If you’re looking for a mouthful, try the title—or the contents of—The Two-Plate Solution: A Novel of Culinary Mayhem in the Middle East, by Jeff Oliver (Bancroft Press). Think of it as a thriller/satire/culinary guide/behind-the-scenes of reality TV.

The story begins simply enough— Sara Sinek is a showrunner at an American cooking competition program called National Dish-aster. They’re filming in Israel, and someone at the network thinks it would be a great plot-twist to bring in fake terrorists to up the stakes. The only problem is, a group of Palestinians, accused by Israeli authorities of a deadly terrorist attack, quickly crash the set, and hold everyone hostage for real.

If you think you know how the story will shake out, or the agenda of its author, you definitely, absolutely do not. The book moves at a breakneck pace, with so many plot threads and characters it’s more comparable of Game of Thrones than Cutthroat Kitchen, and there are zigs and zags all along the way. Nobody is who they seem, and the stakes (steaks? The book inspires food puns) change constantly.

The novel manages to be both cynical and naïve at the same time— on the one hand, it presents the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a violent quagmire (it is), but then emphasizes that the things that bring us together may be stronger than that which divides us… like a good meal. Also, for all its archetypal reality-show contestant characters, it does want us to care about what happens to the cast of National Dish-aster (season 5).

Oliver, a Bravo TV executive, has worked on his share of reality shows, and know how they tick— particularly, where real-life ends, and producing begins. He has imbued this knowledge into the book with humor, highlighting the absurdity of manufacturing, while also tightly controlling, drama.

As for the cuisine described in the book, it’s as much of a character as the hapless network executive who picked the wrong time to visit the set. In fact, you might not want to read on an empty stomach. Oliver used to work at Food Network, and from coffee-braised brisket to mouthwatering halvas to tahini-infused charoset, he serves up descriptions of all sorts of sorts of mouthwatering, cross-cultural treats.

Admittedly, the final twist at the end of the book is a bit difficult to follow. With all the cards finally on the table, it’s not clear how who double-crossed whom, and when. But like a good meal, it’s about the journey, far more than the sweetness of dessert. And The Two-Plate Solution is full of tasty bites all along the way.

Image courtesy Bancroft Press

The post Jewcy Review: ‘The Two-Plate Solution’ appeared first on Jewcy.

The fact that there are so many films, both documentaries and narratives, about the Holocaust speaks to multiple needs. There’s the need to remember those who died, but more often the incredible power of survival of so many despite horrific and unimaginable circumstances. Yet the sheer number of stories of those who still live — or at least lived past the end of the Holocaust — represents an immense contradiction in relation to the number of people who died and were not able to have their stories told. Steven Spielberg’s choice to put a girl in a red coat in color when the rest of Schindler’s List was in black and white was extremely meaningful, but the thousands around her who also died remained nameless. Though it might appear that there a lot of Holocaust movies, some of which are accused of serving as “Oscar bait,” there are still so countless stories left to tell.

The new documentary Red Trees comes from filmmaker Marina Willer, who created the short film that turned into this full-length feature as an exploration of her family’s life in Prague before the rise of the Nazis and their subsequent exodus to Brazil. Marina’s family was one of just twelve Jewish families to survive World War II in Prague, one statistic among the many in this film that are disheartening, including the decimation of the Czechoslovakian Jewish population from over 300,000 to less than 15,000 by the end of the war. On her Kickstarter page to fund the original short film, Marina explains that, even back in 2015, “war, violence and persecution has left one in every 122 humans on the planet a refugee, internally displaced or seeking asylum.” Her film is meant in part as a wake-up call to governments not to turn their backs on families seeking survival.

It is, primarily, the story of her father, Alfred, who was a man of prominence in Prague thanks to his contribution to the invention of citric acid. Tim Piggot Smith acts as the narrator, speaking as Alfred, explaining how he would hide the formula in his wife’s recipe book whenever the Nazis would come to search for it so that he could avoid become irrelevant and likely being killed. Alfred tells harrowing tales of what life was like in Prague for the Jews once the Nazis rose to power, and it’s hard not to find parallels to present-day cinematic explorations of dystopias. The Handmaid’s Tale might be referenced more for its terrifying depiction of the total loss of reproductive rights for women, but its swift and systematic disenfranchisement of an entire gender, conveyed in one scene where all the women who work at a company are let go and escorted from the building, bears a frightening resemblance to Alfred’s recollections of Jews having to ride in the last car of the tram, not allowed to sit even if surrounded by empty seats.

It’s important not to forget, and that’s a big component of what Marina is doing here by showcasing her father’s life. Yet there is also light to be found in this particular film, which finds the Willer family successfully emigrating to Brazil, where Alfred describes his first action as looking for a banana to eat since he has not had one in seven years. The multicultural society found in Brazil stands in stark contrast to the divisions and dehumanization that he found in Prague, creating a path for him to move into a new career as an architect. Brazil was a true melting pot that welcomed in so many survivors from World War II, and for the Willer family, it was their chance to start over.

This film’s title comes from the way in which Alfred discovered at a young age that he was colorblind. When he drew trees, he would color the leaves red, which to him meant nothing but allowed him to make an important realization. Those types of moments are what make this film an invigorating and affirming experience, one that lingers on people and moments to truly capture the feelings they stir. Cinematographer César Charlone, who has worked with director Fernando Meirelles on City of God and The Constant Gardener, collaborates with Willer to create what is described as an “impressionistic visual essay” that pays great tribute to one man who survived when many didn’t.

Red Trees opens on September 15th in New York at Lincoln Plaza Cinemas & Quad Cinema and in LA at Laemmle Royal.

Film still courtesy Cohen Media Group

The post Jewcy Review: ‘Red Trees’ appeared first on Jewcy.

The Divine Miss M seems to be recovering nicely from losing Jewish Celeb Madness.

Was there ever any question that Bette Midler in Hello, Dolly! would be anything other than an Experience? And since I saw it one day before opening night, wouldn’t it be silly for me, a humble Standing Room Only patron, to join the parade of rave reviews and bandy about words like “legend” and “star charisma?” For months, the words “Bette Midler. Hello, Dolly! What more do you need to know? Oh yeah: Telecharge” haunted my waking hours. That damn black screen advertisement showed up every time I watched something on YouTube. But eventually, I managed to see it (chairs are overrated).

Bette Midler was really good, guys.

Bette aside for a moment, Hello, Dolly! is a 1960’s Broadway musical so of course its creative team (Michael Stewart and Jerry Herman) is Jewish. One would assume that Dolly, the meddler of Yonkers, widow of one Ephraim Levi, brought to screen by Barbra Streisand, is patently Jewish, too.

But she’s not (necessarily)! As Jesse Green points out, there’s a long list of Dolly actresses who were not Jewish themselves and did not portray her as Jewish. In that same article, Tovah Feldshuh and Carol Channing discuss their differing portrayals of Dolly Levi. Whereas the non-Jewish Carol Channing plays Dolly as Jewish, Tovah Feldshuh plays Dolly as a 12-sibling, Irish potato famine emigré who “learned some things about Judaism, but she’s as Christian as she was 20 years ago.” After all, Feldshuh points out, Dolly’s maiden name is Gallagher.

Channing disagrees: “See, from my own personal experience, I’ve found that you turn Jewish when you’re married to a Jew.”

Feldshuh also makes repeated references to how she could “not afford” to play Dolly as Jewish. Channing doesn’t understand what she means; after all, Of course, saying that Gallagher is an Irish surname would have been a sufficient explanation.

But I could wager a guess: Feldshuh might be suggesting that playing Dolly as Jewish and being Jewish herself would be too much of a risk, something about which Channing does not have to worry. She may be worried she would be “too Jewish?”— That she would alienate an audience by injecting too much Judaism in a not-explicitly-Jewish play.

However, whatever it may mean, Midler can sure afford to both play Dolly as Jewish and be Jewish herself. With the sheer force of her charisma, Midler could take a hatchet to the set and a blowtorch to the Shubert and still get thunderous applause.

As for the rest of the show: it was delightful, old-timey musical fun, with much the same spirit as last season’s She Loves Me, but even grander. Speaking of She Loves Me, Gavin Creel passed on his weird mustache from that production to David Hyde Pierce, who is hilarious in Dolly as the stern Mr. Vandergelder. Creel plays the 33-year old virgin Cornelius, and he and Taylor Trensch as Barnaby make a delightful pair. (Side note: wouldn’t Nicholas Barasch be a great Barnaby? Wouldn’t he?)

Kate Baldwin is a feisty Irene Molloy, and Beanie Feldstein is adorable as  Minnie Faye. I just found out that she’s Jonah Hill’s sister but I won’t let that affect my judgment. The sets are beautiful, and the stunning reveal of Harmonia Gardens elicited gasps. There is also a moving train car and a dancing horse. What more do you need to know?

The bare black-screen commercials are right, but at this point, good luck getting tickets through Telecharge. For what it’s worth, standing behind the back row of the orchestra is not a bad view.

Photo by Julieta Cervantes, via Playbill.

The post Shalom, Dolly! appeared first on Jewcy.

Have you wondered about what your favorite cultural figures carry in their bags, that most intimate of spaces? Abbi Jacobson (of Broad City fame) did. And now, she’s sharing her best guesses with you in her (third) illustrated work, Carry This Book.

Ranging from Willy Wonka, to Sigmund Freud, to Bernie Madoff, to, well, God, Jacobson shows us what she imagines they have on them from day to day (and provides her own lightly judgmental commentary), and she’s pretty convincing. Of course Nora Ephron would carry a bouquet of newly sharpened pencils (and deep cut there, Abbi).

But the best part about the book isn’t even its jokes about icons, living, dead, or fictional. Carry This Book replicates that feeling of watching Jacobson’s TV show that you already know her and are best friends and hang out with her and Ilana Glazer (whose purse is also in here, by the way) as a Jewish pal trio and you simultaneously feel totally at ease and also mutually indulge in all your worst neuroses.

For example, some of the women Jacobson admires most seem to be interested in watching Broad City (and Michelle Obama has a Marc Maron interview with Glazer and Jacobson on her list of podcasts). But despite this idea being  her invention, Jacobson acts surprised and elated every time she encounters a shout-out she has essentially left for herself (“WHAT!?!” she exclaims when she sees a Broad City App on Beyoncé’s phone).

Throughout the book, also Jacobson peppers in handbag-related advice both literal and figurative, including lamenting that her “essentials” list is far too long, and that we all carry anger, love, regrets, hopes, etc. And even in short, funny captions, she expresses nuanced opinions.

“In all seriousness, Barbie should rep all shapes, colors + sizes of women around the world,” She scrawls next to the doll’s imagined driver’s license. But then she includes a NASA astronaut ID card, and adds, “…Excited she has + is evolving.”

Considering her two-page spread gently ribbing self-help and guide books (“Field Notes!” “Pocket Dictionary!” “How To: Live Life The Best!”), Jacobson has presented one in the gentlest way possible. Even Albert Einstein must have carried around emergency chocolate or a pair of socks “In case someone gave him shit” for going without. You can schlep around your own insecurities, as long as you also take what you need.

Ultimately, in perhaps the best advice in the entire book, remember Jacobson’s carrying “Must List”:

• A Pen
• Some sort of notebook
• Headphones
• Lip gloss
• Metrocard
• AN OPEN MIND

The post ‘Carry This Book’ As Manifesto appeared first on Jewcy.

People have any number of opinions about Israel, and one of the subjects that proves most controversial is the existence and continued construction of settlements. There are many who say that the outposts are illegal and built on occupied territory, while others defend them as rightfully-gained land that has been populated by new residents. Like Israel itself, the settlements and how they came about are far from black and white, and director Shimon Dotan’s documentary, playing at the New York Film Festival, examines their origins and cultures in great detail.

Most documentaries about Israel have a certain slant, whether they’re arguing for the peaceful existence of the Jewish State or that the country is built on the unjust occupation and subjugation of the oppressed Palestinian people. The Settlers begins from a more academic, historical perspective dating back to the foundation of the State of Israel. The ideals and mindsets of the early settlers are presented, as well as certain international events that caused the settlements to become the subject of so much debate.

Just as important as uncovering how and why the settlements came about is understanding why their inhabitants believe so strongly in them. The settlers themselves are more than eager to share their stories and their perspectives, as are the Palestinians who have lived there far longer than their Jewish counterparts have.

What is conveyed most by interviews with the settlers is a strong religious zeal, with numerous rabbis and other devout Jews passionately describing their connection to the land. One interviewee describes Israel as an ancient land extending far beyond any current governmental borders all the way to Iraq, declaring that it will all once again belong to the Jewish people one day. Another calls it God’s land, claiming that it belongs to no one. Palestinians who live in the areas now surrounded or neighbored by settlements espouse a harsh view of imperialists who live better than them and have seized their land. There are exceptions and examples of cooperation, of course, but few circumstances are truly mutual or equivalent.

The more disturbing focus, especially for those who consider themselves defenders of Israel, is that the prevailing opinion among settlers, at least those interviewed for this film, is an unapologetic sense of supremacy over non-Jews. Anti-Arab sentiment is rampant, and the joyous chanting of “Kahane lives” can be heard during one festive scene, invoking the name of a rabbi well known for the foundation of the Israeli political party Kach, considered a terrorist organization by both Israel and the United States. Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 Palestinians in prayer at the Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994, is praised as “a modest and righteous man” by one settler. Israel may be viewed as an occupier, but instances of terrorism perpetrated by Israelis are rare, and to see and hear them venerated is truly disturbing and upsetting. It is reassuring, therefore, to watch archive footage of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin decrying Goldstein as a “disgrace to Zionism” and “a shame to Judaism,” naming him a “diabolical Jew.”

As the film approaches the present day in its narrative, stabbing attacks on settlers begin, and, lamentably, the only reaction included is by one Itamar settlement resident, who insists that life and security on the settlement has only improved since the horrific murder of five family members, including three children. Soon after, a father who has been sentenced to house arrest joyfully coaches his daughter to tell the camera that he was arrested for beating up Arabs. It’s hard to imagine peace and progress being possible with such sentiments.

Beyond the opinions and worldviews of the settlers, the political stance of the Israeli government is a central focus of this documentary. Rabin opposed the settlements, and, when he was in power, did his best to stop construction and steer the country away in the aim of achieving peace. He was, however, assassinated by a vengeful right-wing settler, representing the deep opposition that manifested itself in an extreme. Menachem Begin, on the other hand, enthusiastically encouraged construction of the settlements and championed them as a positive institution. Ariel Sharon made the difficult decision to “disengage” from Gaza in 2005, resulting in many settlers being physically dragged from their homes and forcibly relocated, and the film boils that down to a strategic attempt at misdirection which resulted in greatly increased settlement in the West Bank.

Settlements – and settlers – are viewed in this film as those who stake a claim to a land that is not theirs. When a woman whose infant son has just died wants to bury him in Hebron, other settlers ask her why she would do so since Hebron might eventually not belong to Israel. The notion of conquered lands is a strangely fluid one, since most nations expect to keep all territory gained in a war rather than be forced to give it back in exchange for peace during the next war. That incongruity is at the core of the problem with settlements – they are seen as hostile takeovers rather than “spoils of war.” The uncertainty also presents problems for those already living in said areas who feel that they have become unfairly and unlawfully occupied.

It would be simple if all settlers both cared about the land they were inhabiting and sought to have peaceful coexistence with their new neighbors. There are many factors that serve to prevent that from both sides, but the truth as presented in this film is that many settlers lean towards the right-wing, extremist end of observant Judaism, which does not promote external tolerance as it should. There are, interestingly, many non-Jews who choose to settle in Israel and, while their religion is not necessarily a point of contention, relations may not be that much better. The term “settler” has become a loaded one that invokes and incites passion from anyone who reads it, and this film determines that, if nothing else, there is no easy solution in the near future.

Shimon Dotan will appear on a New York Film Festival panel about documentaries tonight in Manhattan.

Image from The Settlers.

The post Jewcy Review: ‘The Settlers’ appeared first on Jewcy.

When I sat down two years ago to finally dive into Ransom Riggs’ critically acclaimed novel, Miss Peregine’s Home for Peculiar Children, my first thought was, “Oh, wow, this is really Jewish.” The protagonist, Jacob Portman is Jewish, as is much of the backstory. It involves Jacob’s relationship with his grandfather, Abe, who left Poland with his family during World War II because there were “monsters” after him for being “different.” Jacob grew up hearing stories about the “peculiar” (read: super-powered) children who Abe lived with, including a girl lighter than air and an invisible boy. As he gets older, Jake doubts the stories are literal, but after Abe’s suspicious death, Jake discovers they’re real after all.

My fear, upon learning book was being adapted into a Tim Burton film was that the Jewishness would be excised. And now that the movie has finally premiered, I got to see if that was true.

Yes and no. But mostly, yes.

Even if the film doesn’t mention that the characters are Jewish – which it doesn’t – the overarching theme of the story is still Jewish in essence: the children and their caretaker, Miss Peregrine, are persecuted because they are different and forced to seek refuge in a new and strange place. Abe’s tradition of storytelling feels Jewish, and many of the names are Jewish (He’s still Abraham with a grandson named Jacob.) They even live in Florida! But that’s where looking for Jewishness ends, unless you count Eva Green herself, one of the highlights of the film, perfectly cast as the titular character.

The fact that the “peculiar” children have been marginalized doesn’t read, as they spend most of their time using their powers and skills freely. We don’t get to see them threatened or under attack for being “different,” and the film changes the peculiar-hunting monsters from the book to “peculiars gone bad” who want to steal their eyes to gain power. This also changes the antagonists from an external threat to an internal one, and if you follow that to its obvious conclusion, it becomes potentially problematic (Burton is a roll lately). Of course, none of that is intentional, because the Jewish metaphor is gone, anyway.

I wish I could say that the Semitic sacrifices and changes from the book were done to make it better for screen. But as a film, it falls short. Visually, it is stunning, set in Tim Burton’s signature neo-Victorian style, complete with beautiful costumes, saturated colors, fantastic artifacts, and of course, skeletons. Plot-wise, if you ignore the flaws in the internal logic, the story plays out in a fairly straightforward manner. But you really can’t ignore all of the gaping plot-holes, as it spends a lot of time on exposition, attempting to fix some of the changes it made from the book, as if to prove to the audience that it has a plan and it totally makes sense, guys, trust me.

Without the overarching themes of persecution, the takeaway from the film is also unclear. The film starts by posing the question, “Have you ever felt like nothing you did mattered?” What we’re supposed to end with, I gather, is that Jake has finally done something that mattered, but his accomplishments are overshadowed by the other children’s, that and they’re visually much more interesting. It seems to rely heavily on the characters’ relationships, but doesn’t explore very many of them well, and the ending seems tacked on rather than the story naturally playing out.

My own takeaway was this: it really would have been better with the Jewishness left in. Would it have fixed the film? Probably not. But it might have helped.

Image: Eva Green in Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

The post ‘Miss Peregrine’ Loses the Jewishness appeared first on Jewcy.

There are certain subjects that are considered to be taboo, and anyone who challenges them is faced with immediate criticism and stern judgment. However, what those subjects are isn’t universal, and what one person or nation considers to be irrefutable, another might consider to be very much up for debate. Unfortunately, the Holocaust is one such topic, and Denial tells the true story of a noted Holocaust denier’s lawsuit against a historian who dedicated her life to exposing those like him. The film explores a thorough and very technical investigation into larger ideas of guilt and culpability.

British actress Rachel Weisz plays American historian and professor Deborah Lipstadt in this very British adaptation of the real-life libel suit brought by David Irving, an author most famous at that time for his extensive biography of Hitler. Irving’s unexpected appearance at a lecture and book signing of Lipstadt’s includes a stunt in which he offers $1,000 to anyone who can give him incontrovertible proof of the Holocaust, and as the trial begins, he dives even further into the sensational to make his claims, representing himself with the utmost gusto and fervent energy.

Viewers are likely to feel exactly like Lipstadt, who sees the case through a distinctly American lens of right and wrong. She is shocked to discover that, in the United Kingdom, the burden of proof lies on the accused rather than on the accuser. She scoffs at the notion that Irving can say whatever he wants and it is her responsibility to show that it is untrue. Her role in the trial is also not what she expected, as her formidable English legal team instructs her that it would be better for her not to testify, and, worse still, that no Holocaust survivors will be called to the stand.

Keeping both humans and humanity out of the case is a mind-boggling notion, one that might make legal sense but contradicts basic instinct. Prohibiting survivors from testifying is seen as a necessary means to prevent Irving from twisting their stories and dehumanizing them, but making it all about the facts, and not emotional experiences makes this entire ordeal feel awfully scientific. At Auschwitz, Lipstadt chants “El Maleh Rachamim” with another visitor as the sole act of memorialization during an otherwise solely research-related trip with her lawyer, and she snaps at him when he asks questions  that frame the Shoah as purely clinical and legal, that negate the fact that actual people were murdered.

The main argument that Irving uses, which Lipstadt’s legal team seeks to oppose, is that a single inconsistency or mistake can disprove an entire idea. For example, if just one detail is wrong about the remnants of a gas chamber in Auschwitz, then they must never have existed in the first place. The press seizes on a horrible tagline – “No Holes, No Holocaust” – which shows just how much the minutia can matter, especially when it’s magnified to draw the highest readership. And this before the advent of Photoshop and other technological capabilities to deliberately alter and rewrite what has happened. All Irving has is what he says, and that proves to be a very dangerous weapon indeed.

As a film, Denial is pretty straightforward, not filling in too much background about either Lipstadt or Irving and instead getting to the meat of the trial. As with any legal drama, there are ups and downs, and some of the more significant moments are especially stirring, due in part to the film’s lack of flair and straightforward nature.

Weisz and famed British actor Timothy Spall are well-cast opposite each other, Weisz presenting a relatable and sympathetic portrait of a woman fighting for what is right and Spall lending a villainous, sniveling attitude to the large personality that is Irving. Tom Wilkinson and Andrew Scott also prove useful as far more stoic members of Lipstadt’s legal team, anchoring the emotion of the case and keeping it grounded. As a chronicle of recent history, this film functions well enough, but as a testament to an important and educational piece of history, it’s far more crucial.

Image credit: Laurie Sparham/Bleecker Street

The post Jewcy Review: ‘Denial’ appeared first on Jewcy.

Some of you may only know Mara Wilson as Matilda. Or as the youngest child in Mrs. Doubtfire. Or, for a deep cut, as the star of Thomas and the Magic Railroad. For someone who was famous as an actor before the age of ten, releasing a memoir before the age of 30 makes sense. The new book, Where Am I Now?: True Stories of Girlhood and Accidental Fame, is a smart, honest look at Wilson’s childhood and early adulthood, both in the spotlight, and out of it.

For example, she has poignant remembrances of Robin Williams, faces the dread of aging out of her casting niche (the word “cute” is a loaded one for her), and has a disturbing experience where she finds images of herself as a little girl being used pornographically. These are not the coming-of-age experiences of your average girl. But she approaches them with the same weight that she does with other formative experiences, like becoming a big sister or trying to decide if there’s a God. She grew up in a family that worked its hardest to keep her grounded, and it shows.

Wilson has also had really terrible experiences that can happen to anyone. Her fame had nothing to do with the loss of her mother to cancer, or her struggles with mental health, including depression and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

And of course, throughout the book, she returns over and over again to her Jewish identity. Her mother was Jewish, and she is too, but her father and step-mother are Catholic, and she had very few Jewish friends as a child. She brings in her identity, sometimes faltering, when dealing with mortality, neuroses, and moving to New York. Wilson knows only too well how being Jewish makes you a minority. In one great anecdote in the memoir, when cast in a remake of Miracle on 34th Street, Wilson’s mother tells her that the plot is about a little girl who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus.

“Is she Jewish like us?” Mara asks in response.

Fundamentally, Wilson’s memoir works because, from the the funny, to the tragic, to the bizarre, it feels familiar. Looking back, she’s self-deprecating, but never a defeatist, the advantage to being the adult she is today. She could easily be in your group of friends.

But really, all you need to know is that the cover blurb is by Ilana Glazer. QED.

For those of you unfamiliar with her current career, she does enough great work now that you can easily be a fan without ever seeing her act on film. Try listening to her storytelling, or check out her recurring role on Welcome to Night Vale, or read some of her writing, like the hilariously apt McSweeney’s piece, “What a Straight Man’s Favorite Musical Says About Him.” If you want to learn more about her Jewish identity, she wrote an amazing piece for The Toast about a book series written for Orthodox Jewish girls she read.

Or, you could just hang around Brooklyn and Queens. You’ll run into her eventually.

Image via Facebook

The post Mara Wilson Is All of Us appeared first on Jewcy.

The Shondes have been around for about a decade, and in the band’s early days, it was all too easy to label them based on their punk/riot grrrl background, their Jewish and queer identities, and their radical politics. The Shondes never abandoned any of those. But with their brand-new fifth album, Brighton, showcasing the band’s songwriting depth and pop sensibilities, pigeonholing the Shondes with such labels would sell short just how far they’ve come.

The opening number, “Everything Good,” is the Shondes’ version of a happy pop-rock song. The musical highlight of the whole album is this song’s breakdown, which combines Louisa Solomon’s beautiful but powerful vocals, a distinctive violin part, and crunchy guitar chords. It’s pretty and heavy, all wrapped up in one. It rocks, especially when performed live at the CD release show this past weekend. The title doesn’t lie: It’s everything good.

The next track, “True North,” is a testament to steadfast faith: 

“When we say ‘next year in Jerusalem’/We say ‘every day is revolution’/We raise the torch, we face true North…/Don’t tell me hope is naïve/It can anchor any strategy/I still believe, I still believe”

The song is about clinging to your ideals, as grounded in Jewish terms.

Solomon explained, “We wanted to write a simple pop song about being at a point in life where our ideals had taken a lot of blows, and yet, the act of imagining (a brighter future, justice, revolution, the mythical messianic ‘Jerusalem’ Jews evoke at Passover) itself could provide a kind of groundedness in conviction.”

The ideas here aren’t simple, though. Solomon noted that the Jerusalem reference is a nod to “an ancient Jewish tradition of imagining,” not the city’s present-day role as the capital of Israel. The Shondes have long been outspoken as “firm opponents of Israeli policy” who “renounce claims of Jewish birthright” in Israel, as Solomon put it.

The Shondes have alluded to Jewish topics throughout their career, but Brighton has the most overt Jewish references since their debut. “True North” is one of four songs—out of ten total on the album—with Jewish/religious content. “My Ghost” and “The House” both mention God in their choruses. The anthemic “Unstill Ones” refers to “what the sages meant” and quotes the Song of Songs. The most-Jewish-since-their-debut characterization is even more apparent if one includes “Jacob and Rachel” from Brighton’s “B-sides” collection.

Solomon was inspired to write “Jacob and Rachel” while planning her wedding. The chorus recalls how Jacob “wept when he saw Rachel’s face” and that he “worked seven years for her love.” Solomon was touched by the story of Jacob weeping for his bride. She explained, “Finding romantic precedent in the Bible is tough … and it inspired this song for me as I tried to write through the intensity of my connection with [my husband].”

The chorus also includes the line “So break a glass for all the past that never goes away.” Solomon used the Biblical story to discuss romance in a Jewish context and then built on it. She said, “I used the Jacob and Rachel entry point, trying to get at a connection that feels way beyond size and words—out-of-time in a distinctly Jewish way, just as the Jewish ritual we were planning at the time pulls us out of linear time and asks us to exist in the company of ancestors and unknown descendants via tradition.”

The Shondes’ overtly Jewish lyrics in particular offer thoughtful commentary from intelligent musicians. These are complex ideas told through rocking songs with pop hooks. Don’t just call them simple pop songs. That would sell the Shondes short as much as all the other labels by which their music doesn’t need to be defined.

Photo by Emily Millay Haddad / Circles of Fire Productions.

The post The Shondes Shine Bright on ‘Brighton’ appeared first on Jewcy.

The People vs. Fritz Bauer (awkwardly similar in title to The People V. O.J. Simpson, but commonalities end there), is a bit of a misnomer since Fritz Bauer is not the one on trial. The famed German attorney general later went on to orchestrate the Auschwitz trials in the 1960s, but this story takes place in 1957 when he receives word that Adolf Eichmann is hiding out in Argentina. His enthusiasm to catch Eichmann and put him in trial in Germany is not matched by those around him, particularly a number of high-ranking officials who have a vested stake in ensuring that the war criminal does not name names.

It seems that films about the way that non-Jewish Europeans acted during and after the Holocaust are almost as prominent as those set during the Holocaust. Sure, Schindler’s List and The Pianist are the ones that went on to win Oscars, but there’s something to be said for reflection and for showcasing the way that the mindset of the times is hard to overcome. The Polish film Aftermath, released in the United States in November 2013, told one such story, of two brothers targeted for dredging up their hometown’s vicious role in the murder of its Jewish population. The French film The Round-Up, starring Jewish actress Mélanie Laurent, spotlighted the eagerness with which the French authorities rid themselves of their unwanted Jews, with little prompting necessary from the conquering Nazi forces.

The anti-Semitism of The People vs. Fritz Bauer is not nearly as overt. Bauer, who was born in Germany and returned from Sweden after the Holocaust, was Jewish, and he is notably the only Jew in such a position of civil service when the film begins. He is adored by many and has friends, but he also knows that there are those within the government and judicial system with Nazi leanings who will stop at nothing to make sure that their complicity and guilt is not brought to light. Bauer enlists Karl Angermann (an idealistic young prosecutor, a fictional composite of those dedicated to Bauer’s cause,) as his ally, fully aware that he can trust no one else.

History knows that Eichmann was ultimately put on trial in Israel and hanged for his crimes. This film doesn’t offer too much suspense in its insular universe in terms of how events will play out, but it does paint a harrowing picture of the struggle for change in postwar Germany. Bauer knows that contacting Mossad for help in tracking down Eichmann may be considered treason, but worse still, Mossad is uninterested at first, telling him that they need more solid proof to go after this lead. Bauer wants Eichmann brought to justice, but in doing so he also wants to put Germany as a whole on trial, a goal that seems unachievable given the many obstacles in his way.

This portrait of the 1950s bears some resemblance to a recent Oscar-winning film, The Imitation Game. Though the plot primarily involves Europe and the Nazis, the true villain is the backwards nature of laws and society at the time. A conniving enemy of Bauer’s mentions early on that they have a dossier on the Jewish civil servant which includes multiple arrests for male prostitution. As if being Jewish wasn’t enough of a crime, charges of homosexuality could really destroy a man. The hope for contemporary audiences would be that widely-supported homophobia and anti-Semitism are both things of the past, though recent world events have shown that it’s hardly the case.

The People vs. Fritz Bauer won big at the German Film Awards, scoring trophies for Outstanding Feature Film as well as for director Lars Kraume, supporting actor Ronald Zehrfeld, who plays Angermann, and its screenplay. Don’t expect this film to take home any Oscars – it’s a decent drama but not in the same category as recent German Oscar nominees like The Lives of Others or The White Ribbon, both of which also addressed lingering suppression after World War II in Germany. This is an important story but doesn’t even feel like the most interesting part of its protagonist’s life, in which, at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, he later finally had the chance to put the nation of Germany of trial.

The People vs. Fritz Bauer opens in American theaters on August 19.

Image: Still from The People vs. Fritz Bauer

The post Jewcy Review: ‘The People vs. Fritz Bauer’ appeared first on Jewcy.