Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Dr. Goldman's comments so far...


TopBilled
 Share

Recommended Posts

Turks are most definitely NOT Semitic!  Semitic refers to the more northern group of languages of the Afro-Asiatic language group:

 

This message is for Karlofffan and anyone else who might be interested -- others take no notice, and my apologies:

 

Karlofffan, I don't want to bore anyone further with chit-chat about my DNA test/study. You are correct, to my knowledge, about Turks not being Semitic, a word which in scholarship has more to do with language than ethnicity. But in terms of DNA, my Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup is found in significant percentages in Jews and Turks, so although there isn't a linguistic connection, there is probably an ethnic one, which goes farther back.  No group has 100% of the same Y-chromsome DNA haplogroup. But certain haplogroups are found in reasonable percentages in certain groups. My family background is basically Ashkenazi Jewish (i.e. from Russia). My haplogroup is found in reasonable percentages among Ashkenazi Jews, and in slightly higher percentages in Sephardic Jews. It's also found in significant percentages in Turkey, Western Iran, and other parts of the region, and in parts of Spain, Greece, and Italy. And --this I find interesting -- there is some evidence that my haplogroup has also been found in Etruscan tombs.

 

There's a movie in there somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sleep.gif

 

i know that these four flicks are spotlighted for prime time viewing, but compared to 'silver dollar', 'mouthpiece', 'heat lightning' and even 'roseanna mccoy', they're all rather blase'.

 

Tonight's schedule:

 

THE STRANGER

THE JUGGLER

THE PAWNBROKER

JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to make a few observations about Goldman's comments last night...

 

First, I was glad he chose to air THE STRANGER and I think the inclusion of the concentration camp footage in a mainstream Hollywood film (especially at that time) is rather important. But I do think Goldman is over-valuing Welles as a social progressive in this regard. Some of Welles' projects were chosen because he wanted to tell the flashiest most sensational type of story possible. Also, he wanted to ensure that he had memorable (sometimes quite sinister) roles to play-- and you cannot get any more bizarre or memorable than a Nazi war criminal hiding out in a sleepy New England town killing a man who talks about Jesus in the bushes.

 

THE JUGGLER was the second film screened last night as part of the Projected Image series on TCM. I thought Goldman's comments about the casting of foreign actors in supporting roles was interesting. So was his mention of Milly Vitale as a 'new Jew.' Not sure what exactly it means to be a 'new Jew,' especially a female 'new Jew' in 1953, but it does get one thinking. I am also not sure, if like Welles, Goldman was over-valuing some of producer Stanley Kramer's choice of projects in Hollywood. Or even Kirk Douglas'. If you're trying to get attention in a competitive industry and win an Oscar, you will pick the most dramatic type of story you can get your hands on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i actually stuck around and watched this flick; thinking it would be interesting.

however, this movie ended up being (imo) just another one of those kirk douglas over-performing performances.

jay adler played a small, but admirable role in it.

he and his brother luther was great actors; i always confuse the two of them.

 

THE JUGGLER was the second film screened last night as part of the Projected Image series on TCM. I thought Goldman's comments about the casting of foreign actors in supporting roles was interesting. So was his mention of Milly Vitale as a 'new Jew.' Not sure what exactly it means to be a 'new Jew,' especially a female 'new Jew' in 1953, but it does get one thinking. I am also not sure, if like Welles, Goldman was over-valuing some of producer Stanley Kramer's choice of projects in Hollywood. Or even Kirk Douglas'. If you're trying to get attention in a competitive industry and win an Oscar, you will pick the most dramatic type of story you can get your hands on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am delighted with this series. It seems to me that TCM -- and Dr. Goldman -- have picked the very best of classic Jewish and Israeli movies and that Dr. Goldman's remarks are informative and balanced -- not the obnoxious hype that sometimes annoys me at Jewish film festivals. That being said, I find myself upset by the reviews by TCM posted on the films' pages. In an effort at being "objective" one of your reviewers says that Israel itself is "controversial." What is controversial about the war of independence when Israel had the choice of defending itself or being conquered? In his review of "The Juggler" your reviewer, Michael Atkinson, guessed that the viewer of the film would "bristle at the Israeli hard sell." If the film was selling anything it was that Israel was offering a refuge to Holocaust survivors. How is this in any way objectionable? Atkinson goes on to say that the "film manages to sell the Israeli ideal without so much as mentioning the Arabs or Palestine's native population." Palestine's native population? Jews have lived on that land continuously for thousands of years. Mr. Atkinson not only has no sense of history, imposing as he does today's problems on 1948, but he is also not a very observant viewer. Reference to the Israel-Arab conflict of 1948 are everywhere. Joshua, the orphaned 13 year old sabra, tells the juggler that his parents were killed in the war. If Joshua is born in Israel, the war he is referring to cannot be World War II; it must be the Israeli war of independence. Indeed, the kibbutz they are visiting is still recovering from the aftermath of the war: they negotiate minefields and celebrate the return of their livestock. They are clearly on the border with Syria, which still controls the Golan heights, and must constantly watch for Arab incursions. In 1948 Israel has no "conquered territory" but must protect itself with shrunken and vulnerable  borders. They visit a deserted Arab village (did Israelis chase them out or did they flee? I know what Mr. Atkinson thinks but the rest of us do not know ) and, when they see Syrian soldiers riding towards them Hans is instructed not to shoot. The policies of some of the post 1967 Israeli governments and of the west bank settlers can be up for discussion, but the only way in which the status of 1948 Israel is "controversial" is if one believes that it should never have existed and that Holocaust survivors should remain homeless. Is that what Mr. Atkinson believes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am delighted with this series. It seems to me that TCM -- and Dr. Goldman -- have picked the very best of classic Jewish and Israeli movies and that Dr. Goldman's remarks are informative and balanced -- not the obnoxious hype that sometimes annoys me at Jewish film festivals. That being said, I find myself upset by the reviews by TCM posted on the films' pages. In an effort at being "objective" one of your reviewers says that Israel itself is "controversial." What is controversial about the war of independence when Israel had the choice of defending itself or being conquered? In his review of "The Juggler" your reviewer, Michael Atkinson, guessed that the viewer of the film would "bristle at the Israeli hard sell." If the film was selling anything it was that Israel was offering a refuge to Holocaust survivors. How is this in any way objectionable? Atkinson goes on to say that the "film manages to sell the Israeli ideal without so much as mentioning the Arabs or Palestine's native population." Palestine's native population? Jews have lived on that land continuously for thousands of years. Mr. Atkinson not only has no sense of history, imposing as he does today's problems on 1948, but he is also not a very observant viewer. Reference to the Israel-Arab conflict of 1948 are everywhere. Joshua, the orphaned 13 year old sabra, tells the juggler that his parents were killed in the war. If Joshua is born in Israel, the war he is referring to cannot be World War II; it must be the Israeli war of independence. Indeed, the kibbutz they are visiting is still recovering from the aftermath of the war: they negotiate minefields and celebrate the return of their livestock. They are clearly on the border with Syria, which still controls the Golan heights, and must constantly watch for Arab incursions. In 1948 Israel has no "conquered territory" but must protect itself with shrunken and vulnerable  borders. They visit a deserted Arab village (did Israelis chase them out or did they flee? I know what Mr. Atkinson thinks but the rest of us do not know ) and, when they see Syrian soldiers riding towards them Hans is instructed not to shoot. The policies of some of the post 1967 Israeli governments and of the west bank settlers can be up for discussion, but the only way in which the status of 1948 Israel is "controversial" is if one believes that it should never have existed and that Holocaust survivors should remain homeless. Is that what Mr. Atkinson believes?

 

I find the creation of Israel in 1948 to be controversial.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It definitely was a sticking point between different sets of Judaism in the 1981 film The Chosen.... The Reformed Jews were all for a Jewish homeland, while the Hasidic Jews thought that the idea of a Jewish homeland without the help of the Messiah was a scandalous idea.

Just a little theological point: Maximilian Schell and his son were Orthodox Jews in The Chosen, not Reformed; Rod Steiger and Robby Benson played Hasidic Jews, which some call ultra-orthodox, though some might consider them somewhat heretical (though that's a long story).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also not sure, if like Welles, Goldman was over-valuing some of producer Stanley Kramer's choice of projects in Hollywood. Or even Kirk Douglas'. If you're trying to get attention in a competitive industry and win an Oscar, you will pick the most dramatic type of story you can get your hands on.

 Kirk Douglas, in my observation, always appeared to overact so no surprise in his role here and at least Kirk was a Russian Jew, so if his family hadn't left Russia that could have been him  as the juggler.  My observation in regard to the juggling...I was impressed unless it was photo optics. I really liked Dr. Goldman's choice of this movie as:

 

1.  I had never even heard of it, let alone seen it.

2.  The filming in immediate post-war Israel was informative and actually quite daring as the place was not the most stable of places to be filming.

3.  It did give some insight (if you looked at it with a wider focus than the Juggler's) as to how much the Jewish immigrants had to undergo both mentally and physically in being transported from the camps, ghettos and towns of Europe to the desert of Israel and the Kibbutz lifestyle.  I was quite surprised when the group obediently filed into barracks without rebelling, after years of living in barracks-like environment, I was surprised that didn't set the Juggler off.  Then you add language and unless everyone spoke Yiddish there was no common language as the Hebrew learned in Hebrew school does not prepare you for asking where is the lavatory or how do I milk a cow.

4.  It pointed out what it takes to make a nation from scratch and the type of individuals needed to build and persevere. 

 

Thank you Dr. Goldman and thank you TCM for showing Exodus when I was asleep.  I couldn't stand watching all those Gentiles inhabiting a film about the settling of Israel. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you suggest as an alternative? Driving the Jews into the sea?

 

I believe strongly that in the minds of many,  driving the Jews into the sea is much too kind.  Thankfully the Zionists didn't let this happen and while the British don't like to claim the "Balfour Agreement" as theirs, if there hadn't been the Balfour Agreement there would have been nowhere for post -WWII Jews to emigrate to, neither for the sufferers of Russian genocide and others experiencing anti-Semetic in tolerance.  Just look at what is happening in France today and note that many French Jews are leaving France due to the increasing rise of anti-Semetism so it is nice to know that there is a place to flee to that is open and accepting.  

 

Its nice to see Dr. Goldman's commentary and since I haven't read his book I cannot find fault with his opinions or observations or selections.  After all looking at films from the Jewish perspective somewhat narrowed his choices, unlike films about other groups.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Kirk Douglas, in my observation, always appeared to overact so no surprise in his role here and at least Kirk was a Russian Jew, so if his family hadn't left Russia that could have been him  as the juggler.  My observation in regard to the juggling...I was impressed unless it was photo optics. I really liked Dr. Goldman's choice of this movie as:

 

1.  I had never even heard of it, let alone seen it.

 

THE JUGGLER aired on TCM a few years ago when Kirk Douglas was SOTM (September 2011). It shows up from time to time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Dr. Goldman's remarks very much, especially his comment about "the new Jew", meaning, I think, Jews who like being Jews but who also like and respect Gentiles and other decent people, and who have a live-and-let-live attitude, and ones who do not whine, and are willing to become close friends with decent honest non-Jews. And Jews who will physically protect and defend their human rights just like many of the rest of us will, such as most of us Americans. I would be proud to stand side by side with them and fight to keep the Reds and the Russians and the Thuggees* from attacking our country.

 

 

 

*of all kinds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...okay. BEFORE we segue from a discussion about "movies from a Jewish POV" and into a discussion of the "right of Israel to exist" or somethin' along those geopolitical lines here(and I think we all know how a discussion like THAT is going to turn out, now don't WE?!), I've got one little question that been botherin' the heck out o' me ever since I saw the name "Dr. Goldman" on this here thread topic's title. And so here goes:

 

Okay, is it only ME or has anyone ELSE around here gotten a little "ear-worm" in their head and started singin' to themselves somethin' along the lines of "Doctor Goldman...and the Bikini Machine" whenever they read the guy's name??? Now OF COURSE I know that it was REALLY Doctor "GoldFOOT" and not "GoldMAN", but STILL!

 

(...yeah yeah, I know...they say somethin' like this is a form of O.C.D...but HEY, I gots'ta KNOW if I'm alone here or not!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't really blame the Palestinian Arabs for their resistance to Zionist

settlement. Perhaps they had a premonition that they were the ones

who would be screwed in the U.N. partition plan. They made up about

two-thirds of the population in the late 1940s and were to receive less

than half of the land. No wonder they didn't like that deal.

 

The point was made the no one found the creation of Israel in 1948 to be controversial.   No one. 

 

That is just a silly POV.   Clearly the creation of Israel was controversial to some people after WWII.    Saying something isn't controversial is just another way of saying that only one POV exist.     This is just a way to try to suppress those that feel differently.

 

Also, saying that the creation of Israel was controversial in no way mplies one was against the creation of said nation.  

 

 

(hey,  I'm sure these are all things you understand).

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooooo, I take it nobody but ME around here is hearin' a fractured version of this Supremes sung title theme song from that '65 Vinnie Price AIP flick in their heads and when they read Dr. Goldman's name, HUH?!

 

 

(...note to self: ask that nice doctor o' mine for some stronger medication on my next visit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Dargo for the song and for lightening up this thread. The song I hear, though he's no doctor, is this one:

 

 

You're welcome, Swithin. ;)

 

Btw, while watching that video you posted(and of course hearing Ethel hittin' the cheap seats), it showed that photo containing Jack Klugman, and thus have discovered he was the original Herbie in the Broadway production of that musical.

 

(...I didn't know that before...thanks!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for taking this thread in the wrong direction.   I should have just ignored the political comments and not responded.

 

Aah, that's okay, James. Actually, I thought your earlier point in rebuttal to zivap about the existence of Israel being "controversial" WAS very valid.

 

Uh-huh, I mean IF it WASN'T so freakin' "controversial", then why the hell have so many thousands of people been killed and CONTINUE to kill each other almost DAILY in that part of the world where apparently people for WHATEVER freakin' reason seem SO freakin' "proud" of their various "ancient tribalistic heritages" and while living AND dying once again in such close proximity to each other, RIGHT?! ;)

 

(...uh-huh, yep, to reiterate...I thought your point was well taken, alright!!!) LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, it didn't take me too long after hearing the name Dr. Goldman to think

of the corny movie villain Dr. Goldfoot. And after that to think of James

Brown gettin' on the good foot. And then, for some reason, to think of

the phrase 'put the petal to the medal.' This association of ideas things

is a real ****.  :)

 

 

Thanks, Vautrin. It's good to know I'm not the only one around here with this "affliction"! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be interested to see what Goldman's comments are about SWORD IN THE DESERT tonight. The film, made by Universal-International in Hollywood, was very controversial when released. American critics found the subject matter presented in an unbalanced fashion, and the movie was pulled in Britain due to protests and a bomb scare.

 

For more, read the article at the TCM database:

 

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/92168/Sword-in-the-Desert/articles.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...