As a Protestant-raised girl from a very whitebread town marrying a conservative but currently non-practicing Jewish guy, I'm always curious to learn more about Jewish culture. So I've always heard about how great "Fiddler on the Roof" was, and finally put it on our NetFlix queue. I was so excited to watch it with him, especially after reading a few of the reviews!
quote:Filmed on location in Eastern Europe, this 1971 musical based on Sholem Aleichem's stories was a smash on Broadway, Fiddler on the Roof is a true crowd-pleaser. Israeli actor Topol mesmerizes as Tevye, humble father of three strong-willed daughters in the Russian village of Anatevka. His self-imposed task: Preserve Jewish heritage at all costs.
quote:I find this movie satisfying on several levels. It's entertaining, and, in addition, it skillfully and artistically explains a bit of the cultural history of Jews living in Czarist Russia before the Bolshevik revolution. The music is inspiring. The acting by the whole ensemble of actors is first-rate. Topol, as Tevye, does a masterful job. It is a long movie that doesn't seem long. What raises this movie to a classic is the adroit development of the characters. We see bits and pieces of people we have known in these characters, and can relate to some of their daily frustrations and joys. Although filled with the adversity of prejudice, oppression, and uncertain living, this movie will uplift your spirits as few movies do; for it presents "Tradition!" in a loving and humorous manner.
quote:Possibly the most realistic musical ever made, certainly the most religious ever made. Thanks to director Norman Jewison, who, interestingly, is not a Jew, something he felt obliged to point out before taking on this film. Jewison's choice of Yugoslavia as the setting for a small Jewish town in Czarist Russia just prior to the 1917 revolution. The cinematography is exceptional, as is the music, choreography and vocals. Most of all, this is a heart-breaking yet deeply humorous, warmly human film. My late mother, who was devoutly Roman Catholic, saw it and cried. She said it was one of best movies she had ever seen, and by far the saddest. I love Topol's Tevye, especially when he debates with God and with himself. It is a classic performance.
So I was all geared up for what I thought was going to be a somewhat 'authentic' insight into Jewish culture, or at least a story FROM Jewish culture.
UGH. It opens with a silouhette of, you guessed it, a fiddler playing on a roof. After which the star, a goofy clown character, painstakingly explains exactly why the story is exactly like a fiddler playing on a roof. GET IT?? Then he goes on to explain that their Jewish community is held together by their traditions. Okay, I get it, that makes sense. But instead of just referencing this and moving on, he goofily breaks in to a song-and-dance number backed by overwhelmingly WASPy voices about TRADITION. And in case you didn't get it the first 50 times, they repeat "TRADITION!" over threatening closeups of menorahs, stars of David, and other obvious symbols that THESE PEOPLE ARE JEWISH, STUPID! AND CARE ABOUT TRADITION!!
Mark and I watched with our mouths agape. I was horrified that I had rented it and asked him to watch it with me. I mean, it was offensive! Even to me, knowing as little as I do about jewish culture! But we gave it another chance, hoping it would improve once they had lathered on their freaking message. After another 10 minutes or so of WASP actors with American accents pointing out their "prayer shawls" and "hats" (Is the audience so ignorant that they can't stand to hear the actual names for these things?), we finally gave up and turned it off.
I had hoped that I was renting a story about Jewish culture... FROM Jewish culture. But instead I got a ridiculous Disneyfied gape at a caricature of a culture the filmmakers obviously had only a superficial knowledge of. So disappointed.
So beware, innocent movie renters!
[ May 25, 2004, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I know very little about Jewish culture etc, however I kind of want you to watch this movie all the way through before you really comment.
EDIT: Also, I don't think the movie is supposed to represent every Jewish person of the time period.
[ May 24, 2004, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
This is why most film adaptations of theatrical musicals SUCK!
If you get a chance, go see the play. If the company is any good, they'll put on a much better show than the movie.
Of course, that's just my humble opinion...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fiddler on the Roof is one of my favorite musicals of all time.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Same, Beverly, and I always thought that the FOTR (okay, Fiddler on the Roof and Fellowship of the Ring have the same initials, arg!) movie was a stunning, but I'm not Jewish, so I can't really judge.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
The musical itself is awesome... like Teshi, I would recommend finishing it. Even if maybe the movie isn't as good as the stage production.
I was in it twice, I know it inside out, and it REALLY is not as bad as you make it out to be. And I'm Jewish!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*perplexed*
I adore the movie Fiddler -- although I will readily agree that it doesn't approach the wonderfulness of Sholom Aleichem's stories on which it is based.
I own two different versions of the soundtrack, one with all kinds of extra goodies (including songs that never made it to the stage), and play them often.
A few years ago, when I taught at a non-religious private school, one of the plays they put on was Fiddler -- with an African-American Tevye. It took me a few minutes to get used to that, but his voice was AMAZING, so I adjusted.
I guess I agree that some of the elements are pretty over-the-top, but keep in mind that when it was filmed, many American audiences would not have been familiar with many of them.
I agree with Teshi -- watch it all the way through, and then see what you think.
Now, if you want to see an offensive movie about Jews, set not much later in history, try Yentl. While I watch that one over and over too (because it is a great movie, overall), there are bits that make me snarl at the screen, every time.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
You know, it was almost like they went to such great lengths to reassure me, the Christian viewer, that "they" were just like me, that any actual uniqueness in the culture was lost. "Look, they complain about their husbands, too! Isn't that great!" "And they speak with American accents and have entirely American mannerisms!"
I mean, with the exception of the prayer shawls and bushy beards, I could have been watching "Little House on the Prarie: The Overbearing Musical!!!!".
I should explain, I guess, that I have a degree in film theory and criticism. And I've taken courses on Filming Other Cultures and the problems therein. Maybe it's just shock from knowing what could have been done with this story, and seeing instead what they chose to do.
And for those defending the stage version, I haven't seen Fiddler on the stage, just the beginning of the film. Since it was mostly filmic elements that bothered me (the browbeating closeups on the Star of David, the poor acting, the Lawrence Welk backup singers, the cheap Hollywood backlot set), it's entirely possible that I would have felt differently had I seen it on stage.
[ May 24, 2004, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I had hoped that I was renting a story about Jewish culture... FROM Jewish culture. But instead I got a ridiculous Disneyfied gape at a caricature of a culture the filmmakers obviously had only a superficial knowledge of. So disappointed.
This is way off the mark. The entire cast is Jewish, and it was written and produced by Jews. My extended Jewish family has never had a bad word to say about it. It's generally felt that it sums up the Jewish experience quite well.
As far as the importance of tradition; Yes, it's very important. And the intro number sets up the rest of the play/movie. It's VERY important to the story, so yes, they hit you in the head with it in the beginning.
As far as the movie goes, I didn't like the freeze frame thing that happens when Tevye talks to himself. Especially when Lazar Wolf's face freezes with eyes wide and mouth in a little pucker. Other than that, it's a classic. Get a clue.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I should explain, I guess, that I have a degree in film theory and criticism. And I've taken courses on Filming Other Cultures and the problems therein. Maybe it's just shock from knowing what could have been done with this story, and seeing instead what they chose to do.
I'm sorry Ayelar, and I respect whatever you've done in film, but I do think you ought to watch the whole thing. Obviously, some very notable people in 1971 thought that many aspects of the film were good.
[ May 24, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I do regret that I can't comment on the entire film, but given what I know about the structure of the classical Hollywood musical, I seriously doubt that my impression of it would have improved much. Unfortunately, I was barely able to stomach what I did see, and there's no way we'll be renting it again.
And if you ask me, Academy Award nominations are no indication of a film's quality, but instead its combination of pretention and popularity. Titanic, anyone?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Rivka, have you seen "A Stranger Among Us"? Now that is a truly sickeningly awful movie about Jews. I was so excited to see it because of my deep love and fascination with Jewish culture and religion. I nearly walked out of the theater. I should have. The movie blows chunks, pardon my lack of delicacy. "Yentyl" on the other hand, is a guilty pleasure of mine. I shouldn't like it, but I do.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote: I should explain, I guess, that I have a degree in film theory and criticism.
My roommate is majoring in the same thing. I feel very sorry that neither of you will ever like any movie ever again. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ayelar, I have been aware for some time now that what bothers one will not bother another. Comes to mind someone I know who delights in watching horrid old Kung Fu movies but can't stand STNG.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Rivka, have you seen "A Stranger Among Us"?
beverly, yes. In the theater, even. When it first came out. And I, uh, kinda liked it . . . . . . although I admit that parts of it were awful. And I've never felt the need to see it again.
quote: "Yentyl" on the other hand, is a guilty pleasure of mine. I shouldn't like it, but I do.
Agreed 100%!
Are you at all familiar with Rochelle Krich's mystery novels? I think you would enjoy them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I suspect the offensiveness of the movie came from defensiveness about your connection to the culture. You're relatively new to it, so it's a much bigger deal.
Expecting a serious discussion of Russian Jewish life from that time is like expecting serious LDS history from Charley. Fiddler is part of the storytelling body and tradition (heh), but it isn't meant to be quintessential.
I'm curious that you're offended by what you see as attempts to make Jewish culture less strange to a Christian audience. Considering someone's attention is always a gift, why would it be offensive to put it in the language of your audience? No false doctrine, of course, but communication rarely works if you insist that your audience change for you.
-------
This is the part of the post where I muse over a memory of Dana Carvey trying to cram to fake being Jewish by watching Fiddler in his living room and dancing around. Horrifying, but very funny. Anyone know what movie I'm talking about?
----
I also have fond memories of the movie because my mother was VERY big into traditions. St. Patrick's Day had the green dinner. For Valentine's Day, we had homemade cards and everyone got candy and a Love Mug. For Easter, the big hats and white gloves for me, and pastel shirts for the boys. Every one of those days had an elaborate tradition that my mother created to go with it. My dad's big contribution was spending the day singing "Tradition" at the top of his lungs to tease my mom. And we loved all of it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: This is the part of the post where I muse over a memory of Dana Carvey trying to cram to fake being Jewish by watching Fiddler in his living room and dancing around. Horrifying, but very funny. Anyone know what movie I'm talking about?
Thank you! I haven't seen that movie in ages. Long enough ago that I had a slight, slight crush on Dana Carvey as a result of it. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Haven't heard of Rochelle Krich, maybe I should check those out. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[ May 24, 2004, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Expecting a serious discussion of Russian Jewish life from that time is like expecting serious LDS history from Charley.
You mean Charley isn't serious LDS history? But it makes everyone cry! If that's not serious LDS history, I don't know what is.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Charly.
*finger down throat*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Aja, I think you're letting your political sensibilities get in the way of the film, which tried as hard as it feasibly could to make its points -- which are not so much "Jewish" points as they are points about culture clash. Ironically, I think you'll find that you largely AGREE with the overall message of the film, based on what I've seen from your posts. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tevya has to lather on the stuff about tradition because his transformation, that of his family, and the entire town/community revolves around the choices they make within and outside those traditions.
It is a beautiful movie about a great topic. I don't know how it is as an explanation of Jewish culture in rural Russia 60+ years ago (or is it 90+ years ago?).
Isn't it asking a little too much of a movie to have it be representative of "jewish culture" overall, though? I mean, that's one of the beauties of Jewish culture -- not just its common traditions around the globe, but its rich and VARIED traditions from place to place, culture to culture.
Oh well. I love that movie but for reasons other than what it teaches me about Jews.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:I'm curious that you're offended by what you see as attempts to make Jewish culture less strange to a Christian audience. Considering someone's attention is always a gift, why would it be offensive to put it in the language of your audience? No false doctrine, of course, but communication rarely works if you insist that your audience change for you.
This is an interesting argument. I guess I could concede that, in 1971, this might have been an acceptable film for most Americans, Jewish or otherwise, simply because there was so little cross-culture communication to begin with, and this was a good start. It's hard to say, that was 10 years before I was born. However, whether or not this film seemed as offensively pandering to Christians at the time, it absolutely works on that level today, when there isn't as great a need (assuming there was back then) to comfort the audience by making the cast act like they're in "The Sound of Music: Now With Kippot!".
It reminds me of a Griffith film I saw last year, called "Broken Blossoms" (though it also went by "The Chink and the Girl"). After the outcry over the KKK sequence in Birth of a Nation, this was one of his apologies for/denials of his perceived racism. It's the story of a destitute British girl living in a slum with her brute of a father, who falls in love with a "Chinaman" after her father nearly beats her to death. When the father discovers them together, there's a huge confrontation, and he eventually beats the girl to death, after which the Chinese man kills the father and then himself. Yikes.
Anyhow, you can see how, in 1919, this would have been pretty radical. Interracial marriage, after all, was not only taboo but illegal. So portraying this situation in any sort of sympathetic light would probably have been a lot for the audience to handle.
Today, though, you watch the film, and all you can see are the casual racial slurs, the extremely patronizing attitude the film takes towards the collection of stereotypes that is the "Yellow Man", and above all, the total emasculation of the Chinese character. It's hugely offensive. And yet, it made sense for its intended audience at the time.
I guess I am offended by attempts to make Jewish culture less strange for a Christian audience, just as I am offended by Disney's attempts to reduce any cultural differences to a few brightly colored animals that we can laugh at to make us more comfortable. Different cultures ARE different, as they should be. There are fundamental differences between how people from different cultures see and respond to the world around them, and I for one would rather we didn't try to plug our ears and coat everyone with whitewash so that we don't have to consider the fact that ours is not the only way of seeing things.
In a way, it all comes down to my problem with Applebees. But that's another story.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Also, I'm thinking that a large part of why I had such a strong reaction to this film was the expectations that I had been given. I have ALWAYS heard "Fiddler" spoken of as a quintessentially Jewish story, a story as authentic to Jewish culture as you can get in film. Even Glenn Arnold above says: "It's generally felt that it sums up the Jewish experience quite well."
And it was with these expectations in mind that I sat there, dumbfounded, as these entirely modern American characters (but with prayer shawls!) screamed "TRADITION!" at me.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:My roommate is majoring in the same thing. I feel very sorry that neither of you will ever like any movie ever again.
No kidding, Javert. I can enjoy films, even stupid films as long as they're clever within the confines of their genre (I still get a kick out of Zoolander!), but yeah, I'm more often disappointed by films these days. Especially when people I like and respect recommend movies I hate. "Lilo and Stitch" just totally baffled me.
"I feel like I'm taking CRAZY PILLS!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, "Lilo and Stitch" is thoroughly enjoyable when it's not trying to be full of gags. When Lilo is sitting on the floor pouting about not being allowed to dance after biting one of her partners, and her primary objection to that state of affairs is "I practiced," the film is an extremely honest and accurate depiction of precocious childhood.
When it gets wacky, it gets lame. But in its more sedate moments, it's actually quite good.
[ May 25, 2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Sure, Tom, but the "sedate" moments made up about 3% of the overall film, resulting in my total amazement that so many people had recommended it to me.
[ May 25, 2004, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Wait - so you took the time to watch the rest of it, then?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Lilo and Stitch was just bad. It wasn't shockingly offensive to me or my fiance. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I happen to like Fiddler on the Roof, as well. I saw it on the stage years and years ago with (this is dating me ) Zero Mostel. I have seen it performed by several high school casts, since then, and have seen the movie as well.
I don't think it's unreasonable to try to familiarize an American audience with some Jewish traditions. Even today, there are people who are insulated enough (or just don't care) who know little about the Jew religion and culture. I agree that the close-ups of Jewish items during the song "Tradition" is a bit silly. Guess that's why, as others have stated, I've always preferred the play.
And I agree with rivka in disliking Yentl. Barbra Streisand totally ruined I.B. Singer's ending. Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Sounds like I should see it on stage. Unfortunately, it sounds like the current Broadway revival wouldn't make me any happier!
quote:If this is a shtetle in old Russia in the 1900's, I would say the Jews were living well. Tall birch trees and Japanese type lanterns decorate the stage and a wooden roof moves up and down--why, I don't know. The set looks like a design appropriate for "The Cherry Orchard." Maybe Tom Pye, the scenic designer, got the aristocratic Russians and the Jewish peasants mixed up.
quote:Then there are Tevye's daughters: they all look alike, and sing with screechy voices and wear Laura Ashley type clothes. Randy Graff plays Golde, Tevye's wife, who in Yiddish is a "balaboosta" that is, the head of a household, capable of running it better than her husband, despite cooking, cleaning, baking gossiping, and caring for her family. Ms.Graff has no idea of the role; she just yells throughout, and looks and acts like a contemporary West-sider on her way to Starbucks for a coffee klatch. Most annoying is that all the actors speak without the slightest Yiddish rhythm, a rhythm that could have given some life to their roles. Shtetle Jews spoke Yiddish; Sholom Aleichem's stories, from which the musical was adapted, was written in Yiddish. It would have been helpful if the actors had captured some of the common vernacular.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, I'm thinking that a large part of why I had such a strong reaction to this film was the expectations that I had been given. I have ALWAYS heard "Fiddler" spoken of as a quintessentially Jewish story, a story as authentic to Jewish culture as you can get in film. Even Glenn Arnold above says: "It's generally felt that it sums up the Jewish experience quite well."
I think when people talk about the film summing up the Jewish experience, they are looking past the more superficial aspects of props, accents, and use of English rather than Hebrew names for certain things. They're speaking to how it portrayed what values illuminate the Jewish community. I don't actually remember how it ends, but my impression from a long time ago was that it didn't take the easy way out in the old tradition v. individual happiness story - it showed how the two can be reconciled, and why the former is so important to a community that suffers such oppression.
I was also struck by the nature of the opression, and the way the community dealt with it: power and courage of a kind not usually glorified in popular culture.
A lot of this depends on ones perspective, of course. I favor this type of analysis because, as a Catholic, a clear distinction between substance and form is necessary to accept one of the core doctrines of the Church. Your training makes you less forgiving of unnecessary cultural changes like the ones you described. You've become expert enough to notice mistakes others don't. Kind of like how any portrayal of a computer on the big screen makes me cringe.
There have been several threads that discuss superhero movies, specifically what types of changes don't alter the fundamental underlying story and which types do. There have also been similar discussions about the changes made in the LotR movies. All of this becomes much more important when the changes are made to real live cultural traditions that have been violently oppressed for thousands of years, but the underlying philosophical questions are similar.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Fiddler is a musical.
As a musical, people run and jump and sing.
It is not a documentary. It is not a historical reenactment. It is not a drama.
It is a musical about a man who puts much store in his traditions which is a combination culture and religion. So he sings about them.
Just as Julie Andrews sings about a few of her favorite things. Do you condemn "The Sound of Music" for being a mockery of the horrors of Nazi Austria?
We can equally condemn "South Pacific" for it lack of authenticity to the Polynesian cultures.
And "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" for its misportrayal of the difficulties of frontier life.
and "West Side Story" for its oversimplification of urban street gangs. Not only is "I Want To Live in America" an unrealistic portrayal of the immigrant experience, sung by a white woman in hispanic makeup, it is racist. Besides, street fights are brutal, nasty affairs. There is no dancing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I didn't like the movie much either. Don't have any specific beef with it, it just didn't move me the way it moved everyone else, I guess.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ayelar, seriously, watch the rest of the movie. Especially if you are marrying someone who is Jewish and you are not, you need to see the rest of the movie.
Ignore the dancing prayer shawls - those are part of being a musical. The themes and the characters are incredible.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Actually, Dan, as I said in the "Bad Musicals" thread a while back.... "Are there any musicals or operas that are more than just spectacle with a few thinly-woven plot strings? That are meant to be entertaining to someone over the age of 10?"
Personally, I don't enjoy most big MGM-type musicals. I hadn't realized that Fiddler was going for that vibe until the opening number.
And yes, South Pacific and the others are on my list of musicals that, in technical film-major terms, "sucked".
[ May 25, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Especially if you are marrying someone who is Jewish and you are not, you need to see the rest of the movie.
Wow, seriously? Does anyone else agree with this?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No, I think as long as you can help out the Hatrack Rebbetzin in the appropriate thread, you're okay
But that just might be me.
(I haven't ever seen Fiddler, but probably will at some point, since my girlfriend is Jewish, and loves musicals )
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And yes, South Pacific and the others are on my list of musicals that, in technical film-major terms, "sucked".
It's always been curious to me that Meet Me in St. Louis is considered a masterpiece whileThe Sound of Music is considered dreck. I really enjoyed my film criticism class, but I always thought there was a piece missing from the analysis of storytelling if The Sound of Music didn't get its due.
---
I didn't mean you shouldn't get married without seeing it, but that the rest of the movie will probably really mean something to you because of it.
[ May 25, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, kat, considering the way Fiddler deals with intermarriage, Ayelar might easily be more offended if she watched the whole movie.
I actually find the movie to be relatively (for a movie, and especially for a musical) accurate. *shrug* All eight of my great-grandparents came to the US from Russia or Lithuania, at about the time portrayed in the movie (which could be anytime from the 1880s to the 1910s, but given the signs of imminent revolution, probably closer the latter). The story of Fiddler -- minus all the cheesy stuff that I consider par for the course, and even entertaining, in a musical -- is MY family's story.
Well, except mine is more interesting, since it includes an anti-religious relative who tattled about his religious father's newspaper-printing to the authorities. Got him sent to Siberia.
And guess what. I still live in ways not so different from the villagers of Anatevka. I skip the apron, but I wear long skirts and sleeves, and I cover my hair. As I said to the mother of a student who unerringly picked me out of the audience at intermission of the performance I mentioned above (even though I had never met her in person before), "Well, I am the only person in the audience who looks like she belongs on stage."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, except mine is more interesting, since it includes an anti-religious relative who tattled about his religious father's newspaper-printing to the authorities. Got him sent to Siberia.
My great grandmother was from Eastern Poland and apparantly would literally spit on the ground whenever the word "Russian" was said in her presence.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Ayelar might easily be more offended if she watched the whole movie.
Well, yeah. I don't mean to take it to heart, but I mean that it would have more emotional impact.
Warning: Emotional impact is not always pleasant. But I admire effectiveness in story-telling. And even if you don't agree with Tevya's feelings, the movie does a great job of portraying them.
[ May 25, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
If we're talking about the emotional impact of a parent disagreeing with their daughter's 'interracial' marriage, I don't need no stinkin' musical to get a heavy dose of that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, then don't finish the movie. But the fact that it CAN have that emotional impact without cheap tricks or rants ups the quality quotient for me.
[ May 25, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I can understand that. And I'm sure that I would have enjoyed many of the elements of the story, had I been able to get past the huge glaring offensive problems with the filmmaking. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't help but wonder...if Jews-the people on whose behalf you are offended-are not, in fact, offended...doesn't that at least lessen the intensity of your reaction?
Now of course I realize it's very, very difficult (without some really widespread and specific polling, and even then) to say that a group of people spanning nations, ages, races, and politics, aren't offended as a whole by something. But if there was such polling done, and a substantial majority of Jews were not in fact offended, would you still be offended?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I can say that I probably wouldn't have been quite as offended had Mark not reacted so strongly to it. He is the Jew I know best.
However, even on my own, I would have been pretty upset. Just as I was when Disney's Mulan boiled down the ancient and solemn traditions of respecting one's ancestors to a shit-talking lizard.
There's a middle ground between portraying a culture 100% accurately at the risk of losing your audience, and destroying the culture to put your audience entirely at ease. There are plenty of ways to portray the culture as honestly and respectfully as you can while still finding the common ground between it and your audience.
[ May 25, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was wondering the same thing. I mean, if rivka isn't offended and that's basically her ancestors up there, doesn't that say your reaction may be more about you than about the film?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Out of curiosity, Ayelar, do you tend to go in more for auteur criticism/theory or genre criticism/theory?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I mean, if rivka isn't offended and that's basically her ancestors up there, doesn't that say your reaction may be more about you than about the film?
*shrug* Maybe it just means Rivka has seen the movie many many many times. I honestly have no memory of my FIRST reaction to it -- which would have been colored by the fact that I had previously read the Aleichem stories.
Anyway, I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else whether they ought to be offended or not -- regardless of their relationship to what's being depicted.
And I thought I had commented on this, but I must have only intended to do so:
quote: And I agree with rivka in disliking Yentl. Barbra Streisand totally ruined I.B. Singer's ending.
EXACTLY! The Singer story has its problems as well, but the movie made them worse AND added more problems. Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Tough question, saxon. In modern Hollywood cinema, I don't think it's possible to really choose one over the other. Maybe in the past, when the genre system was so strong that an individual director having personal themes invested in the film was rare, that wasn't the case.... but today, we've really come to expect any given director to be an "auteur". We want to know what to expect from "A John Woo Film" or "A Stephen Spielberg Film".
So whereas in the past you might have seen a stronger dichotomy between genre-driven themes vs. auteur-driven themes, today it's really going to be a mix of both for most mainstream films. Except, of course, for the worst drivel that didn't even need a director, just a trained team of monkeys.
[ May 25, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
The reason for my question is that I'm trying to get a better understanding of how you are approaching this film. I think that what you say is sort of true, but sort of untrue. I don't think we necessarily expect all directors to be an "auteur," just the ones we know about. Sure, we know what to expect from Steven Spielburg or M. Night Shyamalan, but do we really know what, say, Tony Scott's next film will be like? Some people probably do, but most probably don't. And that's not much different from saying that most of John Ford's movies were alike, and he was certainly entrenched in a genre.
Also, saying that most mainstream movies these days show a tendency toward genre themes is true, but it's because most mainstream movies these days are genre films. But most mainstream movies have always been genre films. The genres these days are just different.
You obviously recognize that the importance of acknowledging both approaches. I think that it's basically impossible to analyze a movie like Fiddler on the Roof outside the structure of its genre. It seems to me that a lot of your complaints about this film are really complaints about movie musicals in general. If the film lacks subtlety, well, almost all musicals lack subtlety. Musicals are just as much about spectacle as anything else, so over-the-top imagery and clumsy symbolism are to be expected. Fiddler certainly hits you over the head with Jewish imagery, but when you get past the singing and dancing and general movie musical stuff, you are left with what is, to me, a complex story with very human characters. In that respect, Fiddler is a much "deeper" film than most movie musicals. I mean, really, how much depth do Top Hat or Singin' in the Rain have?
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I saw it once, and was with a bunch of people who were theater people. They basically heckled the whole thing. I had a great time, but maybe not the best impression of the movie.
When they were listing the names of the stars, "Topol" came up on the screen, and my friend Scott said, "The smoker's tooth polish".
It went downhill from there.
Ron is a great singer, though, and he occasionally makes up songs on the go to make me laugh or something. He once made up about six songs that he called the Cat Opera when we moved into our first appt with our two cats. Most recently (and this is where there is some relevance to the thread, though maybe not much) was directly after seeing The Mothman Prophecies . It was sung to the tune of "If I were a Rich Man"
If I were a Mothman {insert semi-Yiddish scat} I would be a very scary Mothman Yabba dabba dabba dabba dabba dabba dabba do I would talk up at you from the sink...
It goes on from there, but the point is... There wasn't a point. Except that my husband rocks. Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Right, I think it's pretty clear that genre has been a huge force in Hollywood since the 30's... so the question is what role auteurs have had. I think that, now that it's studied by every toadie coming out of NYU and USC, auteur theory has become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The industry expects directors to be auteurs, tries to develop it when it isn't really there. How many films now credit some totally unknown director as the sole creator of the film? "A film BY Joe Schmoe", "A Joe Schmoe Film". Why are directors given such absolute unshakable control over a film, when screenwriters are considered disposable? I don't think it's right, but I do think it means that the idea of "genre theory vs. auteur theory" is becoming somewhat outdated for modern Hollywood.
As far as Fiddler merely playing within the confines of its genre... I've stated many times that I don't particularly appreciate the schlock and mindless spectacle of the Musicals. While there are classic movie musicals that I can sit through if I grit my teeth, and even a small handful that I can appreciate on some level, the general lack of strong, developing characters and a compelling fabula turn me off. Again, I hadn't realized that Fiddler was a film of this genre until after I started watching it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't believe the auteur theory at all - I don't credit it with ability to predict quality or to explain a film's ability to compel. In the floundering to find a hook to which disseminations could be attached, the director was the one settled upon, rather than a natural choice.
This is part of my frustration with most of artistic criticism in general. I simply don't believe it. I don't believe the methods and I don't subscribe to most of the central paradigms. Very annoying.
The Atlantic Monthly this month has an article claiming that touches on a claim that the 70s Renaissance of film can be more easily traced through the screenwriters than the directors. It's a compelling argument. Here it is. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I've stated many times that I don't particularly appreciate the schlock and mindless spectacle of the Musicals.
Would you say that, in general, you don't appreciate genre films?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
No, I wouldn't say that.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I didn't think you would say that. So, given that genres are defined by repeating forms and themes, what, to you, separates musicals from, say, westerns, gangster films, sci-fi films, horror films, or romantic comedies? I'm not trying to get you to like something you don't; I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.
Oh, and:
quote:the general lack of strong, developing characters and a compelling fabula turn me off
I know that you said the reason you didn't like Fiddler was because the method and manner it used to present Judaism was offensive, but I think you'd have a hard time judging whether a movie has strong, developing characters and a compelling fabula based on the first ten minutes or so. And, in my opinion, Fiddler does have those things.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'm still trying to figure out why you are complaining that the actors are "American." Topol's accent is out of place because it's Israeli, not American. And EVERYONE else speaks with a yiddish accent. (Yes even the daughters, although theirs are somewhat watered down).
What? You want the movie produced in Native Yiddish ala "The Passion of the Christ?"
I'll say it again: This movie was written by Jews, produced by Jews, starring Jews, for a largely Jewish audience.
It's not like "Blazing Saddles;" a movie produced by Jews, starring one Token Black, intended to satirize racism but which is extremely offensive to black people.
"Fidder" is like an anthem for most Jews. I don't think I've ever been to a Jewish wedding or Bar Mitzvah where "Sunrise Sunset" wasn't played.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Also, I'm thinking that a large part of why I had such a strong reaction to this film was the expectations that I had been given.
Oh, Ayelar that is SO true! High expectations have ruined many a pleasant movie experience for many a person. The first time I watched "Monty Python's Holy Grail" I *hated* it! You see, I grew up with my brothers quoting it, and they were always hilarious. The first time I watched it was *alone* and in the afternoon. It was soooo cheesy/corny/stupid! And my brothers were soooo much funnier than the movie.
Then the next time I saw it was at 3 am with a group of friends. I loved it! Totally different experience.
Many times I have hated a movie that was hyped up or really enjoyed a movie that people told me was awful. Beware watching a movie for the first time that you have only heard glowing reviews of.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I read this thread, but didn't have time to add my two cents until now.
I have played every daughter in Fiddler at one point or another. I'm still so sick of it that I'd probably run screaming from the room if it was on. I was never offended by it or knew anyone who was until this. I've actually never heard it played at any Bar Mitzvah or Jewish wedding. It was certainly banned from my wedding (every song from every musical was banned, too).
quote:I have ALWAYS heard "Fiddler" spoken of as a quintessentially Jewish story, a story as authentic to Jewish culture as you can get in film. Even Glenn Arnold above says: "It's generally felt that it sums up the Jewish experience quite well."
I really disagree. Bob summed it up well (of course):
quote:I mean, that's one of the beauties of Jewish culture -- not just its common traditions around the globe, but its rich and VARIED traditions from place to place, culture to culture.
The movie has very little personal resonance for me and my family (outside of the fact that it's about Jews and we're Jewish). My maternal Jewish great-grandparents were from Austria and England (my paternal Protestant great-grandparents were as WASPy as you could get - I'm eligible for membership in the DAR). Their experience was nothing like Tevye and Golde's. Andrew's maternal grandfather was from Russia, but his family owned a coal mine and lived a very different lifestyle.
You know, I had an experience that was kind of the opposite of rivka's. When I was playing Hodel in community theater in high school, the theater manager fussed at the director for not casting a Jewish girl in the part!!! My maiden name is Gardner and I don't look Eastern European, so he (like so many others before him) assumed that I was Gentile. All my life, people have assumed that I'm not Jewish and it's always really bothered me. People tell me in a complimentary manner that I don't look Jewish and never understand why I get offended. I was once engaged to a rabbi's son and there was an uproar because everyone assumed I was Gentile. In college, I went to some JSU event and I received a lot of attention from the gentlemen there. I went to the ladies' room and overheard two girls talking about me. "They only like her because she looks like a shiksa." Shiksa is a Yiddish term for a Gentile woman and it's generally not used in a complementary manner. It certainly wasn't in this case and it really hurt my feelings. Although Judaism can be called an ethnicity, there is no Jewish look. We come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. You'd never hear someone say to dkw, "Gosh, you don't look Methodist."
[/rant]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I loved Fiddler on the Roof growing up. So did my family. And not only are we jewish, but we're also Russian. We came over to America when i was a child. I know that regardless of how accurate everything is in the movie, it resonated very personally with me as a child, and though i haven't seen it in years, probably still would, if only for the fact that it seemed such an important part of my childhood. I almost considered it part of my jewish heritage.
Or maybe I was young and just thought it was cool because i was a Russian Jew and it was about Russian Jews.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
. . . although I admit that parts of it were awful. And I've never felt the need to see it again.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)