fbpx

May 2, 2012

Don’t worry, be happy

Each year on Yom Kippur, we read lines from this week’s Torah portion that teach us about appropriate observance during this High Holy Day. And within this reading we find the defining line, “It shall be a Sabbath of Sabbaths for you, and you shall afflict yourselves [v’initem et nafshotaichem]; it is an eternal decree” (Leviticus 16:31). Although we are not eating or doing anything that affirms our physicality, is Yom Kippur really meant to “afflict” us as a fast of suffering?

The sentence from the text seems almost inherently contradictory. We are told to “afflict” ourselves, but we are also told that the day is a “Sabbath of Sabbaths.” The Sabbath is the ultimate joy of the week; its joy is so important that we defer personal mourning of shivah and even postpone the painful communal observance of Tisha B’Av until the next day if it falls on Shabbat. If the weekly Sabbath has that much power of joy, then wouldn’t Yom Kippur, the “Sabbath of Sabbaths,” have even more?

The Oral Torah is even more specific. “There never were in Israel greater days of joy than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur” (Mishnah Ta’anit 4:7). As the Sabbath of Sabbaths, it is a day of joy. One of the two most joyous of the year! If this is true, then how can this integrate with the earlier statement that we shall “afflict” ourselves?

The answer lies in the word “v’initem.” Often translated as “you shall afflict,” the three-letter root, anah (ayin, nun, hey), has two nearly opposite meanings. In Exodus 1:11-12 we read how the word relates to the Egyptian taskmasters who made the Hebrews suffer by “afflicting” them. But as Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, has pointed out, the same three-letter root is used when we are told to “sing out and say before the Lord,” referring to the bringing of our first fruits (Deuteronomy 26:5). There it is celebratory. Rabbi Riskin goes even further, suggesting a translation of the phrase “v’initem et nafshotaichem” as actually meaning, “You shall enable your souls to sing, to rejoice.”

Both the Mishnah of ancient times and a great modern scholar and rabbi lead us to celebrate on this day of fasting. And they’re not alone. Maimonides, in his codification of the laws of Yom Kippur, teaches that we are letting our bodies rest (lishbot) from food, drink, etc. not as a prohibition but in order to gain a sense of re-creation and repair. Like all Shabbats, this Sabbath of Sabbaths gives a much-needed rest; this time for our entire body to rest so that we can transcend the physical and repair ourselves in the deepest of ways.

So, which is it? Are we to afflict ourselves and suffer or are we to celebrate and sing joyously?

To me, the answer seems clear, given the multiple texts, and the Mishnah is straightforward: Yom Kippur is the Sabbath of Sabbaths, one of the most joyous days of ancient Israel and a time to gratefully celebrate. This makes even more sense when we consider our fundamental belief in the power of teshuvah, that all who sincerely seek forgiveness (and act accordingly) are guaranteed absolution. What could be a cause for greater celebration than to know that our prayers for forgiveness are answered? Yom Kippur is a demonstration of the amazing love that God has for us: that we can be and are forgiven. The realization of that truth allows the fasting of my body to become a deep and refreshing cleanse rather than an act of suffering to achieve penitence.

Like all Shabbats, there is a solemnity to the joy of Yom Kippur. It is not a day for frivolity, but for the deeper joy that comes with a sense of wholeness and awareness of God’s love. Our Torah portion is filled with details about what is to be done on Yom Kippur. We need to take the steps, do the actions required to achieve teshuvah; and then “v’initem et nafshotaichem” becomes an injunction for our souls to rejoice.

May we all experience deep joy this fall when Yom Kippur comes; and remember not only the words of this portion, but also of Psalm 100: “Serve God with gladness, come before Him with joyous song!”

Don’t worry, be happy Read More »

My Single Peeps: Natania L.

If I wrote Natania’s column gender-neutral, there would be very few tip-offs that I was writing about a woman. To be fair, if someone wrote about me the same way, there’d probably be very few tip-offs that I’m a man. At least in the sense that I like clothing and hate watching sports. Natania’s the exact opposite. “I’m not a big shopper, honestly. I would have to go for a specific reason, like I need a new pair of shoes. Malls are not that much fun for me.” In grade school, when the girls were walking around the mall, Natania was playing sports. 

“I want to go into sports broadcasting — that’s my dream job. Working for ESPN would be my ultimate dream job. I’m a Dodgers, Bruins, Lakers fan. I was a tomboy growing up. Loved playing sports. Loved talking about sports. I read the sports section every morning. I can’t tell you what’s going on in the world or news, but I can tell you about sports.”

Natania graduated from California State University, Northridge with a degree in broadcast journalism. She goes to a lot of UCLA games — “My dad went to UCLA, so my heart always lies with the Bruins.” She was raised in an observant home, but her parents stopped keeping Shabbat because all of Natania’s games were on Saturday. Now, at 26, she says, “I don’t like to spend money on Shabbat. I’m usually home. I literally take it as my day of rest in that [it’s] my lazy day. I don’t want to do anything.”

She works for a Web channel called the Brazilian Digital Channel, hosting and producing sports stories. “I’m solely in charge of sports —  everything’s in English. We’re just starting out right now so we’re not getting paid. But it’s a great experience for me, and it keeps me busy.” She lives with her parents in Reseda. Although they get along, and she spends a lot of time with them, she’d like to move out of the house. “It’s hard — I picked a very, very difficult career to get into. It’s not easy. And of course the economy doesn’t help.”

She has no problem discussing sports, but as soon as it comes to men, she falters. “I guess because I have no idea. I guess the main criteria would be sports and being Jewish. The rest I’d have to feel my way around, if that makes sense. I was always buddy-buddy with the guys, but as you get older it’s challenging, because then guys always see you as the buddy and not someone they’d want to date.

“I definitely want to get married, but I don’t know about kids. I definitely want a dog — I’m not a cat person. If the guy doesn’t like dogs, that’s going to be a huge problem for me. I know in a relationship there’s always going to be compromise — obviously I don’t want to marry myself. I feel like sometimes I need someone to push me, because I get too comfortable in a routine.

“My parents are complete opposites. They met at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin. My dad is an L.A. boy, my mom is from Alabama. My mom’s like, ‘Hi, y’all,’ and my dad’s this Jew from L.A. He grew up religious; she grew up in a small town without a lot of Jews. But opposites do attract. You can make it work. Being in a relationship [where] you have no arguments and you agree on everything —  that’s boring. Conflicts are important. My parents have been through a lot, and they’ve managed to weather every storm. As long as you have that foundation, you can survive anything.”

If you’re interested in anyone you see on My Single Peeps, send an e-mail and a picture, including the person’s name in the subject line, to mysinglepeeps@jewishjournal.com, and we’ll forward it to your favorite peep.


Seth Menachem is an actor and writer living in Los Angeles with his wife and daughter. You can see more of his work on his Web site, sethmenachem.com, and meet even more single peeps at mysinglepeeps.com.

My Single Peeps: Natania L. Read More »

Opinion: Korbanot, or why Jews should act more like Mormons

Few would describe the book of Leviticus as a page-turner. Its often-turgid descriptions of sacrifices (or korbanot) can be seen nowadays as perfectly calculated to let shul-goers catch up on their sleep. When we as a people lost korbanot, however, we lost something deeply profound — and our relationship with God demands that somehow we recover it.

Modern Judaism replaces sacrifice with prayer. Yet while prayer is necessary, it is not sufficient. Sacrifice integrated people’s lives with their faith in a consistent way, because it demanded that they contribute the fruits of their daily labors. Prayer, as vital as it is, does not and cannot do this.

What, then, would sacrifices mean today? In the contemporary age, when contributions are made with a keystroke, monetary donations cannot serve as an adequate replacement. Consider also that the root of korban in Hebrew signifies that it is something that draws us near to God. For a relatively affluent community such as American Jewry, making financial contributions neither 1) truly qualifies as a sacrifice; nor 2) brings us closer to God — the essential purpose of korban.

Rather, the most profound sacrifice that any of us can make is that of our time. Abraham Joshua Heschel recognized as much, by seeing the Sabbath as a way of turning time from a profane into a sacred entity. Making an offering of time would do the same. Giving of our time also makes clear that all of our time on Earth is quite literally the gift of God and we are repaying that gift. 

Yet we must go beyond occasional volunteerism. Sacrifice is not a hobby; it is a way of life. 

If sacrificing time, then, represents the best form of modernizing the sacrificial system, yet volunteerism is inadequate both on spiritual and practical grounds, what else is left? It is unrealistic to expect Jews to give up their daily lives to service.

Or is it? We need not expect Jews to become lifelong itinerant monks, surviving through the begging-bowl. But we can promote a new idea of korban: two years of service, perhaps upon graduation from college, serving God through serving humanity. 

If this sounds vaguely like the commitment that young Mormons give to two years of missionary work, it should. One profound difference, however, stands out: The mission for Jews on korban will be tikkun olam, not increasing membership. We come close to God by giving of ourselves, not by building institutions.

In an ideal world, of course, Jews on korban would live in some sort of communal arrangement, by which they could rely on a supportive community as well as an intense Jewish experience. This model is beautifully exemplified by AVODAH, the national Jewish service corps (avodah.net). But AVODAH is a small organization, with houses only in New York City; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; and New Orleans. (It is indeed embarrassing that Los Angeles does not support its own AVODAH house.)

So while AVODAH’s model is the gold standard, korban could be done in other ways, with Jews on korban working for such organizations as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps or Teach For America. The American Jewish World Service runs long-term volunteering programs in the Global South. Israel now boasts a thriving civil society sector that could well use energetic, idealistic volunteers.

All very well and good, you might say, but who will organize this? At first, no one will. Korban need not constitute a formal, single institution (another way in which it will differ sharply from Mormon missions). Implementing korban can begin informally through current Jewish institutions, most prominently synagogues and university Hillels. Young children in shuls grow up thinking about and preparing for their bar and bat mitzvahs. Perhaps teenagers begin thinking about their Birthright trip. Our task is to start saying, as a matter of course, “So if and when you go on your korban, you might want to …” Something can be encouraged without being mandatory: it can emerge bottom-up.

The key is to make committing to korban easy. That might sound contradictory, but it is not.  Because korban can deepen our spiritual lives, we should not expect that young people will necessarily arrive at the commitment before engaging in the practice. Most college graduates are somewhat unsure of what to do with themselves (which is why too many of them go to law school). Research has demonstrated that the “architecture of choice” — how people’s choices are arranged — makes a profound difference in what they choose. For example, people will save vastly more in their 401(k) plans if they are automatically enrolled and have to opt-out than if they have to opt-in. Similarly, graduating college students will choose korban more frequently if the options are placed in front of them.

Any community that can send tens of thousands of young Jews to Israel on Birthright trips can help make korban administratively simple and personally nurturing for Jewish 20-somethings. It can help them understand how crucial korban is for an engaged Jewish life. It can ensure that they know about the variety of opportunities available. It can support them wherever they may be, connecting them with Jewish resources and religious community.

There is no reason to consider korban political or partisan. Progressives, of course, will welcome its substantive focus, but conservatives often stress the need for nongovernmental, civil society solutions to social problems. Korban thus can transcend narrow political ideology during a time of growing U.S. political conflict.

In every generation, the Jewish community is challenged to develop new forms of worship and practice that maintain integrity with Torah. Late antiquity developed Rabbinic Judaism. Medieval Jewry saw the emergence of kabbalah and the first comprehensive codes. The late 18th and early 19th centuries became the time of the Haskalah. Zionism arose in the late 19th and 20th centuries. How will 21st century Jewry strengthen and re-energize Torah?

If not us, who? If not now, when?


Jonathan Zasloff is professor of law at UCLA and a rabbinical student in the ALEPH-Jewish Renewal ordination program.

Opinion: Korbanot, or why Jews should act more like Mormons Read More »

Israeli activist brings educational ideals, message of hope to L.A.

Chaim Peri understands that many of the at-risk children who land in the Yemin Orde Youth Village he founded 30 years ago in northern Israel probably hate God. Still, he wanted to give these once-abandoned children the opportunity to feel what he calls the sublime. So, in the trees all around the village synagogue, he set up bird feeders. And he told the kids if they didn’t want to talk to God, they could talk to the birds.

This sort of fearless thinking has made Peri something of a celebrity among those who know Yemin Orde. That adulation was clear on a recent Sunday in Pacific Palisades, when Peri addressed a small group of supporters at a brunch at the home of John and Vera Schwartz.

“Supporting Yemin Orde is my way of making sure there is a healthy, free, open, democratic society in Israel,” said Marcie Zelikow, a Los Angeles philanthropist who is the national campaign chair for Friends of Yemin Orde.

In December 2010, the largest wildfire in Israel’s history destroyed nearly half the village. While all children and staff were safely evacuated, the fire consumed 22 buildings, including the library, staff residences and children’s homes.

The village was functioning again within a month of the fire, and Yemin Orde devised a master plan that will update and improve the village. Organizers are working to raise the last $1.3 million to meet the $21 million construction costs. Building is set to begin this month.

For Peri, rebuilding also includes helping already vulnerable children recover from the trauma of displacement.

In fact, well before the fire, Peri built his approach on the premise that the children who arrive at Yemin Orde — mostly as immigrants, but also native Israelis from dysfunctional homes — should always feel a sense of security.

“We have to convince them that they can believe, ‘I was abandoned once; I will never be abandoned again,’ ” Peri told supporters.

To that end, Peri said Yemin Orde serves as a lifelong resource for alumni. Alumni often celebrate their weddings at the youth village, and administrators and teachers stay in touch with graduates, often signing mortgages and attending their military, educational or family occasions.

The village has alumni housing, but Peri said that only one in 15 students make use of it, because merely knowing they have the option to stay there gives them the confidence to move forward.

At the behest of the Ministry of Education in Israel, Peri is teaching this approach in five other youth villages in Israel, as well as at high schools for at-risk kids and teacher training programs. He has worked with schools in the United States and at the Agahozo-Shalom Youth Village in Rwanda, a village for orphans that is modeled on Yemin Orde. Peri has outlined this approach in his new book, “The Village Way” (This World: The Values Network Publishing Group).

In it he describes how to frame an educational program with the goal of bringing children to a place of stability, rebuilding their trust in humanity. “We take kids who think they are worthless, and we help them rewrite the narrative of their life,” he said.

Israeli activist brings educational ideals, message of hope to L.A. Read More »

Opinion: When killers target kids

On July 22, 2011, 33-year-old Anders Behring Breivik killed 69 people, most of them teenagers, on the island of Utøya in Norway. On March 19, 2012, 23-year-old Mohammed Merah shot and killed a teacher and three young children at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France.

Both killers targeted children, which makes the crimes especially shocking. Breivik arrived at a summer camp on Utøya dressed as a policeman so that the children would approach him before he opened fire. Merah shot 30-year-old Rabbi Jonathan Sandler while Sandler was trying to shield his children, 4-year-old Gabriel and 5-year-old Arieh. As the father and one son lay dying, the other son crawled away but was shot trying to escape. Inside the school, Merah grabbed 7-year-old Myriam Monsonego, the daughter of the head teacher, and shot her in the head point-blank. Days earlier, Merah had killed three French Muslim soldiers, just as Breivik had bombed and killed innocent civilians hours before the Utøya massacre. Breivik was arrested and is currently on trial. Merah, after a 30-hour siege of his barricaded apartment, was killed by French police.

The crimes left people in France and Norway in a state of extreme fear and unimaginable grief. For most people there was one fundamental question: How could anyone commit such acts? French President Nicolas Sarkozy and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe used the word “monster” to describe Merah, and this word has also been used to describe Breivik. It implies that Breivik and Merah are alien, or not human. But this label is unhelpful and out of place in an age of science and rationalism. We need a proper explanation, and it centers on psychological and neuroscientific research into empathy.

We all know what empathy is. Seeing an old man stumble across the street, we not only read the situation but also feel impelled to rush over and help him. Lacking empathy would mean we could just walk by. Empathy is normative: Most of us have enough empathy to know which of our words or deeds would upset others, so we can bite our lip, or sit on our hands, when we sense it is prudent or kind to do so. Empathy provides the brakes on our behavior.

Those brakes were nonexistent in Breivik and Merah. The two killers were able to stop seeing their victims as people with thoughts, feelings, rights — people with families and friends who loved them and with dreams and hopes for a future. They instead came to see them as objects that could be discarded. How?

Looking at these two awful cases, we can see some common factors that give us a clue as to what happened.

First, both young men had extreme ideological beliefs. We don’t yet know if extremist ideology is a risk factor for cruelty, but it seems plausible that ideology can lead people to “switch off” their empathy. Breivik says the reason he murdered children and adolescents was to draw attention to his manifesto aimed at preventing Europe from being multicultural and from “Islamification.” Merah said he wanted to avenge the deaths of Palestinians and take revenge on French Muslim soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Both men were convinced by the rightness of their political beliefs, and both were willing to sacrifice and dehumanize people to achieve their ends.

Second, these two murderers shared something else: Breivik’s parents divorced when he was a year old, and Breivik had had no contact with his father since 1995. Merah, too, was raised by his mother after his parents divorced when he was young. Psychological research from psychiatrist John Bowlby tells us that one route to low empathy is an absence of important parental affection in early childhood. So is growing up with a sense of distrust and feeling uncared for.

Third, research by personality psychologist Avshalom Caspi shows that certain genes, if present in a person who has experienced emotional neglect, can determine how much empathy a person ends up with. In other words, childhood neglect is one risk factor, but in combination with the “wrong” genes, the risk increases still further. Identifying if murderers like Breivik and Merah share these genes will be important for future research to establish.

Finally, both Breivik and Merah have been given a psychiatric diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. MRI scanning shows that a fully functioning “empathy circuit” involves at least 10 different brain regions. Some of these are in the cortex, while others are deep in the limbic system of the brain. Most of us have an empathy circuit that develops and functions naturally, but some people have an empathy circuit that malfunctions. In individuals with narcissistic or psychopathic personality disorder, parts of the empathy circuit are less well-developed or less active.

So at least four factors can cause the empathy circuit to malfunction: extremist beliefs, adverse social experience, genetic makeup and personality disorder. These can in combination tip a person to act in cruel ways. How this neural circuit functions determines whether we act with cruelty or kindness.

Given the biological dimension to many of these factors, however, we face the uncomfortable question of whether those who suffer from low levels of empathy long-term can be considered to have a neurological disability. Clearly, we need to impose sanctions on those who hurt others or commit murder, and we need to protect our communities from their dangerousness. But the view that some murderers may have an “empathy disorder” could make the line between the prison system and the health system increasingly hard to draw.

We are also left to wonder whether it is possible to intervene in order to remedy severe malfunctions of the empathy circuit. This requires more research. We know that some aspects of empathy (such as emotion-recognition skills) can be taught, and some therapies aimed at fostering empathy (such as mentalization-based therapy) are being explored for people with personality disorders. But these are fledgling efforts. Whether any interventions would be effective in preventing murder is completely unknown.

Nothing can undo the awful, terrible loss of the families of the victims, to whom we send our deepest sympathy. But if we are to prevent tragedies such as those in Utøya and Toulouse, we must learn how to diagnose the absence of empathy — and intervene before it becomes fatal.

This article was originally published at Zócalo Public Square (zocalopublicsquare.org).

Simon Baron-Cohen is professor of developmental psychopathology at the University of Cambridge and author of “The Science of Evil” (Basic Books), published in the UK as “Zero Degrees of Empathy” (Penguin).

Opinion: When killers target kids Read More »

Opinion: Fishing in Africa

To meet Ikal Angelei in a Wilshire Boulevard coffee shop, as I did this week, is to traverse oceans and travel through deserts. Angelei is an activist from Kenya specializing in the geopolitics of water, a 32-year-old powerhouse who just won a highly prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize, said to be the “the largest award in the world for grassroots environmentalists.” The award, for which she was sponsored by the American Jewish World Service (AJWS) and which brings with it $150,000, was created by the late San Francisco-based philanthropic couple Richard N. and Rhoda H. Goldman, who in addition to their environmental advocacy were active supporters of the arts and Jewish culture.

It’s a long way from our world to Angelei’s, but hers is an important story for us all — raising issues of how our tax dollars are spent in faraway lands, how genocide can be prevented, how the effects of global warming have become very real to some people, and how one person can make a very big difference just by lending an ear and using her voice.

Angelei is fighting to save her land’s most important natural resource. East Africa’s Rift Valley and Lake Turkana is a UNESCO World Heritage Site known as the source of some of the world’s oldest fossils, as well as for its crocodiles, hippos and other wildlife. The region is home to six tribes of indigenous peoples who are farmers, herders and fishermen, and who in recent years have begun to fight one another for resources for their crops and their cattle.

“These people don’t see borders,” Angelei told me. “They see the delta that once was in Ethiopia, and now it’s in Kenya. They don’t understand the difference.” Over the past 40 years, due to climate change, the lake has receded, decreasing water supply — and increasing the salinity of what is left — a problem both for animals and for people.

“Last year, we lost 124 people in one day of violence,” Angelei told me with a disarming equanimity. She said she was in the village of Todonyang, in the northeastern corner of the Turkana region, when the attack took place. “I work in that village, and I still sleep there. My family hates that I do.”

The intertribal violence will get worse and likely could turn into all-out genocide, Angelei predicts, if a dam called the Gibe 3 Dam is completed along the Omo River, the source of 90 percent of Lake Turkana’s water, the life source for a region whose indigenous population numbers about 500,000 people. The dam project, begun in 2006 in Ethiopia, is designed to provide hydroelectric power to both Ethiopia and Kenya, supported by both nations.

Normally, we might think that providing electricity is a good thing in a primitive region, right? The problem is the Gibe 3 Dam, often compared to China’s Three Gorges Dam, would, Angelei asserts, severely damage the lake and leave people without food or livelihood.

Think of the violence and destruction in the Sudan — of the advocacy work now being done to repair lives — and consider how that could be the future of this region of Kenya, an entirely preventable outcome if construction of the dam is reconsidered. Because when the plans for the Gibe 3 Dam were put in place, no independent environmental review was done. The fact is, the dam wasn’t being built just to bring electrical power to people, Angelei says; the project, funded in part by China and, initially, with money promised by the World Bank, was expected to encourage multinational corporations to get a foothold in the region.

For the moment, Angelei, this fearless young woman with an enormously bright smile, is attempting to bring a different kind of power — a voice — to her community. And she’s had some success. She is a community organizer, and she has told the story of the coming dam to tribal elders, chiefs and anyone who will listen. Before her, they knew nothing about it, despite its looming impact. Angelei described to me how she has sat for hours listening to elders tell their own stories, just so she could get a chance to share hers as well. And in the process, she’s brought together all six tribes with just one cause: halting the construction. In 2009, the locals created a “Lake Turkana’s People’s Declaration” allowing Angelei’s organization, Friends of Lake Turkana, to represent them.

Angelei and other tribal members took their mandate to Kenya’s leaders and convinced its parliament to endorse the first independent environmental review of the project. She also was instrumental in getting UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee to pass a resolution to halt construction of the dam until further review, and she convinced the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and the African Development Bank to withdraw consideration of financing of the dam. For the moment, her voice — the people’s voice — has been heard.

So what’s our part in all of this? Allison Lee, the L.A. regional director for AJWS, host for Angelei’s visit to Los Angeles, explained that U.S. tax dollars support aid to foreign lands through the U.S. Farm Bill, which is up for reconsideration right now in the U.S. Senate. What makes this related to Angelei’s cause is that our Farm Bill, as currently written, only supports food aid to foreign lands through delivery of food products from the United States. This does not allow for how our gift might affect food production there. U.S. food gets delivered to, say, Kenya, and as a result, local farmers can’t afford to price their own goods competitively. Add that challenge to drought, wars over rights to build a dam, and we’re all complicit in a potential collision of interests where the indigenous men, women and children on the ground get hurt.

What can we do? We can advocate for reform in the Farm Bill. We can support the Friends of Lake Turkana and their right to have a voice in determining what happens to their land. In doing so, we will help prevent genocide. These farmers and fishermen need our advocacy for their efforts, not our food. As Lee put it, “We need to recognize that Ikal [Angelei] and the people in Ikal’s village are best-suited to implement change.”

Maimonides taught us that the highest form of charity is to teach a man to support himself. Similarly, an ancient Chinese proverb instructs: “Give a man a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he can feed himself for life.” 

These people know how to fish. They want to care for themselves. What we have to do is figure out how to help people like Angelei to allow them to keep their resources and their ability to continue to do so.

Opinion: Fishing in Africa Read More »

L.A. story: ‘Dorfman’ screenwriter pens a love letter to her city

“I would like to share the story of how ‘Dorfman’ came to be, in the very location where our mini-miracle occurred,” screenwriter Wendy Kout e-mailed last week. She insisted on meeting at the tiny block on Industrial Street, a revitalized strip in the Los Angeles Downtown Arts District that inspired her to write a movie.

Just a few blocks east of the Midnight Mission, where hundreds of homeless camp on the sidewalks, is a gentrified stretch that seems like another world. Between Mateo and Mill streets, where twisting train tracks serve as a kind of neighborhood border, lies a quiet, medium-scale block spotted with art galleries, chic restaurants and fashion boutiques, a little urban oasis in an otherwise industrial landscape.

“You know the old adage, ‘Let’s put on a play, my dad has a barn’?” Kout asked as she opened the door to a high-ceilinged, two-story condo owned by the film’s producer, Leonard Hill. “In my case, it’s, ‘Let’s make a movie, my friend has a loft.’ ”

Almost every scene of “Dorfman,” a romantic comedy starring Sara Rue and Elliott Gould, who plays Rue’s father, was shot in Hill’s Toy Factory loft, named for its history as a manufacturing site. Hill and his real-estate partners purchased the building in 2002, as part of a preservation project, and converted the space into live/work lofts. Kout was so taken by the building and its role in downtown L.A.’s urban renewal that she wrote the movie around the setting. For a self-described “Valley girl,” it was L.A.’s promised land: Soho meets SoCal, bohemia meets Hollywood.

Indeed, one star of the movie is downtown L.A. itself. When the film’s protagonist, a nebbishy Jewish girl named Deb, gets an opportunity to spend a week at her unrequited love’s downtown loft (she plans to woo him by cat sitting), her ensuing saturation in the new culture becomes a catalyst for her self-realization. In this L.A., people do astonishingly urban things. They walk! They take the Metro! They dine on rooftops! Not a chain store in sight, they buy everyday items at specialty, artisan shops. A trip to the Los Angeles Flower Market, where luscious orchids sell for $10 a pop, bursts on screen in bright, beautiful colors, giving away one of L.A.’s best-kept secrets. Deb’s transformation from an aimless single gal into the self-assured, made-over Deborah, mirrors the transformation of a newly revitalized city, from something known, mundane and expected into a place that is alluring, exciting and new.

Truly being seen, whether it’s cityscapes, other people or even for oneself, is a leitmotif in the film, but it’s also the central challenge for a little independent film like this one (Hill wouldn’t say what the budget was): Will anybody actually get to see it? It screens here on May 10, the closing night of The Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival, co-presented by The Jewish Journal, but beyond the festival circuit, where it has been doing the rounds for several months now and has even won several awards, the film does not yet have a distributor.

“Look at this; is this crazy?” Kout said from the Toy Factory’s rooftop pool, admiring its panoramic view of the downtown skyline. I recognize the spot from a scene in the film. “Basically, I tried to use every square inch of this building,” she added. “I knew the locations before I wrote the script — it’s the repurposed, revitalized city.”

Kout had just about given up screenwriting when she ran into Hill, a veteran television producer, across the street from the building, at the restaurant Church & State. They had worked together decades earlier on one of Kout’s pilots that was never picked up, but had since lost touch. “I said, ‘What the hell are you doing here?’ And he said, ‘Well, I kind of own the block.’ ” Next, Hill invited her for lunch and a tour. “He was all excited and twinkly, showing me his world,” she recalled of that propitious meeting. Then she got twinkly, too, seeing a side of Los Angeles she had never known existed.

“I grew up in the Valley — I would come downtown to go to the Mark Taper Forum. For me, downtown was never a place to live.”

But something about the resurgent city sparked her enough to return to screenwriting — albeit on new terms. “I had given up on all that, because I was chasing the studio model,” she said. Over the years, Kout had delivered countless scripts to some pretty big names, including Barbra Streisand, “Spider-Man” producer Laura Ziskin and screenwriter John Hughes, who penned cult hits “The Breakfast Club” and “Sixteen Candles.” But none of her screenplays was produced. “Even if I had gotten a movie made in the studio paradigm, I probably would have been fired after the first draft,” she said. So when Hill told her, “You write it, I’ll produce it,” it was an offer she couldn’t refuse.

Circling back across the roof, Kout looked out toward the Los Angeles Times building, a looming presence in the distance. “Where else do you see this much sky and this much city?” she asked. Hill is on the roof, too, watering the plants on his deck. 

“Have you ever seen a Jew do this?” Kout asked wryly.

“And I have power tools!” Hill quipped. As if power tools have any place in the tranquil, almost other-worldly surroundings of this setting, framed by hills and sky on every side.

“Wendy was absolutely Dorothy who suddenly saw Oz in Technicolor — she wasn’t in Kansas anymore,” Hill recalled of the first time he brought her to the loft.

“You mean, I wasn’t in the Valley,” Kout said.

Still, they might still have been in the desert if not for an 11th-hour save by Gould, who agreed to play the part of Burt Dorfman, Deb’s cantankerous widowed father, after a deal with another actor fell through. Hill knew Gould through Hollywood guild politics, and called the actor one night out of desperation, dropping the script on his doorstep hours later and warning that if he didn’t get an answer by morning, the film would be scrapped. As the movie’s sole investor, Hill had decided that if the deal didn’t close within a certain time frame, a cost-efficient production would not be possible. Fortunately, Gould liked the script and asked to meet with the creative team — Kout, Hill and the film’s then-24-year-old director, a graduate of USC film school, Brad Leong. 

Kout remembers being unabashedly star-struck. “As a Jewish woman, I have been in love with Elliott Gould since the first time I saw him on the screen,” she said. She’s not kidding: When Gould arrived that day, Kout nearly ran him over. “I turned into a gushing 15-year-old girl,” she said. She and Hill re-enact the scene when Gould walked in, “kinda shlumpy,” as Hill described it, and Kout ran up to him screaming, “Ohmigod, ohmigod, omigod, I’m so excited, I’m so excited.”

“I could not stop jumping,” she recalled with only mild embarrassment. “I was holding his hand, and I wouldn’t let go! But, let’s face it, there weren’t a lot of Jewish men on the screen [when I was growing up]. There was Paul Newman, who was too old; there was Woody Allen, who I didn’t really have an attraction to other than his incredible brain — and then there was Elliott Gould.”

Gould was gracious about the fandom. “Oy vay iz mir,” he said, remembering the moment during a phone interview from his West L.A. home last week. “Wendy is very enthusiastic,” he said, ever so delicately (he tends to sound like a spiritualist when he speaks), “and I believe that enthusiasm is a gift.”

At that initial meeting, Gould tried to get a feel for the young, first-time director by asking him about his “process.” But as “Dorfman” was to be Leong’s first feature, he flipped the question back to Gould: “Tell me what has worked for you,” Hill recalled Leong saying. With complete sincerity, Gould rattled off a list of likes and dislikes based on his past experiences with other directors — who happened to be the likes of Robert Altman, Ingmar Bergman and Paul Mazursky.

There was a time when Gould seemed to embody Hollywood stardom. After roles in Altman’s 1970 Korean war satire, “M*A*S*H,” and an Oscar-nominated performance in Mazursky’s “Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice,” he became a kind of American countercultural icon. It was also during this period that he married Barbra Streisand, his first wife and with whom he has a son. But big-time fame wasn’t his thing.

“At one point, I let a great part of my career go,” he said, a stream-of-consciousness, seemingly random thought that came up just after he had been talking about his parents. He choked up: “Now you can tell I’m being moved,” he said, fighting tears. “I had to give [my career] back, because I knew it wasn’t about being somebody, and I didn’t want to lie, and I didn’t want to be beholden to this great success and have to be fearful that I would lose it.”

Gould’s attitude helps explain why a man who has done it all would take a chance on a little movie like “Dorfman.”

“You always want to work with people who want to work with you,” he said. “I find that ego and vanity is toxic, and I’m exceedingly sensitive to it. And also, even though sometimes it is rampant in this industry, there’s really no room for it.”

Which may be why the role of Burt Dorfman seems so right for Gould, whom The New York Times once praised for his “touching transparency.” Although appropriately cantankerous for an aging widowed Jewish man, Gould plays the role with unselfconscious vulnerability. In 2007, he was described by the Village Voice as helping to popularize the notion of “leading man as schlemiel,” and though he finds that characterization offensive, he said that playing Jewish characters comes naturally to him.

Screenwriter Wendy Kout and actor Elliott Gould

“It is somewhat cultural,” he said. “But being that we have nearly 6,000 years of written history, it’s very deep, and therefore, there’s something more, perhaps, to call on.”

In “Dorfman,” this meant he gets many of the film’s best lines, most of which are Yiddishisms. “This is a farkakteh staircase!” he shouts during his first visit to the loft, which is a little too chic for his taste.

For Kout, the Jewishness was her bottom line. “You know,” she said, “If I had walked in [to a] studio [with] this movie, the first thing that would change is the characters would not be Jewish.” Because “Dorfman” is really her own story, a way of reclaiming her screenwriting voice, authenticity was important to her. Everything from the locations to the actors to the music (10 of its 14 songs are by L.A. indie bands) had to be as authentic as possible. “We read everybody,” she said about the casting process, “but we were looking for Jews.”

At one point, director Leong, who is Asian-American, asked, “What is a flagella?” The script, in fact, read “fagela,” and after a good laugh, Kout remembers thinking, “It’ll be fine. We’ll get him a Yiddish dictionary.”

As the producer writing the checks, Hill was a little more tense about the whole Jewish thing. “Is it any more Jewish than ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’ was Greek?”

For Hill, a son of German immigrants who narrowly escaped the Holocaust, the film’s Jewish sensibility comes from “embracing uncertainty.” As the film vies for theatrical release, that’s something he’ll have to do as well.

“Well, we were told our movie would get commercial distribution if we had Katherine Heigl in the lead, but with Katherine Heigl in the lead, it’s not ‘Dorfman’!” Hill said.

After making some 60-odd TV movies, Hill is a big believer in the “engineering of storytelling,” meaning that if you structure a story a certain way, and aim it at the right audience, “There is a way to industrialize the manufacture of mainstream commercial movies done at low-budget levels.

“If we could do it,” he added. “I could really get back to the hobby I most enjoy — making movies.”

For Kout, making this film was enough. She had come to writing late in life and spent most of her childhood wondering, “Where are my stories? Where are my characters?”

“I was very much like Deb,” she said, “living in a world where I was not being reflected anywhere. And then she goes downtown, where differences are appreciated.”

For Kout, the most romantic thing about this romantic comedy is that both its characters and the city they live in have the capacity to change. It’s the central message of the Jewish tradition, I offered. She smiles.

“People think when you say romantic comedy, it’s girl-boy, but this movie is about her journey,” Kout said with such conviction it was hard to tell if she was talking about the character or talking about herself. 

“What’s romantic to me is she learns how to love herself. And because she begins to love herself, she can love another.”


“Dorfman” screens on May 10 at 7:30 p.m. at the Laemmle Town Center in Encino. To purchase tickets, go to lajfilmfest.org or call (800) 838-3006.

L.A. story: ‘Dorfman’ screenwriter pens a love letter to her city Read More »

Lust, spectacle on a biblical scale: Why we love silent films

Sure, you’ve heard of old movies, but one highlight of this year’s Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival reaches back 88 years, reviving the silent film “The Moon of Israel.”

The revival fits right in with the rediscovery of the silent film genre, kick-started by the Oscar best-film win for “The Artist.” While this art form might seem to have died when the studios brought sound to the cinema in the late 1920s, the ghosts of movies past are stirring again.

“Moon of Israel” was the creation of Hungarian-Jewish director Mihaly Kertesz, who shot the Austrian production in Vienna and released it in 1924 under the title “Die Sklavenkönigin” (The Queen of the Slaves).

The European success of “Moon” and the preceding “Sodom and Gomorrah” impressed Hollywood mogul Jack Warner, who invited the director to come to America and make a biblical epic for his studio.

Kertesz arrived in 1926, Anglicized the spelling of his name to Michael Curtiz, and obliged his new employer by making “Noah’s Ark” in 1928.

Curtiz’s script for “Moon of Israel” was based on the book of the same title by H. Rider Haggard, who, in turn, was “inspired” by the biblical story of the Exodus from Egypt.

Such inspiration jazzed up the original version by introducing as a central theme the torrid romance of an Israelite slave girl Merapi (aka The Moon of Israel) and Prince Seti, slated to succeed his father as pharaoh.

By his nature, Seti is what nowadays might be considered a bleeding-heart liberal. Although quite the bare-chested hunk, he prefers to consort with poets rather than compete in horse races, and he tells his father, Pharaoh Menapta, that he should really listen to Moses and let the Israelites go.

For this impertinence, Seti is stripped of his succession to the throne, which leaves him free to pursue his courtship of Merapi in earnest.

Even in a somewhat blurred DVD copy of “Moon,” the film’s scale is impressive, particularly in depicting the massive flight of the Israelite men, women, children and cattle. The elderly men are draped in prayer shawls, women stumble under their burden, and even the commanding Moses leans heavily on his stick.

In one of the most expensive Austrian films up to that time, the producers spent lavishly on thousands of extras, costumes and special effects, knowing that in America, director Cecil B. DeMille was shooting his own biblical extravaganza, “The Ten Commandments” (not to be confused with the 1956 Charlton Heston movie) in such California locations as Nipomo Dunes near Pismo Beach and in Seal Beach.

According to most critics — now and then — “Moon” beat “Ten Commandments” handily in the climactic parting of the Red Sea spectacle.

By present standards, the acting appears rather florid and exaggerated. But by the norms of the time, most of the film’s actors do not descend into caricatures and succeed in creating believable human characters.

The success of “Moon” on the continent quickly led to an export version with English intertitles and premieres in England and the United States.

Print ads in American newspapers hailed “Moon” with such superlatives as Daring Romance! Swift Action! Breath-Taking Thrills! A Succession of Stupendous Spectaculars!

On the other hand, Britain’s Board of Film Censors objected strongly to scenes showing arrows quivering in the chests of Egyptian soldiers, as well as to too much skin exposure of the heroine’s back and excessive passion in the final kiss between the Israelite maiden and the Egyptian prince.

On the film set.

However, due to Hollywood studio rivalries and skullduggery, “Moon” was shown in a badly truncated version on American screens and had limited success, according to film historian Alan K. Rode, whose biography “Michael Curtiz: A Man for All Movies,” will be published next year by the University Press of Kentucky.

After its initial run, “Moon” apparently was never revived in America and footage of the complete film was lost for many years until a restored version was screened in Vienna in 2005.

Hilary Helstein, the executive director of The Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival, said she discovered the existence of “Moon” during a business trip to Austria two years ago and was immediately taken by the movie’s subject and form.

“I thought it was a unique film which, among other things, illustrated a period in cinema history when the discovery of King Tut’s tomb led to a fascination with all things Egyptian,” she said.

During the 28 years following his American arrival, Curtiz directed more than 100 feature films, frequently turning out four in one year.

His movie career was marked both by a prolific output and by the wide range of themes and moods, ranging from the melodramatic “Moon” to the stirring “Yankee Doodle Dandy” and the sentimental “White Christmas.”

Although he was nominated for Academy Awards five times as best director and his films were up six times for best picture, he scored only once, when “Casablanca” won best director and best picture Oscars in 1943.

According to contemporary accounts, Curtiz was hyper-energetic and a hard taskmaster, considered arrogant and callous by many colleagues. He was contemptuous of “lunch bums” — actors who had the temerity to take time off to eat lunch.

On the other hand, actresses like Joan Crawford, whose career Curtiz revived in “Mildred Pierce,” and Doris Day, who was discovered by Curtiz, thought of him as one of the greatest directors, Rode said.

Curtiz was most admired for his highly visual style of filmmaking, though at the cost of character development of his actors’ roles, according to critics. One surviving quote has it that when asked about this weakness, Curtiz replied, “Who cares about the character? I make it go so fast nobody notices.”

True to silent-film tradition, the May 6 screening of “Moon” during The Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival will be accompanied by the noted Austrian pianist and composer Gerhard Gruber, now 61, who has composed and performed the music for some 450 silent movies during his career.

During a phone interview from his home near Linz, Austria, Gruber noted that in his music he tries to express “the motion and emotion” of a film, rather than of a particular historical era.

“My music changes with the moods of different audiences,” he said. “I prefer to compose for silent movies because there’s no director who tells you what to do.”

Gruber caught the silent-movie bug as an 11-year-old in a Catholic boarding school, where harsh routine was relieved once a week with the showing of old Buster Keaton or Laurel and Hardy comedies.

“That was my window to freedom that allowed me to travel to a land of fantasy,” Gruber recalled.

“The Artist” did not enchant Gruber or such American film critics as David Denby of The New Yorker and Peter Rainer of the Christian Science Monitor. All three suggested the film had the glossy feel of a 1940s Hollywood production, rather than of a silent movie of the first two decades of the last century.

Whatever its merits, “The Artist” is just one sign that silent films have returned to the public consciousness.

Another is the continuing popularity of the San Francisco Silent Film Festival, now in its 17th year. Most recently, the highlight was a revival of Abel Gance’s 1927 masterpiece “Napoleon.”

The five-and-a-half hour film (eight hours with snack and dinner breaks), accompanied by a 46-piece orchestra, attracted some 3,000 patrons, some of whom came from as far as Holland and the Czech Republic, cheering the film to the rafters.

Back in 1981, the local Shrine Auditorium screened an abbreviated four-hour cut of “Napoleon.” My then-22-year old daughter and I saw the epic and have never forgotten it.

For a considerable time, this city’s Silent Movie Theatre on Fairfax Avenue was the only one of its kind in the United States, and for decades it brought back the glory days of Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Harold Lloyd, Rudolph Valentino and the Keystone Kops.

After a number of ownership changes and a year-long closure, the venue reopened as the Cinefamily theater in 2006. In its reincarnation, the theater is a popular place for bar mitzvah and wedding parties but also maintains an eclectic mix of movie screenings, including occasional silent films with live music accompaniment.

Another sign of renewed interest in silent films is a five-page article in the Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker, subtitled “Notes on a lost style of acting.”

Writer David Denby observed that “[s]ilent film is another country. They speak another language there — a language of gestures, stares, flapping mouths, halting or skittering walks, and sometimes movements and expressions of infinite intricacy and beauty.”

His article cites the reaction of the French literary critic Roland Barthes to a silent film starring Greta Garbo:

“Garbo still belongs to that moment in cinema when capturing the human face still plunged audiences into the deepest ecstasy, when one literally lost oneself in a human image as one would in a philter, when the face represented a kind of absolute state of the flesh, which could be neither reached nor renounced.”

“Moon of Israel” will screen May 6 at 7 p.m. at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills, as part of The Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival, presented by The Jewish Journal. Actress Penelope Ann Miller of “The Artist” will introduce the film. For tickets and other information, call (800) 838-3006.

Pianist Gerhard Gruber will perform at the American Cinematheque screening on May 3 of “Café Electric,” starring Marlene Dietrich and commemorating her death 20 years ago. The film starts at 7:30 p.m. at the Aero Theatre in Santa Monica. For tickets, visit Lust, spectacle on a biblical scale: Why we love silent films Read More »

Judge won’t drop charges against Baltimore brothers

A Baltimore judge will not drop the charges against two Jewish brothers accused of beating a black teenager.

Judge Pamela White on Tuesday denied the motion to drop the charges against Avi and Eliyahu Werdesheim, according to The Associated Press.

The brothers have pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree assault, false imprisonment and carrying a deadly weapon in the alleged beating of Corey Ausby in November 2010. They face up to 13 years in prison if convicted on all three counts.

At the time of the incident, Eliyahu, now 24, was a member of the Jewish neighborhood watch group Shomrim. Avi is now 21.

On April 26, White also denied a separate motion filed on behalf of Ausby to drop the charges.

“It was not your decision whether to bring charges against the defendants, it’s the state’s decision,” she told the teen, according to the Baltimore Sun.

The Sun reported that Ausby said on the stand, “I been wanting to drop the charges all the time, I didn’t even want to go through [this].”

Judge won’t drop charges against Baltimore brothers Read More »