Friday, 20 June 2008

SELF PORTRAIT OF AN ANTISEMITE

(taken from: Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations - click topic's tittle to get to original article)

Here's a fine example of why freedom of speech is so important. The parents of Rachel Corrie, ISM activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in 2003, have published her letters. Roberta P. Seid has read them carefully, and tells of her findings. They are depressing but also illuminating, detailing the cynicism with which the Palestinians and their useful fools manipulated impressionable young men and women, innocent of any knowledge, into the Palestinian war against Israel. These young people came fervently to believe the worst about Israel, even when the facts staring them in their faces proved them wrong, not to mention all the other facts they willfully looked away from. And of course, at one point in the story there's an Israeli professor in America who encourages Corrie onward on her path of hatred.
Did Rachel Corrie regard herself as an antisemite? I expect not, though I doubt she really worked through her convictions on this issue. But she clearly was one. Her animosity towards Israel was anything but "criticism of Israeli policies". It was overt rejection of Israel's right to defend itself, indeed, even of it's right to define its own interests, formulated with systematic lying. That's conclusive enough evidence for antisemitism. Does it make any difference if she realized the import of her positions? Not in particular. Most antisemites throughout the ages were not articulate nor conscious about it, they simply were.

SHELACH: AGENTS OF THE EXILE


by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman
Exile can be a state of mind. But it can also be very real. The Nation of Israel was on track to be united with the Land of Israel, when the sin of the spies caused a deep rupture, thus delaying the reunion until the passing of the generation that was accustomed to a negative slave mindset. Thus the exile of the mind led to an exile of the body. Our thoughts determine who we are to become, what our destiny will be.
The Torah identifies two agents of the exile. One agent leading us to sin was the organ of vision, viz. the eyes. Whereas in Eden man saw himself as larger than G*d, and thus his eyes caused him to disobey, leading to the first exile, the exile from Eden, this new exile similarly was caused by the eyes. This time the sin was that man saw himself as being too small, just the opposite of Eden.
"..We were IN OUR EYES like tiny grasshoppers, that's all that we were IN THEIR EYES(vanhi v'eyneynu kachagavim v'chen hayinu b'eyneyhem - NUM 13:33).
The use of eyes attributed to both the Canaanites and Israel is possibly indicative that this smallness of vision was a universal pathology. The fixing or corrective for the sin of Eden was not that man should think of himself as being small, G*d forbid, but rather that he should see his own greatness and become a partner with G*d to fix the world. Obeying G*d is essentially forming a partnership with the Divine.
The corrective for the sin of the eyes are the phylacteries which are worn during morning prayers. As they are placed as "frontlets between the eyes," they have the power to lift us up to a higher vision of ourselves.
The other agent of the exile is the organ of action, the arm. Moses in his anger and rage disobeyed G*d and struck the rock to bring forth water. Now he himself, the leader of Israel, would in turn be denied entrance to the Land of Israel. His anger and rage, made manifest in his actions, led to his personal exile. We can apply this to our own lives. How often does anger exile us from our friends and loved ones?
The corrective for the sin of anger and angry action are the phylacteries which are worn during morning prayers. As they are tied as a sign upon the hand, they have the power to lift us up so that we engage in behaviors which sanctify the world and which bring humanity closer to its Divine Source.
At the end of our parsha, Shelach (NUM 13:38), we have the mitzvah of wearing fringes on our garments:
...veasu lahem tzitzit al kanfei bigdeyhem ledorotam...have them make tassels on the corners of their garments for all their generations.
"This is already a sign of our healing. The reference to future generations speaks to israel's eternal mission. Tzitz, the singular, is the diadem of gold that the High Priest wore on his forehead (LEV 8:9). Tzitzit is the plural, and yet, it lacks the letter yud which indicates the plural form. It is spelled Tzadi, Yud, Tzadi, Tav. The missing letter Yud (numerical value of 10) reminds us of the ten spies who caused Israel to sin. More importantly, it reminds us that just as the kohen gadol, the high priest, had the words Kodesh laShem, Holy to G*d, engraved on his Tzitz, his golden diadem, so too is *all* of Israel, as represented by the Yud, the community of ten, enjoined to strive to be Holy before G*d, for all their generations.
Phylacteries are essentially that, a spiritual prophylactic to prevent and ward off the potential for spiritual exile which inheres within each of us, both as individuals and as a nation. The Tefillin Shel Rosh, the head tefillin which rest above and between the eyes, serves as the symbolic spiritual prophylactic for the nation, while the Tefillin Shel Yad, the arm tefillin, serve as a spiritual prophylactic for its governmental leadership.
The Tzitzit, the fringed garment, points to a unity between the people and its spiritual leadership, in that one day all of Israel will come to take on its destined priestly role to serve G*d and to serve the nations, bringing them closer to recognizing the One G*d. The Tzitzit are a fixing for the sin of the spies.
"Ve lo taturu acharei levavchem ve'acharei eyneychem..." -
"and so that you not go on a tourist vacation without responsibility following after your heart and your eyes..."
Being that this passage follows the narrative of the spies and actually uses the same word root (laTuR), it is clear that the tallit is therefore a fixing for the sin of our forefathers when their eyes and their hearts led them astray. Levavchem (your hearts) is in the plural. Just as we have two eyes we also have two hearts. We have the potential for either an ayin tova ( a good, generous eye/disposition) or an ayin ra'ah ( a bad, stingy eye/disposition). Likewise we can have a lev tov ( a good heart - i.e., judging others favorably, or a lev ra (a bad heart - i.e., judging others poorly, without giving them the benefit of the doubt). The tallit envelops us, ensconces us, serving as a reminder of G*d's own generous eye and expansive heart.
Our morning prayers, when we don all the three- the Tallit and the two Batei Tefillin, the two phylacteries, are to bring us closer to the realization of the dream- to end our collective soul exile and restore Eden's vision of harmony in our lives.
Shabbat Shalom
Good Shabbos!
© 2000 - 2008 by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman

Roadside Rambles: The Feminist Engine Sputters of Exhaustion

Roadside Rambles: The Feminist Engine Sputters of Exhaustion

THE ILLUSION OF PEACE AT ANY COST

My father used to say that there is only two ways to approach a promlem: the good way and the bad way. If the good approach is chosen then the problem is solved. But, instead, if your choice is poor things will remain bad. He also used to say that some people, when facing a crisis, believe that if they try to reason with their foe, making concessions, perhaps they will overcome the threat.
"Never try to get peace at any price", said him,"you are only buying time to become weaker, and, on the other hand, giving strenght to your enemy. Soon you will have nothing more to give, the he will anihilate you."
I could never understand how people can be deceived by the good intentions of an opponent when he says: "let's talk about peace", when the only peace he knows is the one given by the graves of his enemies.
How can anyone in his perfect mind believe that can be any "peace talk" with his sworn enemy, whose intentions are the complete anihilation of a people ?
The enemy wants, of course, "mesmerize" public opinion worldwide. In the first place by presenting himself as a "victim"; if he is a victim it can only be of his own acts of agression and terror. Then, the next step, will be to convince everybody that he only wants peace, and so on.
This trick works when covered by televisions, newspapers, etc. Soon opinion-makers, politicians, "anti"-war organisations, assorted "human"-rights groups are crying for the fate of those "poor souls", who until now are living under occupation.
Really, this world didn't learn anything with the last century's lessons. In the "thirties" of the 20th century, democratic nations surrendered time after time to the demands of a maniac. They gave and gave until there was nothing more to be given. In the name of peace, populations were left in the hands of barbarism. Did it work ? No. The rope was streched until its limits and broke; then war came.
Europe burned in the fires that cowardice helped to light.
Even then, although sounds of alarm were echoing in the cabinets of free nations, they choosed to remain silent and looked the other way. Only at the end of the war recognized the slaughter that had been committed. By their ommissions they helped in the murder of 6 millions.
If not for that "death wish" of peace at any price, nazism would be stopped as soon he started gambling with the desire to avoid confrontation (read cowardice) of the democratic nations.
But in present times the mistake is being done once more. Leaders of nations are "breaking" under the pressure of terrorism. They preffer not to rise problems, and let those perpetretors of hate and violence impose their points of view, than to react and stop the blackmail.
Once more they think in terms of peace at any price. Does Oil have anything to do with that ?
So in order to put away problems from their homes, they are gambling with the lives of millions.
They are only postponing a problem that sooner or later they must have to deal with.
And when at last, inevitably, war comes, then, maybe, it will be too late, once more.
Rome had a saying : "Se vis pace, para bellum" and I believe this is true.

TEVYE'S QUERY - by: YAAKOV BRAER


Tevye's Query

Lord who made the lion and the lamb You decreed I should be what I am Would it spoil some vast eternal plan If I were a Wealthy Man?

Philosophical profundity crops in up in funny places. Fiddler on the Roof is a sentimental, feel-good, dollop of schmaltz that has warmed Jewish hearts for decades. Its enormous popularity has nothing to do with metaphysical content. The video cassettes are not rented by scholars in quest of ontologic truths. Nonetheless, there it is, put into the mouth of Tevye the milkman by an unwitting lyricist, garnished with "yubba buhs" and accompanied by an antic little jig: "Would it spoil some vast eternal plan/ if I were a wealthy man?"

Tevye is no theologian. He is obviously not interested in discerning the Almighty's ways. The question is rhetorical, intended merely as a little dig at G-d for His apparent indifference to Tevye's poverty. The proposition that the foundation of the cosmos would be shaken in some way if Tevye should come into a few rubles is clearly absurd, or so it would seem. In fact, Tevye has raised one of the most enigmatic and recondite issues in religious thought: What, if anything, is the meaning of finite physical existence? The impecunious milkman would undoubtedly be shocked to learn that the answer to his question is yes, it would spoil some vast eternal plan if he were a wealthy man.

Tevye's query is really the following: I inhabit a minuscule particle situated somewhere in an endless universe teeming with countless stars, galaxies, and planets of mind-boggling proportions. I share this tiny speck with six billion fellow humans. I will live for no more than 80 or 90 years, which in cosmic terms is less then a blink of an eye. I am utterly dwarfed by the endlessness of time and the boundlessness of space. How is it conceivable that what I do or what happens to me is of any consequence whatsoever?

In order to address this question, we must first deal with a misconception that is deeply ingrained in the human psyche -- the size fallacy. Briefly put, size matters. A child stubs his toe getting out of bed in the morning and cries in pain. On the same day a bomb scare at Kennedy International Airport delays flights and inconveniences thousands of travelers. Which of these two stories is likely to make the front page of the New York Times? Since, in either case, nothing of any lasting consequence occurred, why is the airport closure news and the toe stubbing beneath notice? Why does the conquest of mount Everest still excite the imagination, whereas the scaling of half a dozen more challenging peaks attracts no attention at all? Why are the Eiffel Tower, the Rock of Gibraltar, and the World Trade Center in New York major tourist attractions? Why should anyone spend time and money in order to see a stack of girders, a stone, or an office building? The answer is that all of the above are big, and people instinctively (and mindlessly) equate size with significance.

If bigger is better, infinite is best. In the presence of the infinite, anything limited by dimensions, regardless of magnitude, is of no account. A galaxy and a speck of dust are indistinguishable before the endless expanse of the universe. Since Tevye is finite, neither he nor his circumstances make a dent. Whether or not he were rich could no more botch up G-d's vast eternal plan than would the removal of a drop of water from the Pacific ocean.

Tevye's first mistake is shackling G-d with the limitation of infinitude. The term "infinite" defines a property, and it is, therefore, no less restrictive that its antonym, "finite". The concept of properties or characteristics is inapplicable to G-d . He is not infinite nor finite nor anything else. There is nothing within the realm of created being that applies to G-d and no term can describe Him. The names that we ascribe to G-d do not denote His essence, but rather attributes through which he reveals Himself and with which He interacts with creation. Terms such as HaKadosh Baruch Hu ("the holy one blessed by he"), Hamelech hamromam, (exalted king) define transcendent (infinite) manifestations of G-dliness whereas Shechinah (the divine presence), and Av Harachamim (merciful father) define immanent (finite) modes of expression.

Since Divine powers of transcendence and infinitude delineate G-d's essence no better than those of immanence, our erroneous tendency to identify G-dliness with infinitude simply reflects a natural human bias. Significance, therefore, is determined not by size nor by any other property, but rather exclusively by the will of the Almighty. That is, an entity is significant if the Almighty so chooses. There is, accordingly, no basis for Tevye to assume that he plays a negligible role in G-d's vast eternal plan simply because he is small. On the contrary, the fact that the Almighty has chosen to create, sustain, and relate to a puny, frail, mortal creature such as Tevye, indicates that he is of great importance to G-d, if to no one else.

Tevye's second error is his assumption that the "vast eternal plan" is modular, consisting of interchangeable, disposable parts. This misconception follows naturally from the observation that when a prime minister dies or a multinational corporation collapses, celestial orbits continue unperturbed, the laws of nature remain in force and the world goes on pretty much as before. The totality of being is unaffected by individual occurrences, regardless of their local importance. To put it another way, the world appears to comprise a multiplicity of autonomous, self-sustaining components engaged in an endless variety of unrelated events. Thus, replacing Tevye the pauper with Tevye the magnate would have no impact outside of Anatevka and should easily be accommodated by the vast eternal plan.

What Tevye does not understand is that creation is a form of language. The symbols of language, the letters and words, are chosen and arranged in such a way as to capture and reveal a thought or a feeling. Every word in a sentence, as well as its relative position, contributes to the intent and to the clarity of expression.

Consider the verse Shma Yisroel Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad. It is well known that this ultimate statement of Jewish faith expresses the unity of G-d, that He is the only true existence and that all other apparent existence is merely a reflection of His true being. Suppose a scribe made a small error and substituted the letter aleph for the letter ayin at the end of the word Shma. Since the other 24 of the 25 letters (in the Hebrew version) are written correctly, 96% of the verse is just fine and the inadvertent substitution should have a minimal effect. In fact, this little alteration not only changes the meaning of the verse, it perverts it entirely. The word Shma with an aleph means "perhaps", so instead of "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our G-d, the Lord is one" the verse now translates into "Perhaps O Israel the Lord is our G-d, the Lord is one." Thus this little isolated change has transformed the great statement of faith into a great statement of doubt. Although substitution of other letters of the Shma may not result in such a dramatic distortion in meaning, transposition, substitution, elimination, or deformation of any individual letter is sufficient to render Tefillin, a Mezzuzah, or an entire Torah scroll invalid.

Just as every letter of Torah captures an essential aspect of Divine will and Wisdom, so is each detail of creation a vehicle or a "letter" through which a facet G-d's will and wisdom, as expressed in Torah, is embodied, objectified and introduced into our physical world. In the words of the holy Zohar, "He looked into the Torah and Created the world". This explains why the Halachah (Torah Law), governs every minute detail of life in this world, and why no object, act, or event is beneath consideration by the vast corpus of oral Torah known as the Talmud. Inasmuch as each particular of creation is mandatory for the realization of G-d's "vast eternal plan" Tevye has no case. He and the details of his life are critical to the purpose of creation. He is not only important, but in a very real sense, the very fabric of the cosmos depends upon him.

It is hard to imagine that such a complex and abstruse concept as man's place in creation emerged fortuitously from a Broadway Musical. In fact, Tevye's query did not originate with Tevye. As is the case with any matter of substance, the source is the Torah. The Talmud (tractate Taanit) relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Pdat, who was exceedingly poor, once fell ill and required bleeding, a common medical treatment in ancient times. Following the procedure, he wished to strengthen himself by taking nourishment, but he was so poor that all he had was a garlic peel. He ate he garlic peel and fell into a faint during which he had a vision of the Divine Presence (Shechinah). He inquired of the Divine Presence how long he was to be subjected to such grinding poverty. The Divine Presence answered "Elazar my son, do you wish that I destroy the universe and reconstruct it so that you can perhaps be created in a time favorable to prosperity?"

The implication is obvious. Rabbi Elazer's penury is essential to the vast eternal plan. Since Rabbi Elazer plays an integral role in the Divine scheme, were his situation to change, the macrocosm would have to be redesigned so as to conform to his new standing. In other words, the "story" of creation would have to be rewritten so as to square with Rabbi Elazar's altered situation. Similarly the writer of Fiddler on the Roof could very well have recreated Tevye a wealthy man, but then he would no longer have a play, and a new story would have to be devised in which Tevye's affluence is meaningful.

Where then, does all of this leave Tevye, and for that matter, the rest of us? Must we live lives of rigid predestination, locked into roles demanded of us by the vast eternal plan, prisoners of our own indispensability? We can not, after all, expect the Almighty to restructure creation in order in order to adjust to our individual desires, or can we?

Consider prayer. If a friend (G-d forbid) lacks a livelihood, we pray that he be helped. In view of the implications of Tevye's query, prayer is really nothing less then a request to the Almighty to reconstruct the universe. What we are saying to G-d is that we are dissatisfied with a cosmic order in which our friend is destitute, so would the Almighty be so kind as to scrap it and invent a new one in which his circumstances include a reasonable income.

Although this outlandish request seems like the ultimate in chutzpah, we are not only entitled, but obligated to submit it. Praying for those in need is not optional, it is a Mitzvah, which is to say that G-d commands us to do it. Moreover the Torah assures us that prayer does not go unanswered, although the results may not be readily apparent. It would appear, then, that we are not only characters in the Divine Drama, we are co-authors.

Although, as presupposed by Tevye's query, we are puny, feeble, vulnerable, fallible mortals, there are universal consequences to everything that we do. Every prayer, every mitzvah, every act of kindness, every attempt at self-improvement, redefines an individual's role in life, and necessitates a corresponding refinement in the cosmos consistent with his or her new status. The Divine plan is thus constantly being amended to adjust to the improvements introduced by ourselves, and we are, therefore, truly partners with the Almighty in the progressive ongoing process of creating a perfect world. With each positive act and subsequent revision of the Divine script, we advance ever closer to the final draft.

Several years ago I asked a noted Kabbalist why Torah assigns the term "nature" to the workings of the physical world whereas the higher spiritual realms, antecedent to the physical universe, are considered above the natural order. Are not these "worlds" also orderly, consistent, and governed by immutable laws of cause and effect, and do they not, therefore, run according to a type of nature? He smiled and answered that every time someone puts a coin in charity box, or dons tefillin, or lifts someone's spirits with a kind word or a smile, angelic vehicles of Divine grace are created and new channels of G-dly effulgence are opened in these worlds. Since every mitzvah produces radical innovations, higher worlds are in a constant state of reorganization and they have no stable nature. On the other hand, in this "natural" world the revolutionary changes brought about by performance of Torah, mitzvot and prayer are concealed by the coarseness of material existence and, although very real, they are not apparent, at least not yet.

It is, therefore, clear that not only do our actions effect changes in the vast eternal plan, we have been placed here specifically for that purpose.

FIDDLER ON THE ROOF - THE FILM

Fiddler on the Roof is the 1971 film version of the Broadway musical of the same name. It was directed by Norman Jewison. The film won three Academy Awards, including one for arranger-conductor John Williams. It was nominated for several more, including Best Picture, Best Actor for Chaim Topol as Tevye, and Best Supporting Actor for Leonard Frey, who played Motel the Tailor (both had originally acted in the musical; Topol as Tevye in the London production and Frey in a minor part as the rabbi's son). The decision to cast Topol as Tevye instead of Zero Mostel was a somewhat controversial one, as the role had originated with Mostel and he had made it famous.

Recording was done at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire, England. Most of the exterior shots were done in Croatia: in Mala Gorica, Lekenik, and Zagreb.

The film follows the plot of the stage play very closely, although it omits the songs "Now I Have Everything" and "The Rumor". It takes place in the Jewish village of Anatevka in Tsarist Russia in 1905 and centers on the character of Tevye, a poor milkman, and his daughters' marriages. As Tevye says in the introductory narration, the Jews have relied upon their traditions to maintain the stability of their way of life for centuries; but as times change, that stability is threatened on the small scale by Tevye's daughters' wishes to marry men not chosen in the traditional way by the matchmaker, and on the large scale by pogroms and revolution in Russia.


Cast

Chaim Topol as Tevye
Norma Crane as Golde
Leonard Frey as Motel Kamzoil
Molly Picon as Yente
Paul Mann as Lazar Wolf
Rosalind Harris as Tzeitel
Michele Marsh as Hodel
Neva Small as Chava
Paul Michael Glaser as Perchik
Ray Lovelock as Fyedka
Elaine Edwards as Shprintze
Candy Bonstein as Bielke
Shimen Ruskin as Mordcha
Zvee Scooler as Rabbi
Louis Zorich as Constable
Tutte Lemkow as the Fiddler (His playing was overdubbed by Isaac Stern).

Synopsis

The film centers on the family of Tevye, a Jewish milkman in the village of Anatevka (probably in the Pale of Settlement) in Tsarist Russia. Tevye breaks the fourth wall by talking at times directly to the audience or to the heavens (to God) for the audience's benefit. Much of the story is also told in musical form.

Tevye is terribly poor despite working hard, as are most of the Jews in Anatevka. He and his wife, Golde, have five daughters, which is another burden for Tevye to shoulder (as he cannot afford a dowry to marry them off). Life in the shtetl of Anatevka is very hard and Tevye speaks not only of the difficulties of being poor but also of the Jewish community's constant fear of harassment from their non-Jewish neighbors.

The film begins with Tevye explaining to the audience that what keeps the Jews of Anatevka going is the balance they achieve through obedience to their ancient traditions. He also explains that the lot of the Jews in Russia is as precarious as a fiddler on a roof: trying to eke out a pleasant tune while not breaking their necks. The fiddler appears throughout the film as a metaphoric reminder of the Jews' ever-present fears and danger. While in town, Tevye meets Perchik, a student with modern religious and political ideas (he is clearly a Marxist). Tevye invites Perchik to live with him and his family in exchange for Perchick tutoring his daughters.

Through Yente the matchmaker, Tevye arranges for his oldest daughter, Tzeitel, to marry the only wealthy Jewish man in Anatevka, Lazar Wolf the butcher. However, Tzeitel is in love with her childhood sweetheart, Motel the tailor, and begs her father not to make her marry the much older butcher. Tevye reluctantly agrees and, despite the humiliation suffered by Lazar Wolf, Tzeitel and Motel arrange to be married. At the wedding, an argument breaks out between the guests over whether a girl should be able to choose her own husband. Perchik addresses the crowd and says that since they love each other it should be left for the couple to decide. He creates further controversy when he asks Tevye's daughter Hodel to dance with him, crossing the barrier between the men and women. Eventually, the crowd warms up to the idea and the wedding proceeds with great joy. Suddenly, a mob of local peasants arrive and begin a pogrom, attacking the Jews and their property.

Later, as Perchik prepares to leave Anatevka to work for the revolution, he tells Hodel that he loves her, and she agrees to marry him. When they tell Tevye, he is furious that they have decided to marry without his permission, and with Perchik leaving Anatevka, but he eventually relents because they love each other. Weeks later, when Perchik is arrested in Kiev and exiled to Siberia, Hodel decides to travel to join him there.

Meanwhile, Tevye's third daughter, Chava, has been flirting with a young Russian man, Fyedka, and eventually works up the courage to ask Tevye to allow her to marry him. In a soliloquy, Tevye concludes that while he could accept his older daughters' choosing their own husbands, he cannot countenance Chava marrying a non-Jew, in effect abandoning the Jewish faith, and forbids her to associate with him, but she elopes with him and marries in a Russian Orthodox Church.

Finally, the Jews of Anatevka are notified that the Russian government will force the Jews to leave the village; they have three days to pack up and leave. Tevye and his family and friends begin packing up to leave, heading variously for New York, Chicago, Palestine, and other places they know nothing about. Just before the credits, Tevye spots the fiddler and motions to him to come along. The film ends with a long, slow shot of the Jews walking out of their former village at sunset.

Awards

The film won the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture (Musical or Comedy) in 1972. It also won the Academy Award for Best Original Score.

External links

STARDUST MEMORIES

Stardust Memories is a 1980 film written and directed by Woody Allen. Allen considers this to be one of his best films in addition to The Purple Rose of Cairo and Match Point.[1] Considered by some to be an homage to by Federico Fellini, the film is shot in black-and-white in the style of Fellini's surrealist films of the 1960s.

It examines the semi-autobiographical story of a famous filmmaker, played by Allen, who is plagued by fans who prefer his "earlier, funnier movies" to his more recent artistic efforts, while he tries to reconcile his conflicting attraction to two very different women, the earnest, intellectual Daisy (Jessica Harper), and the more maternal Isobel (Marie-Christine Barrault) while being haunted by memories of his ex-girlfriend, the mercurial Dorrie (Charlotte Rampling). The conflict between the maternal, nurturing woman and the earnest, usually younger one, is a recurring theme in Allen's films. It was nominated for a Writers Guild of America award for "Best Comedy written directly for screen".

Like many of Allen's films, Stardust Memories incorporates several jazz recordings and includes classic performances by such jazz notables as Louis Armstrong, Django Reinhardt, and Chick Webb.


Cast

Among the extended cast members were an ingenue named Sharon Stone, in her first film appearance; future political commentator Alan Colmes (Hannity & Colmes, the Fox News Channel), in his first role; a young Brent Spiner, later famous as Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation; Laraine Newman of Saturday Night Live fame; and Allen's ex-wife Louise Lasser.

Controversy

Allen denies that this film is biographical and regrets that audiences interpreted it as such.[2]

The film sharply divided both audiences and critics, and to this day it provokes strong reactions, with some Allen fans proclaiming it his best picture and perhaps just as many classing it among his worst.[3][4]


Box office

Stardust Memories opened in North America on September 26, 1980 to on onslaught of bad reviews. At 29 theatres, it grossed $326,779 ($11,268 per screen) in its opening weekend. The film failed to attract more than Woody Allen's loyal fanbase in the long run, and it grossed a modest $10,389,003 by the end of its run. The film's budget was $10 million, so it likely made a profit after foreign revenue was taken into account.[5]

References

Allen, Woody; Stig Björkman (1994). Woody Allen on Woody Allen: In Conversation with Stig Björkman. New York: Grove Press.

External links

RADIO DAYS

Radio Days is a 1987 film directed by Woody Allen. The film looks back on American family life during the Golden Age of Radio.

Allen narrates the stories of his youth, although he is never seen by the audience. The young Allen is portrayed onscreen by Seth Green as "Joe".
Synopsis

The Narrator (Woody Allen) tells us how the radio influenced his childhood in the days before the TV. In the New York City of the late 1930s to the New Year of 1944, this coming-of-age tale mixes the Narrator's experiences with contemporary anecdotes and urban legends of the radio stars.

Even though the Narrator's Jewish-American family lives modestly in the Queens neighborhood of Rockaway Beach, each member finds in radio shows an escape from reality through the gossip of celebrities, sports legends of the day, crooners, etc. For the Narrator, the action adventurers on the radio (one of them based on The Shadow) inspire him, as he daydreams about his attractive replacement teacher, movie stars, and World War II. Meanwhile, the story of an aspiring radio star's (Mia Farrow) career is also told, along with the tale of the Narrator's aunt Bea (Dianne Wiest) and her search for love.

The musical score features classic songs from the 1930s and 40s, which play an important part in the plot. Even Orson Welles's famous radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds has an important role in Bea's life.

While having similarities to both Manhattan and Fellini's Amarcord, this film is Woody Allen's homage to his beloved New York City.


Awards and nominations

1988 Academy Awards (Oscars)
Nominated – Best Achievement in Art Direction: Art Direction: Speed Hopkins — Set Decoration: Carol Joffe, Leslie Bloom, George de Titta, Jr.
Nominated – Best Original Screenplay: Woody Allen

1988 BAFTA Film Awards
Won – Best Costume Design : Jeffery Kurland
Won – Best Production Design: Santo Loquasto
Nominated – Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Dianne Wiest
Nominated – Best Editing: Susan E. Morse
Nominated – Best Film: Robert Greenhut, Woody Allen
Nominated – Best Screenplay Original: Woody Allen
Nominated – Best Sound: Robert Hein, James Sabat, Lee Dichter

1988 Writers Guild of America Awards
Nominated – WGA Screen Award for Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen: Woody Allen

External links

Radio Days at the Internet Movie Database
[hide]
vdeFilms directed by Woody Allen
1960s
What's Up, Tiger Lily? (1966) · Take the Money and Run (1969)
1970s
Men of Crisis: The Harvey Wallinger Story (1971) · Bananas (1971) · Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) (1972) · Sleeper (1973) · Love and Death (1975) · Annie Hall (1977) · Interiors (1978) · Manhattan (1979)
1980s
Stardust Memories (1980) · A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982) · Zelig (1983) · Broadway Danny Rose (1984) · The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985) · Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) · Radio Days (1987) · September (1987) · Another Woman (1988) · New York Stories (1989) · Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
1990s
Alice (1990) · Shadows and Fog (1992) · Husbands and Wives (1992) · Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993) · Bullets Over Broadway (1994) · Don't Drink the Water (1994) · Mighty Aphrodite (1995) · Everyone Says I Love You (1996) · Deconstructing Harry (1997) · Celebrity (1998) · Sweet and Lowdown (1999)
2000s
Small Time Crooks (2000) · The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001) · Hollywood Ending (2002) · Anything Else (2003) · Melinda and Melinda (2005) · Match Point (2005) · Scoop (2006) · Cassandra's Dream (2007) · Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Days"
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...