בס"ד
In short, the field of view of the cultural lens is not as broad and the writing of the script is not as "tight" as it should have been for a story dealing with serious issues such as race, religion, and class, and this sadly leaves the film on a precipice at risk of falling into the damagingly uneasy and rigidly stereotypical. The loss of rythm and timing in certain scenes of the film is evidence of such, and also likley further indicates a discernible level of discomfort with the material among both writers and cast in these specific scenes of the film. From a Jewish perspective, the film is particularly troubling in certain respects.
First, the film contains a Holocaust engagement ring joke which is in very poor taste, and, quite frankly, which is inappropriate, in my humble opinion. However, one must keep in mind that this joke is introduced by the Jewish character in the film — a film written by a Jewish man, Jonah Hill, and an African-American man, Kenya Barris. Both Hill and Barris are seasoned at their craft, and are award-winning artists, but this joke tests the boundaries of humanity for any author...In Europe, such a joke might even test the boundaries of the law.
Moreover, the film's taking levity to the portrayal of Jewish people as sexually deviant is also disturbing, particularly as such is a topic introduced in a religious context, during a High Holidays scene at the liberal (seemingly Masorti) family synogogue of the groom, at the beginning of the story.
Nevertheless, I am not in agreement with criticisms accusing the film of generally depicting Ashkenazi Jews as "bad" and "racist", and African-Americans — whether secular, Christian, or Muslim — as generally "good" and as "having no issues" with race, religion, or class.
Eddie Murphy's character — Nation of Islam member and father of the bride — is complex, and does have more depth than that for which the mainstream media is crediting screenwriters Hill and Barris. Murphy's character truly struggles with his daughter's choice to marry an Ashkenazi Jewish man throughout the film. The only difference is that concerns about "racism" and "anti-semitism" are never overtly directed at Murphy's character in the film, and to the film's detriment, in my humble opinion. The word "anti-semitism" is never said in the film, if I am not mistaken, but the words "racism" and "racist" are voiced multiple times, representing a character flaw clearly assigned to Jewish people in the film. Today, some people within the Jewish community do sadly refer to Muslim people as "cockroaches" (even in French: "cafards"). Some people within the Nation of Islam also sadly refer to Jewish people "termites" (in English). We should have a problem with both...equally.
Concerns about "racism" are directly addressed to Julia Louis-Dreyfus' character — well-meaning liberal Ashkenazi Jewish mother of the groom, who is awkwardly made to speak on behalf of all Jewish people and on behalf of all "white" people on various occasions throughout the film, one of the film's great shortcomings, in my humble opinion. African-Americans who have grown up in predominantly European-American or "white" American social settings can easily relate to the unsettling dynamic of being asked or presumed to speak on behalf of an entire race or people. If Dreyfus' character was intended to reflect some type of role reversal in this regard, such simply does not work in the film, as the mother of the groom is not speaking as a minority who is being forced or presumed to represent her entire community in the West Los Angeles context. Jewish life and culture thrives in West Los Angeles...
Nia Long's character as mother of the bride is also not developed enough, and her voice as an African-American Muslim woman simply fades too far into the background (shouldn't the two mothers at least have met for a luncheon...?), as does the voice of the father of the groom, played by David Duchovny (shouldn't the two fathers at least have met for a drink...?).
Another shortcoming of the film is that it rests too heavily on popular depictions of African-American culture — in aesthetic, in dialogue, in music (including Jay-Z and Kanye West's emblematic two-time Grammy award-winning "Niggas in Paris", which was cut into the film prior to Ye's most recent series of controversial statements about Jewish people, and the ensuing aftermath). There should have been more balance here, with strong aesthetic representations of both popular Jewish-American, and particularly contemporary Ashkenazi Jewish-American, and African-American culture throughout the work. But a scene containing Yiddish, traditionally spoken by Ashkenazi Jews, was allegedly cut out of the film.
Finally, recalling the classic film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967), and its more modern remake Guess Who (2005), a dinner table scene — a Shabbat dinner by candlelight in which parents of the bride bring up the history of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (put fort as the reason why African-Americans don't like boats), and in which the parents of the groom bring up the history of the Holocaust (put forth as the reason why Jewish people don't like trains), digresses into an extremely uncomfortable discussion, including the imposition of an implied comparison of human tragedies and suffering (because none of the characters makes an overt comparison here), and ends with a kufi gifted to the father of the bride by Louis Farrakhan, himself, accidentally set afire and bursting into flames. The scene causes members of the audience to cringe in their moviegoers' "seat at the Shabbat table", an experience true to the discomfort of what can and does happen in real life when such difficult discussions unfortunately go awry, even among family (or family-to-be) or the best of friends. I could have used those "Kosher" and "Hallal" jokes somewhere about here...
Should the film be pulled or re-edited? As an artist, my personal answer to this question is unequivocally, "No". Jonah Hill is a Jew, and most definitely has a right to his own voice in the portrayal of his understanding of the Jewish experience, whether or not I or any other Jewish person personally agree with his perspective. He is talking about his own world, and has crafted a fictional story within that world, which he is free to tell.
The themes of oppression, threat of cultural assimilation, and the desire to preserve religious tradition in the face intermarriage are difficult ones which move beyond the concept of race, not only for Jews, but also for Muslims. In the Orthodox Jewish context, one remains committed to marrying another Jew, a belief also held by more religious Muslims. But this is not the liberal mindset or world of the young couple depicted in You People (2023).
In the end, whatever one's personal view, one must give both Hill and Barris props for attempting to tackle such difficult themes and subject matters, and for coming together as partners in a project which, in its own way and by its own understanding, is ultimately encouraging people to see and accept one another as human beings, as equally significant and beautiful parts of G-d's Creation. A story with the same goal told by an Orthodox Jew would be a different story, but the larger goal is something to which any Jew, whatever their level of observance or religious affiliation, can relate.
~ Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham, ISRAELrealNATION,
5 Feb 2023, 15 Shebat 5783
Tu BeShebat Sameah!
© 2009-2023
ISRAELrealNATION / Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham
No comments:
Post a Comment