 12 weddings before herself tying the knot.  A poster from that box office hit adorns a different wall, with a wedding day headshot of McKenna’s friend photoshopped onto Heigl’s body. 

Nearby hangs a logo from Britain’s Rosemoor Wildlife Park, which inspired Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought a Zoo,” now in theaters, starring Matt Damon and Scarlett Johansson with a screenplay co-written by McKenna.

A stack of fairy tale books suggests a project that McKenna, with her penchant for Cinderella stories, was perhaps bound to write: Disney’s new live action film, based on the classic fairy tale “Cinderella,” which sold for a reported seven figure pitch, according to Collider.com

According to The Wrap, “Disney…made the 1950 animated classic Cinderella, and, though [McKenna’s] project was shopped around town, it fit the Rich Ross/Disney branded family film mandate like, well, a glass slipper…That Cinderella storyline isn’t virgin territory: in recent years, Fox used the concept for the Drew Barrymore-starrer ‘Ever After’ and Warner Bros. used it for the Hilary Duff-starrer ‘A Cinderella Story.’”

During our interview, McKenna described how her Cinderella would differ from previous renditions, while flipping through her own beloved book of fairy tales from childhood.  “This kills me,” she said (meaning she’s touched), as she landed on an illustration of Cinderella, barefoot and ragged, sitting under a forlorn, caged bird.  McKenna’s heroine will be far less pitiful:  “She’s somebody who’s learning to go after what she wants,” said McKenna, settling into a chair near a gleaming, manual typewriter – her joke about the term Jack Warner coined for screenwriters:  “schmucks with Underwoods.”  “Basically, she gets separated from the prince and has to find her way back to him, but it’s more complicated than that.  She’s very active and independent.”

“’Cinderella’ is one of the most primal of stories,” McKenna said of why she keeps returning to the motif.  “The phrase ‘It’s a Cinderella story’ has become a catchall for any underdog story:  ‘Rocky’ and ‘Rudy’ and all sports movies are Cinderella stories. 

“Most of the time you figure out why you’re drawn to something while you’re writing it,” she added.  “I’m drawn to people who are underestimated, or have to fight their way through something.  It’s people who make their own lives and their own luck, which is what my parents did.”

McKenna was born in France to a veteran of Israel’s War of Independence and a Frenchwoman who, as girl, was hidden from the Nazis on farms near Lyon.  “My mother was always matter-of-fact about her wartime experiences, and spoke of them like I’d talk about moving from one house in New Jersey to another,” said McKenna, who relocated to the Garden State with her family as a baby.

McKenna’s father, a sabra, was shot and wounded while on patrol with his scout troupe before the 1948 war; the young man standing next to him was killed.  “But my father never talked about it,” McKenna recalled.  “My parents were tough Jews who survived a lot and have lived in many countries.  I was always struck by the fact that the dilemmas my brother and I had growing up were so miniscule compared to what they had been through.”

Even though McKenna’s mother had lived on farms as a girl, neither she nor her husband, an engineer, had any experience caring for animals when they bought their own menagerie in Montvale, New Jersey when Aline was 7.  (This inexperience was one of the connections McKenna discovered she had to the protagonists of “We Bought a Zoo.”)

Her family’s own property was an oasis amidst the suburban sprawl, complete with horses, chickens, roosters, ducks, dogs and a cat always in the barn.  “Everyone else in the neighborhood had regular houses with regular lawns, but we had this rambling property with a stream running through it and a pond we skated on in the winter,” she said.  “What we started to learn from the responsibility of taking care of animals was profound.  You become very matter of fact about rats and all the denizens of the barn, and you do have a different connection to life and death.  The horses would get sick, and we’d spend long evenings when it would be dark out, and the vet would be there and we’d have lights set up in the barn.  It wasn’t a small animal that would be down, it was this giant being.” 

McKenna differed from her suburban classmates in other ways as well:  “ “Where I grew up it was so ‘regular;’ it was America, people ate baloney sandwiches,” she said.  “But in my lunch box there would be a hunk of salami or cheese, and when people came over our refrigerator was filled with steamed leeks and halva.  All of which I would love now, but then, I was like, ‘Where’s the Wonderbread?’

”The other lady at carpool had big acrylic nails and a bouffant hairdo and smoked out the window, but my mother was still very much a Frenchwoman,” McKenna said.  “A lot of American cultural norms were strange to her—she was always so mystified by Halloween, among other things.  There was one year where she carefully filled zip lock bags with crudités and handed them out.  It’s just that as a child you want to be like everyone else, so these differences were inherently funny – mortifying and funny at the same time.”

All this fueled McKenna’s budding sense of humor:  “Being funny means you’re honest, almost to the point of transgression – you’re saying the thing that isn’t supposed to be said,” she explained.  “I think that people who are in some ways outsiders have more of a tendency to name the strange dynamic that has heretofore gone unnoticed.”

McKenna continued to hone her comic sensibility at Harvard University, where she found her niche directing theater.  Following her graduation in 1989, she co-authored a satirical guide for college women, “A Co-Ed’s Companion,” that was published the next year.  Then came an unsuccessful stint trying to break into the women’s magazine business before the script she wrote at NYU secured her an agent.  He got her her first job, a blind deal at Universal; thus McKenna was off on her own Hollywood Cinderella story. 

Her big break came when she was hired to write the screenplay for “The Devil Wears Prada,” a 2006 film for which she drew on her own dismal experience in the magazine business. “Of all the things I’ve tried to do in my adult life that I’ve failed at, that was the worst,” she said.  “I could not get any traction whatsoever.  Like Anne Hathaway’s character, I had been that young person in New York, trying really hard to break in. 

“But I also loved Meryl Streep’s character [Hathaway’s boss], a woman who has achieved so much in life yet still feels like nobody is helping her. The director would always be reminding me, ‘It’s “The Devil Wears Prada,” not “The Not-So-Nice-Woman Wears Prada.”’”

McKenna calls “Prada,” along with “27 Dresses” and “I Don’t Know How She Does It,” her love-work trilogy: “They’re really about a woman’s relationship to her work,” she said.  The New York Times magazine titled its recent profile of McKenna, “If Cinderella Had a Blackberry.” 

After penning a coterie of Cinderella-esque features, it’s only fitting that McKenna is now writing a re-imagining of the actual Cinderella story:  “It will be set in fairy tale time and done like a wondrous kind of fairy tale with some comic elements,” she said. (The director will be Mark Romanek of “Never Let Me Go” and “One Hour Photo.”)

The project began during a conversation with her friend, Simon Kinberg, a screenwriter who had worked on 2009’s remake of “Sherlock Holmes,” starring Robert Downey, Jr and Jude Law, and who will produce the new Cinderella film.  “We were talking about classic stories that had not yet been updated, and I mentioned Cinderella, which in some ways I’ve written versions of, but I hadn’t seen a live-action version that was sort of fun, a bit swashbuckling and an exciting adventure.  So we came up with a pitch that I took around, hoping that Disney would be interested, and they were.

“Even with these other elements, our film will definitely be a classic adaptation of the fairy tale; it will feel like one of these books come to life,” McKenna said, pointing out assorted tomes on magic and dragons around her office. 

“I’ve read 345 different versions of Cinderella,” she said of her research.  “It’s such a compelling story that many cultures have some version of it.  One of the fascinating things I’ve learned is that because so many women used to die in childbirth, many fairy tales deal with a man remarrying and with stepmothers.  It’s amazing how many cultures have an evil stepmother.  So yes, our stepmother will be pretty evil. 

“There’s something about Cinderella that’s really keyed into our primal imagination,” she said. 

The Cinderella stories of Aline Brosh McKenna Read More »

LA judge, who ruled against Holocaust-deniers, dies

The Los Angeles judge who imposed a major setback on Shoah-deniers by ruling that the Holocaust was “a fact and not reasonably subject to dispute,” died Dec. 28 at 88 at his Pacific Palisades home.

As a Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, Thomas T. Johnson made history in 1981 by his ruling in a case pitting Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, against the Institute of Historical Research in Torrance.

In 1980, the institute, which labels the Holocaust as a myth, had offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove that Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

In turn, Mermelstein submitted a notarized account describing how he saw Nazi guards take his mother and two sisters to what he later learned was the Birkenau gas chamber. When the institute reneged on the payment, Mermelstein sued for $17 million.

During the trial, Johnson resolved the most controversial aspect of the case by applying the doctrine of judicial notice, which allows courts to recognize as fact information that is common knowledge.

“The court does take judicial notice that Jews were gassed to death in Poland at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944,” when Mermelstein and his family were there, Johnson ruled.

“This was the first case to confront Holocaust-deniers head-on, and we were fortunate to have a judge who could not be bullied by these characters,” Mermelstein commented in a phone interview.

The 85-year old Long Beach, Calif. resident and still active owner of a pallet-manufacturing company, also recalled that before going to court he was approached by representatives of six different national Jewish organizations.

“They all wanted me to drop the case,” he said. “They were afraid that the judge might rule that the Holocaust could not be proven. They told me, ‘if you lose, we all lose.’”

Johnson, a native of Kentucky and World War II veteran, presided over a number of headline-grabbing cases, involving such names as entertainer Rudy Vallee, tennis star Billie Jean King, and philanthropist Norton Simon.

However, none of these cases, the Los Angeles Times commented, “matched the historical significance of the lawsuit that asked him to decide whether the Holocaust actually took place.”

Years later, Mermelstein won a $90,000 settlement and a formal apology from the institute. The trial was dramatized in 1991 in the television movie “Never Forget,” with actor Leonard Nimoy in the role of Mermelstein, and described in detail by Mermelstein in his autobiography “By Bread Alone.”

LA judge, who ruled against Holocaust-deniers, dies Read More »