Disclaimer: I'm sick and very tired, so this is probably all jumbly and nonsensical:
Meh. I'm sure this was much more relevant 60 years ago. But now, though I'm sure anti-Semitism exists in New York in one way or another, New York is SUCH a Jewish city. Everyone loves bagels and speaks Americanized Yiddish, and there are kosher delis on every block in Manhattan. To modernize it, instead of thinking about it in terms of anti-Semitism, I instead thought about it in terms of homophobia (probably inspired by the LOGO Presidential Forum we watched earlier this evening). Homophobia is still very relevant, especially in the way anti-Semitism was portrayed in this movie. The classic Seinfeld bit, "Not that there's anything wrong with that," defines the democratic homophobia of today just as, "Some of my best friends are Jewish," was the democratic anti-Semitism of 1947. These people have no problem with Jews. Beyond that, they have a problem with people who DO have a problem with Jews. It's just, they will never express that. And they will still have completely different expectations of Jews than Christians. Hell, I'm Jewish, and I stereotype Jews just the same. It seems silly to get into my political viewpoints on here, so I won't.
It's interesting how Elia Kazan made this progressive movie with a message about how everyone should be treated equally, but he sold out his friends during the Red Scare. It's also interesting how at one point the concept of homosexuality was danced around (I don't remember exactly what was said, but it was something subtle about how all the good men are either married or don't like women). This is the second Kazan movie I've seen that dances around it, the other being A Streetcar Named Desire, which famously ignored Blanche's husband's homosexuality. On another Kazan-related note, I am seriously looking forward to On the Waterfront, which is totally better than Gentleman's Agreement was.
Anyway, Gregory Peck pwned this movie, which gave it extra points in my book. I liked the character of his son, mainly because he showed the juxtaposition of educated adults (who end up prejudiced) against innocent kids (who have no reason to be prejudiced yet). In short, the movie was boring, but fine. Notes to myself: Nobody should ever start a sentence with the word darling. 7/10 (would have been 6, but I just love Gregory Peck so much)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I know there's that blip on Elia Kazan's biography about his role with the HUAC, but I feel that because he made so many important pictures, that maybe Elia Kazan felt he really was doing the right thing at the time, because I think he was a socially conscious guy.
I know that the debate is endless over whether he was right or wrong but how about the debate over whether he thought he was doing the right thing or whether he "sold out" and didn't care about doing the right thing
You will probably never read this, because it's months later, but I'd like to address this comment for anyone who stumbles on this post.
I don't think he "sold out" the way I brusquely stated. If you've seen On the Waterfront, I think he made that movie as a defense for his actions, in order to show the world that he really was doing what he thought was right when he named names.
Still, even if he thought his friends were involved in politics that he disagreed with, that does not justify doing what he did to people who WERE his friends.
Post a Comment