July 18, 2017

Judaism and Nostalgia in Summer Blockbuster Movies

Posted in Judaism, Pop Culture at 11:58 pm by chavalah

Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, charging into the fray

I’m not sure I’ll be going to the theater for any more blockbusters this summer. There’s the visually stunning Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets coming out this week, but my mind is already wrapped tightly around another story. 😛 (I also saw the Guardians of the Galaxy movie, too and my response is eh, cute. :P)

My interest in superhero franchises is almost nonexistent and DC properties rank lower in my mind than Marvel ones (this is probably my favorite clip of all time about Superman. And also from one of my favorite movies of all time, but I digress.) But like many other people, I took an interest in the new Wonder Woman movie. It was the first film of its kind in years with a female at the lead, and that female lead was Gal Gadot, a Jewish Israeli actress.

I’m always up for a story that focuses on a strong female character (mileage may vary on what that phrase means, but more on that later.) I was also charmed and disconcerted when my non-Jewish Wonder Woman-loving friends giddily linked to this article, say. For a brief period of time, it was like Israel could be just another place, privy to benign attraction whenever one of it’s people intersected with the broader world (and then this happened to bring me back to reality, which I suppose is even more incentive for me to live in Wonder Woman-land for a little while longer.)

The movie premise, as expected, didn’t really do much for me. DC superhero aficionados were thrilled that the cynical, bleak cast of recent Batman and Superman films had faded away to something more “old school” about a mega human choosing to fight the good fight. I’m not much of a fan of lauding fighting as an unquestionable good because I also don’t believe in a world of mustache-twirling villains (though–spoiler alert!–turns out that humans aren’t slaves to the villainous God of War after all, and are often willing participants in worldwide destruction.) I mean, this comes back to my antipathy with the superhero mythos; it doesn’t speak to me, or the issues that I like to see explored in speculative fiction. Star Wars and Harry Potter might have the “chosen one” and even a mustache-twirling villain or two, but those stories are told through the lens of fantasy, and their worlds and characters are much more developed, imho.

The human elements, as always, were the most compelling to me. Personally I think Gal Gadot and Chris Pine’s chemistry was a little hot and cold (I might be too nitpicky) but it’s obvious that she had to feel a connection to him in order to thereby be connected to all humans. The side characters weren’t developed past their archetypes, but still they stood as a reminder of a more complicated world. A world where, in 1918, a brown man fights because he can’t be an actor. And more intriguingly, a world where perhaps no group of humans are all good or all bad, because as we’re reminded, Native American Chief Napi’s people were oppressed by “good guy” Steve Trevor aka Chris Pine’s people. Yet here, in The Great War, they find common ground. That’s the optimistic message that I can get behind.

Since personally I don’t relate all that much to Wonder Woman’s kick ass physical skills (other than my mixed response to the idealized female Israeli sabra from the perspective of an American woman of the tribe, but that’s a whole other ball of wax), I’ll return to what I do connect to–Gal Gadot’s Jewishness. Among all the hoopla came a sudden controversy about whether or not Gal Gadot, and by extension all Ashkenazi Jews, are white. It’s a complicated mire, though perhaps I can distill my opinion succinctly–in considering the idea of “whiteness” as privilege, which I believe is its usual distinction, then Ashkenazi Jews have indeed been “white” in the US, Israel and elsewhere. They are certainly almost always perceived as white simply going by skin tone, unlike Judaism, which can’t always be “perceived” on sight. But Ashkenazi Jews have also been oppressed and seen as “non-white,” particularly in Europe. Gal Gadot’s own grandparents were Holocaust survivors, which means her own personal history is partially defined by persecution, marginalization and refugee status. Tl;dr–diverse representation, particularly along racial lines, is important; ethnic identity is complicated. And I wish that more people didn’t see things in simplistic terms, but maybe that’s what I get for wandering into a superhero movie. 😛

Though perhaps to end on a more conciliatory note, I’ll point out that the Nice Jewish Fangirls podcast pointed out that this whole “fight for justice” theme kind of fits in with the Jewish idea of tikkun olam, aka fixing the world. They’re big fans of the movie and have a lot of interesting stuff to say, so check them out!

***

Old fandom loves die hard

In far less critically acclaimed news, I also took a gander at the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I probably would have ignored it altogether if I didn’t ultimately get confirmation that Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly would be reprising their roles. But they were, and old fandom flames were re-ignited!

Film did a good job of tricking us in the beginning. They had Will’s young son, Henry (Brenton Thwaites), try to rescue his father from the curse of Davy Jones, only to be turned away. Obviously it was a set up for Henry to grow into a young man on a quest, but sadly that whole plot was sidelined. Instead, we were privy to the same tired jokes and slapstick humor involving Captain Jack’s (Johnny Depp) exploits, which already felt a little stale. We got a new magical maguffin, more overwrought Jack backstory (honestly, do we need to know the provenance of his hat?), a tepid romance with an underdeveloped character in Kaya Scodelario, and a completely flat attempt at an emotional arc for Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush.) Disregarding all of the contradictory information (like why was Will turning fishy if he was keeping up his end of the bargain?) why not just focus on the Turner drama?? Elizabeth didn’t even get any lines, and barely a walk on, after test audiences demanded her presence. Sigh. It was like Mark Hamill in The Force Awakens all over again. 😛

But beyond all of that, what I really wanted after a 10 year hiatus since movie three was a better, more romantic ending for Will and Elizabeth! And I got that! Well, kinda. There’s a little bit of an easter egg at the end, and…I won’t go into spoilers just in case Pirates 6 gets made. Guess that depends on box office numbers (I hear the movie made more of a splash overseas than here) and whether or not they can get Johnny back on board. Probably depends on which other celebrity he can share a cameo with. In this one, it was Paul McCartney. 😛

Either way I’m expecting it to be bad…but if Orlando and Keira are in it, you can bet your pirate monkeys I’m the sucker that Disney can cater to. :”> I’ll just go skulk off to the corner now.


But I’m going to take a little bit of a tougher stance with Disney regarding the recently released A Wrinkle In Time photos. (Now there’s a teaser trailer, too!) Storm Reid and Levi Miller look great as Meg and Calvin, but what’s with the three witches? I suppose it’s too much to ask for anything else from a slick Disney production, but their outfits are Hollywood glam. Not at all the awkward, frumpy attire of three bemused aliens stealing sheets from the line and pretending, badly, to fit in with humans. These pictures strip away the gritty realism from the book, alas. It’s not enough to make me not see the film (nor is the fact that Chris Pine looks his age, and not old enough to be the father of a teenager,) but I’m starting to think that this book can’t really be adapted. At least not by a corporation with all of their glitz and glamour. Alas. The film comes out in March 2018, and I still expect it to be much better than the 2003 mess, so there’s that. 😛 Huzzah.

June 25, 2017

Winter/Spring 2017 TV: (The Leftovers, The Young Pope, Big Little Lies, The Expanse)

Posted in Italy, Judaism, Pop Culture at 1:06 pm by chavalah

So much Christian content in my tv lately. Enough to make me wanna buy a subscription to The Jewish Channel. 😛

I’m a month later than last year in making this post, though the Game of Thrones schedule has changed, too, so I guess that’s my excuse. 😛

As is custom, HBO dominates most of my tv habits. Starting in February and ending earlier this month, I routinely watched their Sunday night 9 pm programming. And I have a little bit of a quibble. The male-centric stories–The Young Pope and The Leftovers revolve around dudes with god complexes, and are generally lauded as prestige television. The female-centric Big Little Lies is seen more like fluff. I’m not gonna leave that statement there without examining it more fully, but as a gut instinct it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Mixing my metaphors here. 😛

The Young Pope

I’ll start with my least favorite. Ultimately, I don’t think this show did much for me. I loved the chance to see Italy, insofar as it was presented, as the primary backdrop, I appreciated the chance to showcase non-US or UK actors like Silvio Orlando who played a compelling Cardinal, and I was particularly intrigued by Diane Keaton’s unusual turn as the taciturn Sister Mary.

Some people liked creator/director Paulo Sorrentino’s surreal style, but I found it to be a little grating. The premise seems to be somewhat twofold–a spoiled little boy is elected Pope, throws big tantrums and makes everybody’s lives hell because his parents abandoned him and now he has the power for global payback. Then, after a remarkably racist episode set in Africa, where he schools a fictitious, unnamed country in the merits of compassion and justice, he slowly takes his own lessons to heart. Having finally “grown up,” the series ends on an ambiguous note of–did he see his folks in the crowd while delivering a homily in Venice? (And did he survive said experience??)

It’s an annoying, egotistical conceit. Jude Law can’t just be playing a random dude with abandonment issues–he has to be THE POPE. The women in Big Little Lies are dealing with similarly big life issues like adultery, spousal abuse and rape, but none of them get to be High Priestess of Avalon. Which I suppose is also a remark on the lack of women in the highest echelons of most religions, but still–their problems aren’t seen as any bigger than the problems of any normal human.

Perhaps the episode that held the most promise for me was the penultimate one, where we follow Cardinal Gutierrez (Javier Cámara) to New York where he’s arrived to apprehend a pedophile priest. We meet the priest, who of course was abused himself as a child, and also an obese sickly woman whom Gutierrez is counseling. They had the promise of being compelling characters but we spent so little time with them, and Sorrentino made so much out of melodramatic music and vague flashbacks that they ultimately felt more like caricatures.

As a Jew, I admit that the saints and miracle-workers that populated this story just aren’t my bag, baby, so maybe it’s a subjective disconnect. I found this show to be disjointed and underwhelming in theme. Holding out hope that maybe HBO will pick up another Italian project in the future–well, there’s “season two” of this, The New Pope, but I’m not sure I’ll watch. Meh.

Big Little Lies

Based on a novel by Liane Moriarty, there’s no doubt that this story is a little bit fluffy. Or maybe it’s a matter of perspective; I haven’t read the book myself, but my mother found it to be relatively beach ready after getting through the harrowing Homegoing by Yaa Gyasi.

I think that a lot of this has to do with format and setting. The format is very plot based; we start with a murder, so the question of “whodunnit?” (also “who’s the victim?”) looms large over the narrative. It’s a puzzle to be solved, which sometimes eclipses the natural progression of the character arcs. A last minute shocker reveal about two seeming strangers with an shared past proves very convenient. Also, the story takes place in a rich suburb of Monterey, and despite any real world issues, we’re constantly reminded of the privilege and frivolity that pervades these peoples’ lives. Plus, there is so much gossip and backstabbing that after awhile, I really wanted to put somebody’s eye out.

The ending is also a little pat, with all of the main characters, some of them enemies, coming together to say goodbye to the murder investigation with a picnic on the beach. Didn’t really feel deserved.

I was intrigued with how they handled the spousal abuse storyline. I’m used to the one-dimensional Lifetime approach, where an innocent woman is duped by a sadistic man who shows his true colors when it’s too late. Here, Nicole Kidman and Alexander Skarsgård have built a more complicated set of rituals and denials around what’s happening. Meanwhile the therapist calls bullshit, so the show isn’t excusing said abuse. It just feels more real–all the way down to how it affects their seemingly oblivious kids.

Shailene Woodley gives a tense and masterful performance as the vulnerable single mother and rape victim of the story, to the point that I could barely recognize her in scenes with her antagonist, Laura Dern (who also played Woodley’s own doting mother in The Fault in Our Stars. Talk about some dissociation! :P) And speaking of Woodley, her Divergent co-star Zoë Kravitz, also gets to play with a more complicated role as Reese Witherspoon’s sorta rival.

Oh, Reese. 😛 From the trailers I was afraid that her character would be the Regina George of the bunch, but actually she’s far more layered. Jealous and possessive, Type A driven, definitely flawed–and depressed about her college-aged daughter moving physically and emotionally away from her. I liked the idea that her marriage is on the rocks because she and her husband have different sexual needs and general drives, and I was disappointed when the show introduced the affair subplot. Alas.

Still, I found this to be an enjoyable miniseries. And more refreshing than male gods–we focus on the lives of female humans. 😛 I’d like more of this, please.

The Leftovers

Loosely based on the Tom Perrotta novel, The Leftovers is probably the most thoughtful, best realized show on this list (and I say this while deeply disliking aspects! :P) But in touching how abandonment and loss of faith touch a particular set of people, it’s quite powerful.

I’ve written in some depth about season one and season two, though I’ll have to rehash some bits in order to come to terms with the final season.

Quick recap: 2% of the world’s population disappears and the show revolves, sorta, around the 98% of leftovers trying to make sense of it all. I say “sorta” because in season two, I came to terms with the fact that this isn’t a maxmist story about how everyone deals, but rather a very minimalist one about a how a small sliver of familiar middle class white Christian folks deal with it. (Departure is a very flimsy cover for “Rapture.”) On the plus side, I do love delving deep into a few characters. So this season I made my peace with the Kevin=messiah mishegas, because at least his surreal journeys to the afterlife were funny, and I liked how the Australian character, Grace (Lindsay Duncan) related to that hoe down.

I’m still disappointed in all of the dropped threads–like the tense relationship between Jill (Margaret Qualley) and Laurie (Amy Brennerman), the mother who abandoned her in season one. Last season was unique for bringing in a fully realized African American family, the Murphys, but this season they were incredibly sidelined. And more generally, I dislike how the drama on this show is always pushed TO THE MAX, like how Kevin, Sr. (Scott Glenn) can’t even ask a random guy for directions without said guy setting himself on fire.

The inciting incident of this season, set seven years after “The Departure,” is that Reverend Matt (Christopher Eccleston) promises that a great Noah-like flood will come, and only Messiah Kevin (Justin Theroux) can save them. The cast ends up in Australia because Nora, Kevin’s girlfriend (Carrie Coon) wants to expose a fraud where some scientists are claiming they can send survivors to where the Departed went. Equally as likely, she wants to hitch a ride to her Departed children.

So I’ve made my peace with the Christian elements, but then this year they go off and appropriate different religious observances. In “Crazy Whitefella Thinking,” Kevin, Sr. hops around Australia recording aboriginal songs because he’s sure they will stop the flood. We get very little insight into the cultures of these real tribes. Then, in “It’s a Matt Matt, Matt World,” the show uses some Yom Kippur liturgy to bolster Matt’s character arc. Don’t get me wrong; he’s one of the more complicated characters on the show (egotistical yet vulnerable. Plus he gets a goodbye scene with his sister, Nora, in the finale that I’m desperate to have reproduced on Game of Thrones before the White Walkers kill the remaining Stark children /wibble). But obviously that liturgy is meant for a very different, very somber, very community-oriented purpose than Matt’s personal tsuris.

But I’ve come to the conclusion that Nora is my favorite character, and so the final scene is a real winner for me. One thing that I think The Leftovers does exceedingly well is dole out character-enlightening monologues. Nora’s final monologue, all about the need for and fragility of human connections, gave me major Mockingjay finale vibes. Also, her description of “the Departed” land made me desperate to reread Station Eleven. I think it’s still on my dad’s nightstand. 😛

So I dunno, if the destination and many parts of the journey are an indication, then this is the best show on here. I’m definitely glad that I stuck with it; was an interesting, if bumpy, ride.


Admittedly, I’m a sucker for taglines like this.

The Expanse

Shockingly enough, I turned away from HBO for a brief period of time–and to the SyFy Channel! 😮 I hadn’t really watched them since they were the SciFi Channel! 😛

OK, so I tried this show last year and gave up halfway through season one. I didn’t find it to be that compelling, and I think the reason for that was because of the framing story–a noir detective search for a missing girl. The girl, Julie, (Florence Faivre) wasn’t a character in her own right, but rather a spark to set off the plot. Basically: a few hundred years into the future, humans on Earth and Mars are locked in combat, and our fellows living in the asteroid belt are caught in the middle. But there’s a sudden new, scary weapon of mass destruction (discovered at the end of the Julie arc), and most of our main characters, a Firefly-like crew of diverse folks, have to speak truth to power.

But in season two the plot is in motion, and I could focus on the consequences and the other characters. We are introduced to Bobbie Draper (Frankie Adams) who has a rather age-worn character arc of being a militant who has to reassess her values when she finds out that her planet’s government isn’t as noble as she’d like to believe. But at least it’s her arc; she isn’t just part of someone else’s.

I also really liked the budding romance between Jim (Steven Strait) and Naomi (Dominique Tipper), even when I shouldn’t have because Jim’s in the midst of the standard “good boy exposed to bad situations, losing his moral compass” bit. But the end of season two ends on a far more ethically ambiguous note for both of them.

One of the reasons I wanted to watch the show in the first place was because of Shohreh Aghdashloo, who plays a shrewd Earth diplomat. She seems like a far more complicated character this year, so yay. And finally, I’m a sucker for a geeky, botanist dad (Terry Chen) trying to save his young daughter. Goes without saying that this show already has a refreshingly diverse cast.

Ultimately I’m not sure that the characters transcend the roles assigned to them by the needs of the plot, but I love the themes of this show. How much does allegiance to home planet (or Belt) define you? Where is the line between right and wrong? We might be stepping into very Game of Thrones territory here, where the consequences of war far outstrip the players.

This is based on an ongoing series of science fiction books by James S.A. Corey; one of several options that I’m quibbling about starting. Time to get out my hashtag–#SoMuchToRead! Am I a bad book nerd if I just let the television show tell the story to me? :/ Alas. It’ll be back on air sometime in 2018.

April 14, 2017

5777: My First Hosted Passover Seder!

Posted in Judaism at 10:03 pm by chavalah

My Seder set up!

I’ve had it in my head for a couple of years that I wanted to host my own Passover Seder. But plans always came up to divert me. Instead I’d spend the holiday with my interfaith and assimilated family, and any attempt at a Seder pretty much fell apart immediately. Last year I found a one-page “Haggadah” online, and even that we couldn’t seem to get through.

As I’ve assumed some Jewish practice as an adult, Passover remained my sore spot. It’s a family holiday, and my memories of robust family Seders ended in childhood. And I was mostly bored by religious ritual then, so I mostly remember leaving the table and heading off to play.

So this was my year to reclaim the holiday! This was my year of coming home. I sent my parents an evite, knowing that I could coerce them to at least follow some of the rituals, and we had our Seder Sunday evening, the day before Passover 5777 began. I’m not pretending to be traditional here. 😛

Even though I didn’t chase after hametz with a feather, my condo is about 75% comprised of cat fur, so I did have to embrace some serious cleaning. Opening my home, even to my parents, was an apprehensive task for me. I live alone, and can’t say that I’ve ever “entertained” guests in the formal way. Here again I differ from my family, who clean house and cook meals for people during at least one festive holiday per year. I decided that if Passover was important to me, and Passover is very much about community, this would be the time for me to join their ranks.

Like with most holiday preparations, it was a stressful experience. My parents ended up arriving an hour and a half late and I had barely started cooking. I had to run to CVS for some chicken broth while my mom rolled my matzah balls into boiling water; the soup ended up rather tasteless (though the matzah balls were great! :P) And my dad graciously tipped my Ikea table onto its side to tighten some seriously loose screws, and then he got out the big vacuum for some final de-furring. My cat stayed in the bedroom, having exhausted her curiosity about why I’d pulled said table away from the wall in the first place.

My biggest accomplishment of the day was obtaining a free shank bone from Whole Foods, after I asked customer service about an obscure 2012 blog post I’d read half an hour earlier. I also printed out some supplemental reading from HIAS, the American Jewish World Service and a page from The Five Books of Miriam edited by Ellen Frankel.

My mom brought the Seder plate, some homemade charoset, and our Reconstructionist Haggadah. We skipped through the book, playing a little hodge podge with the ceremonial rituals, and focusing on responsive readings that spoke to us about the holiday. My mom and I sang the four questions in Hebrew, and my dad read in English. We told the story of the Exodus in our own words as the natural light shifted and my cat came out to meow for food. Then we sang a few songs, cleared the table and washed dishes, talked about other things, and my folks headed home.

Despite the preparation anxieties of the weekend, which honestly feel as much part of the experience as the Seder itself, I’d call this a success. The food was (mostly) good, and our religious content was casual but meaningful. I felt connected to my family, to my heritage, and even to myself in the ways that I hoped I would. Taking on the mantle of Passover meant that I had to take responsibility for my religious identity in a new way. This wasn’t about sitting in a pew in synagogue, but about leading the festivities, like Miriam with her tambourine by the Red Sea. OK, maybe not that significant, but you get the idea. 😛

Best of all, my parents said that they enjoyed themselves, too. It’s all well and good that I wanted to do this for myself, but to be a noteworthy host, I also had to bring something to the guests. I feel like something changed in me by opening my home to others, even if it was just my own parents. To practice Judaism fully, you have to share your life with your family, your community. Sometimes, you have to be the leader in things that matter to you. And I don’t need to be afraid of those steps anymore.

Chag sameach, everyone. Next year in my condo. 😛

March 21, 2017

Latest Pop Culture Jewish Ruminations (Mostly a Review of “X-Men: Apocalypse”) :P

Posted in Judaism, Pop Culture at 11:36 pm by chavalah

Erik (Michael Fassbender) confronts Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) at Auschwitz

Does God exist? And if “He” does, why does He allow mass crimes against humanity to be perpetrated against His people?

These are the questions, asked in an explicitly Jewish way, that captured my attention most while watching X-Men: Apocalypse. A little background–yes, I saw it in theatres, but the constant barrage on HBO has me thinking about it again. 😛

The three X-Men reboot movies have all essentially been about the same thing. Even though this film is ostensibly about a Bronze Age demigod attempting to gain omniscience and destroy/rebuild the world in his image, it’s REALLY about Erik’s neverending distrust of humanity and pull towards the dark side. Apparently losing his family to the Holocaust was a little too retro for the third time, so the story fridges a sudden wife and daughter instead, in order to nudge Erik from quiet country life into vengeful mass murderer again.

Except that this film does deal heavily in the Holocaust, and in the most real and visceral way that I’ve ever seen, at least in a big genre blockbuster. Erik and Oscar Isaac’s character, who is basically the closest we come to God, act out a pantomime at Auschwitz that is uncomfortably familiar to me as a Jew who has learned about the genocide since being a little girl, and has listened to survivors. It’s a conversation that even those of us born years after the Holocaust ended have had in our heads.

The scene starts with Apocalypse taking Erik to Auschwitz and saying “this is where your people were slaughtered,” which strikes me as a very particular sort of framing. Not all of “the people” were slaughtered after all; many of us lived on, l’dor va’dor, from generation to generation. But for many survivors, and perhaps others pondering the enormity of the Holocaust, the Jewish people ended in those gas chambers and mass graves. In the 1980s, Erik is living in his native Poland, but he doesn’t appear to be leading a Jewish life aside from singing Yiddish lullabies to his daughter. Obviously the macro character arc for Magneto is predicated upon the loss of his entire identity as a child, leading him to embrace an extremist mutant ideology.

Then, Apocalypse and Erik move on to a God/Man struggle talk, which would not feel out of place in the Bible. Apocalypse introduces himself by several monikers, which hearkens back to the Jewish belief that we can’t know the one true name of God so we call God by many names, including “Shem” and “Elohim,” both of which Apocalypse ticks off. Erik then asks Apocalypse, well if you are God, WHERE WERE YOU when this was happening, and Apocalypse answers that he was sleeping. The answer really isn’t as important as the question concerning what sort of magnanimous God would allow the Holocaust, or any other form of genocide or crime against humanity, to happen. The issue is of course much more complicated than the movie makes it out to be, because Apocalypse is merely a character with an agenda to tap into Erik’s rage. But the fact that this conversation takes place at all, between a Jewish man and a godlike figure, has been niggling at me in a Jewish identity sort of way. Not sure what this means…except that this largely insipid action film moved me very personally for about five minutes. Not to say that I hated the rest of the experience; just…eh.

***

Stray observations:

Did anyone else think that Apocalypse may in fact be the unintentional good guy when he made the world’s nukes go away? He even referenced the Bible again with the Tower of Babel story–“You can fire your arrows from the Tower of Babel, but you can never strike God!” An ungenerous reading of the Tower of Babel story paints God as jealous of human industry, and therefore scatters us so that we don’t get too smart. But human smarts have led in part to these possible Earth-destroying weapons of mass destruction–just saying I’d be cool with a supernatural force intervening to say “yeah, no, this shit won’t fly.” 😛

I try not to be a sucker for romance (I don’t really think most of the characters in this franchise are developed enough for that anyway) but I got the feels when Charles (James McAvoy) told Moira (Rose Bryne) “I’m on a beach…in Cuba…with you.” Hearkened back to the first (and strongest) reboot movie, though you kinda have to ignore that he’d stolen her memories from her for the past 20 years. :/ Also that no one had aged much in that time. 😛

THE major reason that I went to see this film in theatres was that I was hoping that Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) would have ONE conversation together. This was accomplished through a five minute back and forth about fear in the face of danger, with the dude characters constantly interjecting. 😦

Possibly my least favorite part of the film: the sexual tension between Logan and Jean Grey. Ugh, I’ve endured SIX YEARS of Aiden Gillen perving on Sophie Turner via Game of Thrones, ever since she was like 13-14 years old; I do not NEED this here. Please, someday, let me see a Sophie Turner project where someone old enough to be her father is NOT hitting on her. 😛

I’ve seen some comparisons concerning Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique role in this film to her Katniss Everdeen role. Apparently, since the events of the last film, she’s seen by many young people as some sort of folk hero, and like Katniss, she’s not comfortable with the attention. The main difference being that superhero Mystique, largely on her own, decided last minute to NOT partake in a political assassination; and human Katniss, largely manipulated by government agents and propaganda forces beyond her control, was picked to be the figurehead of a revolution. It’s interesting, though, that in this movie, they gave Mystique a Katniss-like prickly, reclusive loner vibe. Overall I find Mystique’s character to be pretty underwhelming. The X-Men movies are mostly the Wolverine show with a side dish of Erik and Charles debating the nature of humanity. But at least I got to add to my quota of constantly referencing The Hunger Games. 😀 Score!


Book cover

Moving to a largely unrelated note, but this is my blog, after all. 😛 I’ve slowly been getting into reading more recent science fiction books, and my latest conquest was Planetfall by Emma Newman. It’s been on my mind a lot–it’s the story of a woman, Ren, who, along with a thousand others, follows her close friend-turned-prophet off of Earth and onto an alien planet where she’s convinced that she will find God. It’s actually pretty low on the religion and pretty high on the science, except that this isn’t what drew me into the book.

The novel is a character study about Ren, our unreliable narrator who is dealing with an anxiety disorder. The plot jumpstarts with a mysterious stranger coming to town who inevitably unravels several colony secrets, but it’s a very interior novel. It’s also a bit about the search for meaning, if not outright the search for God. (Said prophet, it should be said, is actually shunted into a Moses narrative; by the time the book starts, most of her compatriots are waiting for her to “come down from Sinai,” as it were.)

Still, I can’t help but hold this book up against my occasionally explored “Jews in space” theory, and I wonder if what this is telling me is that we wouldn’t invariably go to space, at least not to find God. God, for us, is very tied up in our history, which is very tied into Earth, Jerusalem in particular. Even if we don’t go to space for religious reasons, could most (heavily identified or practicing) Jews bear to leave Jerusalem so far behind? (Now perhaps would be a good time to quote the Psalms. Or Yehuda Amichai. :P)

Before I go too off the rails here, I guess I’ll end by pointing out that Newman has written a companion book to Planetfall–it’s called After Atlas. I’ll need to get to it sooner or later…there’s just so much to read! Oy.

February 19, 2017

The Movie “Denial” and “Alternative Facts”

Posted in Judaism, Pop Culture at 11:16 pm by chavalah

I’m not attacking freedom of speech. I’ve been defending my right to stand up against someone who wants to pervert the truth.

Rachel Weisz, Tom Wikinson and Timothy Spall in the promotional photo

Rachel Weisz, Tom Wikinson and Timothy Spall in the promotional photo

Undoubtedly the social justice-oriented movie most on my mind this Academy Awards season is the based-on-history film Denial. No, it’s not up for any Oscars, and I’m not here to argue about that. I’m perfectly happy for Hidden Figures to take home that top prize. But Denial, which chronicles Holocaust denier David Irving’s libel case against Jewish historian Deborah Lipdstadt, speaks heavily to these modern times.

When Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway first spun the term “alternative facts,” my mind immediately went to Holocaust denial. Later, of course, the Trump administration would omit mention of the Jews from their statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which Lipdstadt herself would term in an Atlantic editorial as “softcore denial.” Actually, this whole debacle brought into sharp focus for me the “alternative fact” propagated by Simon Wiesenthal some 70 years ago in order to engender Gentile support for Holocaust remembrance–that 5 million non-Jews were targeted for genocide next to the six million Jews. This line of thinking could take me down a rabbit hole about how the Jewish narrative is often tweaked–even by ourselves–to appease Gentile sensibilities, but I think I’ll stop myself. 😛

What skills do we have to combat these “alternative facts”–or to use the more honest term, these lies? Rachel Weisz, who plays Lipdstadt in the movie, has these compelling lines: “Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can’t do is lie and expect not to be accountable for it.” There’s a difference between quantifiable facts–like that the Holocaust happened or that climate change is real–and opinions, such as one’s preference for movies up for Academy Awards.

That’s not to say that there aren’t conflicting ways to get to the truth. My favorite part of the movie, and the part that challenged me most, was the way to fight this libel suit. The lawyers wanted to focus on discrediting Irving and highlighting his antisemitic agenda in a rational, almost detached way, where Lipdstadt focused on the emotional appeal, and fought futilely for some Auschwitz survivors to testify on behalf of the dead. Auschwitz, where one million Jews were killed, was the focus of the trial. When the Nazis realized that their cause was lost, they destroyed the gas chambers to circumvent evidence of what they did there. There is, of course, testimony from collaborators and survivors, as well as scientific inference from what remains, but deniers use the lack of a proverbial smoking gun to spout their propaganda.

Even in today’s hyper-documented world, dangerous conspiracy theories about science, different minority groups, and etc abound. Political leaders in various parts of the globe are denigrating the press in the hopes of blurring the concepts of “fact” and “opinion.” Historians, scientists and others are being compared to politicians and bigots with biased agendas in order to create the idea of “alternative facts.” This movie was a beacon of light to me about the still-powerful call to real truth.

October 11, 2016

Elena Ferrante and the Meaning of Apologies this Yom Kippur

Posted in Italy, Judaism, Pop Culture at 1:49 am by chavalah

One of few people who actually likes the Neapolitan covers. :P

One of few people who actually likes the Neapolitan covers. 😛

Before I start, a quick note of remembrance for the recent Jerusalem shooting victims, Levana Malichi and Yosef Kirme. May their memories be for a blessing.

Yom Kippur starts this evening, and in preparation I listened to the Unorthodox apologies podcast. They covered a lot of great ground, including how to make a good apology, and Georgetown’s efforts to reach out to the descendants of those they’ve wronged. But what caught my attention most was a barely expressed argument between two hosts of differing political views, about the nature of public shaming. Liel Leibowitz, who is basically the right of center voice of the show, posited the question whether public apologies meant anything anymore in this hypersensitive “politically correct” environment.

I wrote in my last post that I was concerned about some members of the Left using the idea of “identity politics” (NOT “political correctness,” which I’ll get to in a jiffy) to quiet or even shame voices of dissent about complex issues. But I’m more concerned about some members of the Right misusing the phrase “politically correct” so that they can play the victim card instead of holding themselves accountable to other people. Because one of the things we should all apologize for, imho, is not always treating others with respect, and that’s exactly what “political correctness” actually means.

This past week, the sensational news has revolved around a leaked recording of the Republican presidential candidate making statements about sexually assaulting women. He “apologized” for his past behavior, but those of us who have gone through the Days of Awe should understand that his apology isn’t genuine. Instead of focusing on his wrongdoing, he’s trying to shift negative attention to others.

Later, during the latest Presidential debate, he tried to dismiss his actions by saying “they’re just words” and words can’t harm us. I’ve heard this excuse from other people as well, and it seems like a poor way to try and sidestep the higher integrity of just treating people with respect. As a Jew, a reader and a writer, I know that words have power. The more society normalizes making hateful comments about people based on gender, race, religion, sexuality and etc, the more we live in a world without empathy. And then what’s the point of giving a fuck how we treat each other, physically or mentally? Maybe we Jews don’t need to worry about Yom Kippur, or the Book of Life.

What does it mean to hurt someone with words? Another example on my mind, albeit less serious than the issue of sexual assault, has to do with another sensational story from last week—the outing of Italian novelist Elena Ferrante’s real identity.

I’ve been a fan of Ferrante’s writing for years. And I know we live in a celebrity-obsessed culture, but I never wanted to know her identity. Perhaps I romanticized the ideal that an author could get away with being known more for her work than for her marketing. Either way, this public doxxing strikes me as remarkably petty, the work of a sleuth conflating “journalism” with carrying out a bit of a vendetta. He claimed that he resented Ferrante possibly using fictionalized elements in her memoir, but she’s a novelist, not a politician running for office. Why should his disagreement with her lawful actions justify infringing on her privacy? Why can’t Elena Ferrante be allowed to be successful on her own terms?

For me it comes down to entitlement—feeling entitled to infringe on someone’s privacy if you disagree with some of her decisions, or feeling entitled to use hateful words against others. Don’t downplay it by whining about “political correctness.” To truly apologize is to have humility, and to respect that we owe dignity to a world that is larger than ourselves. This is the lesson that I hope to take with me into 5777.

G’mar Chatimah Tova.

September 26, 2016

5776 in News of the Jews

Posted in Interfaith, Judaism, Pop Culture at 1:04 am by chavalah

Rosh Hashanah, my favorite holiday, will soon be upon us. It’s a time to reflect and change, rejuvenate and grow, as individuals and as a community.

This blog post is part of my way of doing that. It’s in no way a conclusive list of any and all world events that affected the Jews, but they are the ones that touch me the most personally. I’ve divided this entry into four parts—three broader events, and one that pertains more to my own life.

Black Lives Matter/Israeli “Genocide”

Definitely a significant issue for our community this year. On August 1, a coalition or organizations dedicated to the Black Lives Matter movement published a platform of demands to the U.S. government, including the end of financial aid to Israel, citing it’s “genocide” of Palestinian people. Reaction was swift across the Jewish world, with too many sources to cite here. Tablet Magazine, in my humble opinion, did an amiable job of collecting varied reactions from a variety of sources, including a call to the Jewish community to participate more fully in BLM activism before criticizing the movement.

The one that uplifted me most at the time came from T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights. While praising BLM for their needed advocacy in defending Black lives, and also the lives of Palestinians under occupation, they question BLM’s controversial ally, the BDS movement, and they criticize the one-sided outlook on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They say:

The military occupation does not rise to the level of genocide—a term defined as “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” While we agree that the occupation violates the human rights of Palestinians, and has caused too many deaths, the Israeli government is not carrying out a plan intended to wipe out the Palestinians. There is no basis for comparing this situation to the genocides of the 20th century, such as those in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda, or Armenia, or the Nazi Holocaust in Europe, each of which constituted a calculated plan to destroy specific groups, and each of which killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people. The Black Lives Matter platform also does not address the use of violence by some Palestinians, including the rocket attacks against civilians that Human Rights Watch has classified as a war crime. One can vigorously oppose occupation without resorting to terms such as “genocide,” and without ignoring the human rights violations of terrorist groups such as Hamas.

Like many Jews, I am a staunch progressive who wants to create safe spaces for marginalized groups. I am depressed that for some members of the Left playing the Identity Politics game, it is now ok to ignore the centuries of European and Middle Eastern antisemitism that have shaped the Jewish reality, especially in Israel. They have instead relabeled us as “white colonialists.” But that doesn’t negate the absolute necessity in standing up for Black lives. Black people have been systematically discriminated against ever since arriving in this country; every time I’ve tried to craft this piece over the past few weeks, I was accounting for the latest unarmed Black casualty of the U.S. police. We cannot forget these people.

I hope we can strive for more universal empathy in the future. That is more or less the theme of this entire post.

Israeli Government Attitude Towards Progressive Judaism/Women

Sometimes it seems like whenever Benjamin Netanyahu gives a speech in English, he’s either talking to the Obama administration or to the American Jewish community with promises about reigning in the Israeli Orthodox Rabbinate. 😛 It’s probably not that simple, but there’s a good possibility!

The United States and Israel make up the vast majority of the world’s Jewish population. Although American Jews are primarily from a progressive strain—Reform or Conservative (Conservative being named in response to the Reform movement :P)—Israel is presided over by the Orthodox Rabbinate. There is no civil marriage ceremony in Israel. The Rabbinate often denies conversions performed in other countries, including by the Orthodox. Earlier this year, the Knesset passed a bill to bar the non-Orthodox from using mikvahs for said conversions.

A group I’ve been intrigued by for these past several years is Women of the Wall. Like most Jewish movements, they suffered a schism in beliefs and have more or less separated into two WOW organizations. The main one wants the Israeli government to grant them a mixed-gender space of worship at the Kotel, Judaism’s holiest site. (The “traditional” one wants to be able to practice in a progressive way in the women’s section in the existing prayer area. This would also allow them to include Orthodox women, who would not feel comfortable praying in a mixed-gender space. That’s what the women do now—performing bat mitzvahs, reading from the Torah, singing and etc—all things banned by the Orthodox establishment. The leaders are often arrested and their religious items confiscated.)

WOW has been involved in legal battles in Israel for years, which culminated in early 2016 when the government promised to create an egalitarian prayer space. But due to pressure from Orthodox organizations this hasn’t happened yet and earlier this month, the Israeli Supreme Court took the government to task.

The Jewish Women’s Archive also dedicated a podcast episode to this topic. I find myself in tears, particularly when male “allies,” to use a contemporary term, pray with the women or pass them a Torah over the partition. Maybe “the problem” isn’t that simple, with so many competing ways to be a Jew, but there’s something so harrowing about Jewish women being heckled and assaulted when they pray. Not by the gentiles this time, but by their fellow Jews.

Polling statistics seem to favor a pluralistic approach to Judaism…hopefully year by year we can expect more tolerance and less bull-headedness.

Reconstructionist Intermarried Rabbis Controversy

Some news from one of the smallest Jewish denominations (existing somewhere between the Reform and Conservative strands, though honestly these lines between progressive movements are starting to blur. Except, perhaps, in this issue.) Shortly after High Holidays last year, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College announced that it would allow admittance of rabbinical students in interfaith relationships, claiming:

Why have we taken this step? We no longer want to prevent very wonderful and engaged Jewish leaders from becoming rabbis. After years of study, research, and discussion with many members of the Reconstructionist community, we have concluded that the status of a rabbinical student’s partner is not a reliable measure of the student’s commitment to Judaism—or lack thereof. Nor does it undermine their passion for creating meaningful Judaism and bringing us closer to a just world. The issue of Jews intermarrying is no longer something we want to fight or police; we want to welcome Jews and the people who love us to join us in the very difficult project of bringing meaning, justice, and hope into our world.

But as of April last year, according to JTA, 19 rabbis have chosen to leave the Reconstructionist movement over this and other issues. According to a spokesperson for the newly formed Beit Kaplan—the Rabbinic Partnership for Jewish Peoplehood, She said the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College’s recent decision to permit intermarried rabbis, which made it the only denomination outside Secular Humanistic Judaism and Renewal to do so, “muddled the definition of what it means for a rabbi to have a Jewish family.” (We are getting into smaller and smaller denominations here, and moving away from the Orthodox/Reform/Conservative movements practiced by most of the world’s religious Jewry.)

I am of a torn mind about this. My parents chose to raise me as Reconstructionist, in large part because they were the most open to intermarried families in the 1980s. If Reconstructionists claim that my parent’s choice to marry outside of the faith doesn’t preclude our family from being Jewish, then shouldn’t the same be said for rabbis? Or do even progressive movements have a line we cannot cross, lest we lose our sense of identity?

I’d really love to talk to Reconstructionists from all perspectives about this issue, actually. No easy answers.

Personal dealings with antisemitism

Being a Jewish blogger on the internet, one is inevitably prone to receive antisemitic, trolling comments. My operation here is quite small, and I’m fortunate to be insulated from regular abuse. The last comment came in late July, in response to this post from several years ago. I suppose that I gave it a rather provocative title. 😛 It concerns the character of Rumplestiltskin in the tv show Once Upon a Time, though as the program has become more original (just started its sixth season!) my opinions, of course, have changed. Though I still think it’s worth analyzing the antisemitic undertones of the original fairytale character.

This latest troll tried to shame me about my wish in seeing actress Ginnifer Goodwin, an identified and practicing Jew, at least from public discourse, play a Jewish character. She claimed that I was a disgrace to “my people,” or some such nonsense. Basically because she disagreed with me on one of my opinions, she felt justified in hating on all Jews.

The only thing I can do is move beyond this. In the words of the Amidah, as translated by the Conservative movement: Open my heart to your Torah so that I may pursue your Mitzvot. Frustrate the designs of those who plot evil against me; make nothing of their schemes.

The future is in our hands now. L’shanah tova, and may we be inscribed in the Book of Life.

June 30, 2016

Orlando, Tel Aviv, “The Hunger Games”

Posted in Interfaith, Judaism, Pop Culture at 12:46 am by chavalah

Tel Aviv building decorated in solidarity with Orlando and the LGBTQ community

Tel Aviv building decorated in solidarity with Orlando and the LGBTQ community

I’m going to soft pedal into a brief post about current events and empathy by bringing up The Hunger Games. Mostly because I don’t know how to quit you, Katniss. 😛 And the easiest way to keep talking about something is to counter what others get wrong about it.

The Hunger Games franchise is easy to dismiss. I recently heard criticism from a BookTuber who claimed that Mockingjay contained an unbelievable amount of death, which struck me as facile thinking considering that Mockingjay is a war novel that largely takes place in a futuristic mine field. But this seems to be the catch 22 that some YA falls into—that people claim it’s both too infantile and too gritty.

Similarly, this NPR piece dismisses The Hunger Games as being written for “a fifth-grade [reading] level,” based on vocabulary and sentence complexity. This is where I often clash with the so-called “gatekeepers” of “good” literature, and their insistence on privileging writing form over writing content. There is a certain banality to The Hunger Games language, though I attribute that in part to artistic license, seeing that Katniss is an unintuitive and largely reactionary protagonist. But more to the point, I believe that the series should be judged by its layered responses to the corruption of warfare, vengeance, dictatorial power, political propaganda; and the need for universal empathy and personal relationships. On the other hand, you can string together a bunch of pretty words that ultimately mean absolutely nothing.

The need for universal empathy has been much on my mind this month, particularly due to the shootings in Tel Aviv and Orlando. Too often, it seems, the first response to tragedies like this is to start assigning blanket blame over an entire group of people. Or argue about who deserves sympathy and who deserves condemnation.

On June 8, two Palestinian gunmen opened fire, killing four people at a market in Tel Aviv. The responses to this could be depressingly polarizing. On the “pro-Israeli” side, grief over this horrible violence could easily turn into casting blanket blame over all Palestinians, as if two people spoke for the entire group, and making life more difficult in the West Bank. On the “pro-Palestinian” side, all one might do is bring up the occupation to completely delegitimize the lives of the Tel Aviv victims, and the threat that Israel faces from violence. But is it righteous to claim that any conflict can justify the killing and maiming of civilians on the other side? No—it is callous and cruel.

In synagogue on the next Shabbat, my rabbis named the dead—Ido Ben-Ari, Mila Mishayev, Ilana Naveh and Michael Feige—and prayed that we may still shine some light on this world. Less than 24 hours later, a gunman forced his way into a gay nightclub in Orlando and killed 49 people. Like with Tel Aviv, some people quickly threw up blanket blame. Obviously Islam was the problem, even though several different cultures have homophobic sects. The gunman pledged for ISIS (as well as some of ISIS’s enemies in the Islamic fundamentalist world) in an attempt, I believe, to justify the anger and cruelty he chose to carry out on his own. And lest we forget that Muslims themselves are often the victims of groups like ISIS, now we must keep Istanbul in our thoughts and prayers.

Shortly after the Orlando shooting, I watched this remarkable video from a former CIA operative that espouses universal empathy. In it, she relays the story of an Al Qaeda fighter who referenced movies, including The Hunger Games, where people the world over pit themselves as the District Rebels and their enemies as the Capitol. It’s a shame that grown people don’t really grasp the point of this story, about how conflict corrupts everyone, not just one side. Rebel President Alma Coin quickly falls into the power lust of her predecessor and justifies another Hunger Games, the very practice they went to war to abolish. Soldier Gale Hawthorne is so blinded by hatred of those who hurt him that he justifies bombing civilians—and ends up losing those he loves in the collateral damage. No matter how we see ourselves, if we can’t comprehend that there are human beings on “the other side,” we are doomed.

My biggest takeaway from any violent tragedy is the need for universal empathy. May we all be a light unto the world. Baruch Hashem.

April 23, 2016

As Passover Begins, Empathy, Redemption, Complex Realities in Fiction and Life

Posted in Interfaith, Judaism, Pop Culture at 12:48 am by chavalah

Crossing the Red Sea

Crossing the Red Sea

Somewhat recently, my favorite Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire commentator disappointed me with a condescending, simple-minded real-world analogy. Perhaps I should unpack the first part of that statement before I continue, because in general I am very wary of most Game of Thrones/ASOIAF commentary. It’s very easy to dismiss the entire franchise, as one of the actors on the show put it, as just “tits and dragons.” You choose a House or a favorite “badass” character, and generally disparage anyone who isn’t on that team. But my favorite commentator sees the characters and their situations as I do, as flawed and complicated, worthy of nuanced critique and consideration.

Then, fast forward to the real world, where on social media, said commentator made an Israel-to-Nazi-Germany comparison. *sigh*

Don’t get me wrong; I suck in the real world, too. When reading fiction, I pride myself on feeling empathy for (almost) all characters who cross my path. On the metro, if you’re being an annoying asshat, I wanna slap your face. Who knows; maybe you’re in the middle of a debilitating illness or family crisis; I don’t give a shit. Just sit down and shut up. Of course, I’m not castigating entire groups of people, either.

There’s a lot that’s offensive about the Israel/Nazi comparison; I’ll stick to a few. The condescending nature of it, for one thing. This isn’t about thoroughly assessing policy failures, this is about shaking a finger at a country built, in part, on the backs of Shoah survivors. How could you, victims of genocide, do the same to others?

“Genocide,” perhaps, has become too ubiquitous a term. Like comparing anyone you dislike to Hitler, the term “genocide” seems most often, today, to denote any ethnic conflict. So, anecdote time. Thanks to my library job, I come across my fair share of books. Recently, I flipped through this one, which probes the issue of Native American genocide in the wake of European expansion and colonialism. Author Alex Alvarez posits that there were too many individual points of contact between tribes and Europeans throughout the years to slap that label on the monolithic whole. It got me to thinking how limited the term genocide is, and how it teaches us to think of “Native Americans” as one group of people rather than differentiated tribes. (This is also one of the biggest failings in U.S. education, at least from my experience.)

So many people want to divide the world into white hats and black hats, and for some reason, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict seems to take the brunt of that. I came across another book on the job later—a memoir by an Israeli peace activist, with a forward by Alice Walker. Unsurprisingly, she highlighted several Israeli injustices while pointedly ignoring Palestinian ones (extremists on both sides do this.) What floored me the most was that at the very end, she dedicated the book to the suicide bomber who killed the activist’s niece in Jerusalem. So she can have empathy for the Palestinian who deliberately targeted civilians, but not the Israelis who want to protect their people. There’s an astounding blindness to her assessment that I grapple with—it humbles me. I can see Walker’s blindness, of course. But we all have our blind spots, our inherent bigotries. Something to look out for.

Maybe this is part of the reason that I don’t see the Passover story as a simple morality tale. On it’s surface, the oppressors are punished and the oppressed set free. And I’m not denying the joy of escaping bondage, of creating a community despite outside violence. Surely Jews have had to deal with these issues throughout recorded history as well. In the Seder, we take drops of wine from our cups to acknowledge the cost of the ten plagues, and I’ve heard of traditions of a moment of silence for the Egyptian militia who lost their lives in the Red Sea. Everyone has an inherent humanity.

Another more modern (and controversial in some circles) Passover tradition is to equate Jewish liberation from Egypt to other forms of liberation—from Emancipation in the U.S. to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage, etc. It’s important to realize a universality in life, I believe. Every ethnic group of people has both been the oppressor and the oppressed. Actions can be good or evil, but people throughout history are not white hats or black hats.

To end with, I’ve found new commentators about Israel and the real world, via The Promised Podcast. Their Israeli leftist perspective seems to eschew the extremist opinions that I alluded to above, and it describes a complex society.


PS: Taking a page from some of my favorite online columns, I’m adding unrelated material in separate blog sections. 😛 But continuing with this post, I’ve found another Jewish-themed fantasy novel! Check out King of Shards by Matthew Kressel…it’s on my TBR, so I should get to it eventually! 😛


PPS: Because I can’t let my love of The Hunger Games franchise die…and it’s also, in essence, a story about a redemption from a type of bondage. Katniss, like Moses, ultimately can’t enter the new “Promised Land.” The reasons for their individual exiles are very different, but it gets me to thinking about how the prophet/leaders in a time of turmoil can’t really foot the bill during peacetime. The Israelites had the tools to start their new community in the homeland. As for Katniss, does anyone really wanna see the Mockingjay on tv, intoning “Fire is catching…now go pay your taxes!”? 😛

Several months ago on booktube, I listened to a reader express dismay that there wasn’t a “place” for Katniss in the society that she helped to usher in. But I think this is a fundamental misreading of her character. Katniss never wanted to be a “badass” leader in the public spotlight. She wanted a simple, anonymous little life. Makes her more human.

Chag Sameach.

March 18, 2016

“The Angel of Losses” and a Jewish Gateway into Science Fiction and Fantasy

Posted in Interfaith, Judaism, Pop Culture at 12:48 am by chavalah

A face for Jewish fantasy?

A face for Jewish fantasy?

A few weeks back, I wrote a review of Stephanie Feldman’s The Angel of Losses, which I found, almost immediately, to be lacking. I was trying to put the fantastical elements of the story together in my head, when I stumbled across this Strange Horizons review. It purports to talk about the novel as an example of “Jewish fantasy,” and I might even go as far as to say it’s an example of THE Jewish fantasy. Like C.S. Lewis’s Narnia stories are a re-telling of Jesus and Christian faith, Feldman’s book reworks Hassidic and Talmudic Jewish lore, which often has a magical realist tint.

I’ll try to be straightforward about the set up. Marjorie is a grad student who is mapping the provenance of the Wandering Jew. The Wandering Jew is not traditionally a Jewish invention, but rather a Christian one—said Wandering Jew was forced to wander for eternity because he rejected Christ. But Feldman claims the Wandering Jew for our own, and melds him with “the White Rebbe,” a minor character in Jewish texts who disappears into a cave, possibly to the Holy Land, and is never heard from again. In the novel “the White Rebbe” is cursed by the Angel of Losses to live an eternal life. The Angel of Losses is also called “Yode’a,” which, if my (looking up) Hebrew skills haven’t failed me, means “to know.” Otherwise the Angel of Losses is an invention, but both characters’ concerns with the Lost Tribes of Israel brings them back to a theme that peppers Jewish thought.

Marjorie’s grandfather encouraged her interest in the Wandering Jew by telling her stories as a child about “the White Magician.” It took until she found his notebooks to realize that the character was meant to be Jewish, and that he haunts his descendants. Her grandfather, not so shockingly revealed to be a Holocaust survivor who hid his religious identity after the war, is one, and Marjorie, of course, is another. An uplifting thing to note for this blog in particular is that Feldman made room for a patrilineal Jew to have access to her ancestral heritage. Always nice when the interfaith community isn’t excluded.

Marjorie teams up with Simon, a librarian/grad student researching the Lost Tribes. Then enter Nathan, a member of a religious, haredi sect who is trying to find the White Rebbe and complete his task of ending the Jewish exile by finding the Lost Tribes. (Also, he’s married to Marjorie’s sister who unknowingly embraced her roots by converting to Orthodox Judaism.) For more information on all of this backstory, try Feldman’s Q&A page for the book.

A few years ago, I touched briefly on this blog about Jews and fantasy, but now I’m actively seeking it out. Also Jews in science fiction, after reading Phoebe North’s Starglass duology, a YA dystopia taking place on a secular Jewish space ship. Here’s my to-read list so far.

There’s also a host of retellings of Biblical myths from a Jewish perspective, in order to flesh out those worlds. But for the purposes of my list, I’m sticking to authors who use Jewish history and lore to create their own worlds.

Perhaps the most invigorating thing about The Angel of Losses is how it expands the fantasy world as a whole. I know common complaints often center on how much modern stuff in the genre is a Tolkien ripoff—elves, dwarves and humans fighting medieval-style battles with magic. This book takes a very different type of magic, applies it to very different people, and explores very Jewish but also very universal themes of exile, loneliness, guilt and belonging.

Next page