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.
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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!"
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
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.
posted
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."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
