posted
Out of curiosity, Ayelar, do you tend to go in more for auteur criticism/theory or genre criticism/theory?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Except that my husband rocks. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
