Saturday, May 23, 2020

Whatever Works (2009)

This 2020 Woody Allen movie was in fact made in 2009. But it feels so 2020. 
To wit: hero Boris sings himself Happy Birthday twice while washing his hands. Speaking of pandemic toxicity, in a wax museum Boris tells Melody she needs to marry a moronic redneck like the Donald Trump dummy behind them. 
The Woody role is taken by — or dissolves into — the more current and heavyweight rage of the Larry David persona. As if his misanthropy were not repulsive enough,  Boris bullies, berates and takes money from the children he humiliates at chess. David supplants the Woody timidity with unrestrained aggressiveness. 
Consistent with his Blue Jasmine and other homages to A Streetcar Named Desire, Melody’s southern belle mother Marietta blows in like Blanche de Bois, disdainful of her sister’s flat, life and husband. She even repeats a line: “You are not the gentleman I was expecting.”
Enhancing all that currency is the film’s self-referentiality. Boris speaks to the audience directly, going even further than the breakthru frisson of Alvy’s address in Annie Hall. 
His brilliant quantum mechanics character “sees the big picture.” He alone knows he is a character in a big picture — this film — and that we’re the hapless doomed schnooks trapped on the witness side of his experience. The device encapsulates both Allen’s existentialism and his commitment to full frontal exposure of human frailty and hopelessness. But so too his emblazoned prescription: Do Whatever Works. 
By that principle the characters Boris has persistently presented as doomed cretins blossom into happiness, however cosmically brief and comically doomed, in the concluding renewal, at the New Years Eve party (despite Boris’s hatred of the institution). Melody has her actor stud. Erstwhile church lady Marietta is rapturously fulfilled as an erotic art photographer living with two men. Melody’s frustrated dad finds fulfilment in a homosexual relationship. And having fled his first, ideal marriage and been released from the perfect, inappropriate second one, Boris falls for a psychic  — who should have sensed her imminent catastrophe. And perhaps did.
This has to be ranked among Allen’s best. Its conception is brave and brilliant. It has one of wittiest, most crackling and quotable scripts. The casting, performances, sets, editing, everything smacks of the master’s hand. Except for all his other masterpieces this would be Woody’s best. Everything works.        

Saturday, May 16, 2020

Match Point (2005)

There’s an elegant irony at the heart of Woody Allen's Match Point. As hero Chris Wilton early avers: “The man who said ‘I'd rather be lucky than good’ saw deeply into life. People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It's scary to think so much is out of one's control. There are moments in a match when the ball hits the top of the net, and for a split second, it can either go forward or fall back. With a little luck, it goes forward, and you win. Or maybe it doesn't, and you lose. “
The opening focuses on the net at the center of a tennis game. We don’t see the players, just the net and the traversing slo-mo ball. Illustrating the point, the ball hits the net, pops into the air and then falls — short. That player has lost — but the other one won. One player’s bad luck is the other’s good. 
  The net shot returns in the ping pong scene where Chris meets femme fatale Nola, the seductive fiancee of Chris’s new best friend and future brother-in-law. Aggressive Chris plays weak but slams back her tentative serve. That prefigures the end of their relationship.
This Chris does not wilt. The irrational doomed Nola also has a telling name: It’s ‘alone’ spelled backwards, as a tennis game volley invites. 
The climactic irony has Wilton throwing into the Thames the jewelry he stole in the cover-up murder of Nola’s neighbour. The last item, a ring, arcs toward the river but lands on the concrete wall. It hops into the air and then falls — short. When the police summon Wilton for an interview, alerted by her tell-all diary, we assume the ring will prove his undoing. Instead it saves him. The man who found it is caught committing a similar drug-theft so has Wilton’s crimes hung on him too. The lucky find proves doom. The unlucky toss proves fortunate.
As a serious observer of life and art Woody Allen knows better than to believe and promulgate sentimental conventions. The overriding irrationality of life hardly guarantees justice (other than poetic) or satisfaction. So his characters can get away with murder, here as in Crimes and Misdemeanours if not in the more exuberantly generic Manhattan Murder Mystery. 
Of course the title has a double point. It’s not just about a tennis match but about the social order concentrated in the romantic match or marriage (one chooses). Chris and Nola meet in a supercharged erotic connection. But they are also players in that marriage game, ostensibly bound by its conventions. 
Auteur Allen is not bound by genre conventions. His wealthy family is warm, cultured, generous. His tennis pro Wilton reads Dostoevsky (and a book about Dostoevsky) and is an opera enthusiast. Allen fills his tennis story with opera segments, dissolving the bounds of the genre.
  But even in that welcoming world our central heroes — well or ill-matched —  both are ambitious classless arriviste,  the Irish tennis coach and the American actress. Both are bent upon marrying into their respective fortunes. Nola’s engagement crumbles. But Chris’s marriage thrives until their resurrected romance blossoms into the fatal pregnancy.  Romantic matching is also a game, played by the rich and privileged, with the winner and the loser often distinguished only by the arc of accident. 

Friday, May 15, 2020

Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)

The first joke sets the theme: a mass murder cannibal in Idaho has “an alternative life style.” 
Larry (Woody Allen) and Carol (Diane Keaton) suffer their polar alternative interests, as the first scene establishes. He likes Rangers hockey, she the opera. They wonder if their dulled marriage will last the 26 years of their neighbours’. By film’s end, their initially fanciful, then life-threatening involvement in that couple’s murder mystery revitalizes their relationship. That ends their respective temptation to adultery with friend Ted (Alan Alda) and novelist Marcia (Anjelica Huston).
Allen and Keaton made the film in the immediate aftermath of his scandalous break-up with Mia Farrow. Resuming his work with Keaton was a clear alternative to Farrow. 
So is his choice of a highly conventionalized commercial genre — the Manhattan murder mystery — after his more personal and ambitious films, especially his string from September through Husbands and Wives. The light-hearted genre is an alternative lifestyle for the serious director Allen had become. At that critical point in Allen’s career, his reputation in ruins as a result of Farrow’s eventually disproven allegations, making such an apparently impersonal film was a remarkably personal initiative.  
  The film is extremely self-reflexive. This is not a film about life but a film about the filmic representation of life. 
Its opening is a bathetic variation on the famous opening of Manhattan. The singer provides a non-lyrical expression of his love for the city. So unlyrical it dares a rhyme on Hackensack. Allen’s romantic Manhattan cityscape leads into the infernal factory where the murdered woman’s corpse is disappeared. 
The lead couple’s comic conversations revive the fumbling and mannerisms that harken back to Love and Death and Sleeper. Carol’s forays into the suspect’s flat recall Rear Window. The killer is entrapped by a scheme that involves a tape of his mistress’s acting audition and its recutting into something incriminating. As its master planner, exotic novelist Marcia Fox, is played by Anjelica Huston, she evokes and counters the victim in Crimes and Misdemeanours. 
The murderer himself is in the process of remodelling a charming old cinema. The radical redo is better for a cinema than for a marriage, but it confirms the parallel of life and cinema. 
In the film’s climax cinema overwhelms the characters’ “real” lives entirely. The showdown occurs at a screening of Welles’s The Lady from Shanghai. The famous plethora of mirror images, shattering glass, a total unmooring of image from reality, extends from that film into Allen’s setting. Indeed the killer’s nemesis is (like Rita Hayworth) a redhead who has faithfully served the villain, who walks with a cane like the Welles villain and even repeats his acrid line to his “lover.” 
Films are another alternative life style. As Allen asserted, when a disaster hits life you can still make a movie. Betrayed by one intimate/star you can revert to another. When life gets too complicated for even an Allen masterpiece, turn on the light, entertaining genre. But even that art reflects life, ours as resonantly as the artist’s.     

Thursday, May 14, 2020

Autonomies -- the 2018 Israeli TV Series


Autonomies: A brief analysis

      After their hugely successful collaboration on Shtisel, writer Ori Elon and writer/director Yehonatan Indursky developed another family drama with more explicit political dimensions. The six-episode TV series Autonomies was later reset into five for a 3 1/2-hour feature film release. That's the version I discuss here.
      In Autonomies the authors posit an Israel in the aftermath of a near-future civil war.  That began with an orthodox demonstration in which 13 yeshiva students were killed. Thirty years later, the ultra-orthodox have established the Haredi state Autonomy, centered in Jerusalem. The secular State of Israel has its capital in Tel Aviv. As in Shtisel, the writers have stepped away from the more common conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, choosing instead to focus on tensions within the Israeli Jewish community.
      Their respective cultures are instantly identifiable. Two girls with bare and tattooed legs connote Tel Aviv. At the Autonomy’s border entry point Haredim solicit donations to charity. Clearly the modern thrives more than the old. Indeed the Autonomy hospitals are unfunded, with decaying equipment and salaries suspended for two years -- hence the campaign to rejoin Israel. 
      In the title graphics a diminutive orthodox Jew is dwarfed by a landscape of columns and a gigantic book that threatens to swallow him up in its pages. The figure points ahead to the drama’s hero, Yoni Broide, a virtuous but weak orthodox Jew advertising himself as an "orthodox undertaker." His name summons up the story of Jonah (which he retells in Episode 4), that crucial story in the celebration of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.  Like Jonah, Yoni will try -- futilely — to escape his commitments, both to family and to God. He will sink into adultery and kidnapping before he achieves the purity for his ultimate sacrifice.
For Yoni and for the other characters, there is a constant struggle between their personal will and their responsibilities. That is, personal autonomy is as much an issue here as that of the orthodox state.  
       Now the two forms of Judaism are considering reunification. Many in the State are opposed to renewing their excessive support of the orthodox "parasites," who refuse to join the Israeli army, detach themselves from the social mainstream and promote a narrow, antiquated school curriculum. The orthodox refuse to surrender any of their authority and consider the modern Jews to be apostates. According to the Autonomy’s leader, the Rebbe from Kreinitz, reuniting with the Zionists is equivalent to sinking Noah’s Ark and accepting the destruction of the Jews.
      In Shtisel the family drama serves to define the larger problems of authoritarianism, especially in the patriarchy. Here the larger political drama threatens the unity of two families, united by a nursery fatality and threatened with disintegration. Implicitly, the film also dramatizes the dangers of destroying the separation of church and state. Explicitly, it plays on the homonymous themes of personal autonomy and atonement,


Episode 1. The occurrence yearned to occur

      The opening title’s “occurrence” can be taken to refer to the original separation by the orthodox, the pressure for their reunification or the respective states’ confronting each other over the fate of a nine-year-old child, Gonnie. All seem inevitable outgrowths of the current tensions. 
      Yoni Broide is initially outside that struggle. He is an orthodox Jew who uses his Burial Society job delivering corpses for burial as a front to smuggle forbidden materials into the Autonomy. He has his principles: He won’t put pork next to a corpse. But he  sneaks in porn videos and forbidden books. In this culture even children’s books are held back if not certified kosher. Broide is surprised to learn that his client for the smuggled Freud and Thucydides is the Autonomy’s leader, the Rebbe from Kreinitz. 
      In asking the Rebbe to pray for him, Broide identifies himself as Yona ben Leah. That is, by his mother’s name not his father’s. His motivation remains enigmatic even when we later learn that his father — a soft, attentive man to whom he was very close —  was killed in the yeshiva demonstration that led to the Autonomy’s independence. Young Yoni had coaxed his unwilling father to go.
      Broide seems to grow out of the Lippe character in Shtisel. He’s torn between the orthodox restrictions imposed on him and his instinctive attraction to secular temptations. Despite — or because — he has a tight family life, with an orthodox wife Bluma and four children, he slips into an affair with the blonde jazz saxaphonist Anna, He meets her when he collects her dead partner Gabriel for his lonely, orthodox burial in Jerusalem. 
      In continually calling Anna Hannah, Broide subconsciously stifles the obvious reminder of his wife’s name Bluma in Anna’s surname Blum. He's altering the other name to avoid the problematic one. This name confusion also recalls Ruchami’s “Hanna Karenina,” the doomed, romantic heroine she domesticates to fit the Haredi vision. Broide courts Anna with his interest in jazz, proving his sincerity with a melodious "Lover Man.”
       Broide expresses a non-religious philosophy. “There aren’t enough people for all the pain in the world,” he consoles Anna. He turns an adage to seductive purpose: “A Jew mustn’t hold back. We’re held back as it is.” And to the child he’s feeding: “Jews have to eat a lot so when the wolf comes he’ll have something to devour.” 
      Broide sins but only with difficulty: "I should've been a good person.” But his recurring "penitence attack...will go away soon.” He pauses his first intimacy with Anna to go to the washroom to suppress his conscience, to stave off another penitence attack. 
      Most of the first episode explains the opening scene, where Asher and Batia Luzzatto are informed there is a “stay of exit order” against their nine-year-old daughter Gonnie leaving the State of Israel. A nurse has just confessed to having accidentally suffocated this couple’s newborn daughter, then switched her wristband with the daughter of Elka and Hilik Rein. This switch suggests how destructive an impulsive and emotional action can prove, on the national as well as individual level. 
      The news shakes both families. In parallel lawyer scenes both sides determine to “go to war” over the innocent little girl. The Autonomy legal scene is shot dark and sombre, as if pre-Enlightenment. The State one is in gleaming whites. Gonnie’s functional parents are determined to keep her, despite their having just decided to separate. Their lawyer insists they conceal this intention, which could destroy their case. 
      Against her husband’s reservations, Elke insists on recovering their lost daughter. Elka is passionately supported by her father, the Rebbe of Kreinitz, but for suspect motives.  He turns the family tragedy into a national political issue, to reinforce his political control.  At a massive rally the Rebbe insists that the child must by Biblical authority be raised orthodox. ”Not one Jewish soul shall be wasted.” The Rebbe is an amplification of the callous religious authority that Shulem Shtisel wielded in the writers’ earlier critique of patriarchy. 
      To avoid another civil war, the magistrate suggests a compromise: the birth and foster parents divide their weekly time with the child. Elka accepts this but her husband cites her father's patriarchal authority.  When the magistrate then decides to leave Gonnie with the parents who raised her, the Rebbe turns his family issue into a political rebellion.
      As Shulem did, the Rebbe pretends to divine authority:  “We have no choice. It’s time to do God’s will. We must wage war to recover the child.” He diminishes his personal interest: “This is not my granddaughter but the granddaughter of the Jewish people….  We won’t let the Zionists steal our children.” Echoing the Rebbe’s pretence to purity, his daughter’s married name is Rein (yiddish for ‘clean’). Similarly, her husband Hilik is slightly off ‘Heilik’ (holy), the way ‘Shulem’ was off ‘Sholom.’ The Rebbe dismisses the courts as secular idiots who have abandoned the Torah, his source of authority. As the Rebbe incites his people Broide recalls the yeshiva riot that killed his father: "It starts again."  
      Trying to persuade Broide to kidnap Gonnie for him, the Rebbe pretends to humility. He does not have divine inspiration, he admits. But he presumes to know God’s will, what God wants of him and of others: “If this is what God wants, you will do it.” As Broide leaves, the Rebbe looks away, out his car window, at the darkness. Himself a force of darkness, he will push Broide to criminal lengths for what he claims is God’s will. 
      To coerce Broide into kidnapping Gonnie the Rebbe unleashes the full force of the/his law. Police raid Broide's home, forcing him to move all his contraband material into a country bunker. That they then destroy. They intrude upon his son's birthday party with naked force. Cutting himself a piece of birthday cake, the policeman pauses for the blessing on God's gift of various nourishment. The piety barely hides his sinister brutishness. 
      Here lie the wider range of autonomy issues among the characters. Blumi, Anna, both sets of warring parents, the arrogant Rebbe and especially the conflicted Broide all wrestle with the constant battle between their urges and their restraints. Autonomy is their every impulse -- and affliction. 
         As Broide lies in bed, contemplative, his peace assailed by Anna’s allure and the Rebbe’s demands, the song says “Winter came around one hour too soon. Now I am dancing alone in my room. Rise, rise, only for me.”  Like Gonnie in the opening scene, Broide is unwittingly trapped in his own "stay of exit order," imposed by the Rebbe who uses God to enforce his personal will. 

Episode 2. A hymn for the homeless.

A variety of homeless or uprooted define the second episode.
Some Haredim plead with the Rebbe to allow the reunion of the orthodox and Zionist states. The Autonomy is suffering economically. Its hospitals are in decline and have been unable to pay salaries for two years. The Rebbe dismisses these concerns by declaring the problems to be God’s will. 
To persuade Broide to kidnap Gonnie the Rebbe insists he has God’s intention in mind. When Broide declares he has quit his smuggling operation and wants to be left alone, the Rebbe suggests this moral conversion is evil. It’s an attempt to sway Broide from God’s — i.e., the Rebbe’s — cause. As someone capable of wrong-doing, “You can destroy the world, but you can also fix it.” To the Rebbe, “the world” is just his will. 
Broide is helpless. As he initially drives home at night the radio jazz catches his secular inclination and his desire for the saxophonist Anna. She’s now angry at his revelation — post-coital — that he has a wife and four children. To her “drop dead” he replies “I died a long time ago.” In her and in the secular life he hopes for a rebirth, a new life and home. 
When he see his bunker contraband burning and learns his children have been expelled from their good schools, he feels the Rebbe’s power, holy but malevolent. That’s another homelessness, commitment to a corrupted faith.
Broide’s attempt to go straight is snarled by his reputation. Son Tzviki is alienated after slugging a boy who said Broide was a “shaygetz,” literally a gentile, but by implication a failure or criminal. Broide’s unpleasant job — loading and delivering at a supermarket — is disrupted when his boss Bubchik also calls him that. At Broide’s objection the boss shoves him several times. Broide’s retaliatory push accidentally kills him. In jail Broide is at his most homeless, unsupported, vulnerable, and thus doomed to the Rebbe’s offer to free him in return for kidnapping Gonnie.   
      Earlier, a pause in the washroom — as in his scene with Anna in the first episode — strengthened Broide to reject the Rebbe’s criminal demand. But the murder charge clearly rewrites Broide’s life. Again the Rebbe asserts God’s will: “What more needs to happen for you to know God’s plan for you?” For his family’s interest Broide agrees, after ensuring that the Rebbe will take care of his family and protect both their wellbeing and their eventual marriages. 
Acknowledging he will never return home, Broide instructs the Rebbe to deliver to his wife his get, his divorce, so she will not remain bound to him. Like the first episode, this one closes on Broide’s flashback to his father’s death at the demonstration. A second father is lost to his family, this time the first one’s son. 
  The two conflicting families also reflect incompleteness in the home. At their shabbos service Elka insists her husband bless their missing daughter as well as their present kids. To her, Gonnie is homeless until she’s with the parents she has never known. 
Even within her present family, Gonnie is bounced between two incomplete homes. Asher moves from sleeping on the couch to moving in with friend Victor. The playboy’s pad is no home for Asher. Batia rejects his reconciliation attempts as continuing to suffocate her. 
In despair Asher makes a serious move against Batia. In an anonymous phone call he informs the Reins’ lawyer that Gonnie’s adoptive parents are separated. This strengthens the Reins’ case for an appeal to claim her. Even more rootless now, Asher hangs himself — but is saved by Victor’s timely return home with a date.  
As in Shtisel, here the plot provides a range of human effort, much malevolent, some desperate, most self-serving, which the ostensibly pious attribute to God. They empower themselves and advance their selfish ends by claiming to be in His service. Compared to them the petty porn smuggler and adulterer emerges as moral. He at least practices penitence, however frequently and briefly, and humbly aspires to a better self. 

Episode 3. On Time and Terror

The kidnapping episode is presented on a juggled time-scheme, to evoke the characters’ tension, anxiety, confusion, and the moral chaos of the situation. This criminal act is — on both the characters’ domestic level and on the troubled religio-political front  — a sign of all coherence gone.  Like Broide’s recurrent flashbacks to his father’s fatal presence at the protest, the shifting tenses confirm the continuing influence of the past.
In parallel confessions Broide tells first wife Bluma then girlfriend Anna about the murder and his need to escape. He leaves Bluma weeping helplessly, freed but unwilling to remarry.  Told of his enigmatic escape plan, Anna immediately volunteers to abet and to leave with him. She is assured that the deed he will get big bucks for committing must be legal because it’s on high command — from the Rebbe of Kreinitz himself, he does not explain.
With his sidelocks clipped and wearing a flashy sport shirt Broide is a different man, visibly stripped of his orthodoxy. As another emblem of his new life, there’s a painting of a  nude woman above Anna’s bed. Defining his new culture, this is as quietly eloquent as the crucifix over Lippe’s bed in Shtisel, when he phones Giti to plan to return.   
In a more expensive transformation Broide orders blackmarket passports for himself and for the black-wigged Anna (at $6,000 each). Germany and Hungary are a problem (as usual) so they’ll have to be Estonian. We watch full-screen the passport ID photos transformation. How fluid identity in the modern world. 
In a more regrettable transformation Asher, having betrayed Batia by reporting their separation, now cruelly blames her for Gonnie’s abduction — as well as having destroyed their home and marriage. His anger and — possibly unacknowledged — guilt turn him cruel. As the kidnap plan unfolds, Anna exploits Batia’s new dressmaking business and her desire to satisfy Gonnie’s desire for music lessons, virtues that leave her vulnerable.   
  After Anna’s photo is televised as one of the kidnappers and the Rebbe changes the plan, demanding Broide take Gonnie to Kreinitz in the Ukraine instead of their local meeting, the net tightens around Broide. The police arrest of the Rebbe provokes another riot of religious indignation against the secular order. 
The time-juggle allows for one trick on our judgment. At one point Gonnie refers to her abductors as if they were her real parents. We may infer this was their expedient lie. But we later see the earlier scene in which she says she has guessed they are her real parents. They do not correct her. When she phones Batia she says she wanted to meet them but she misses her adoptive parents. She wants them to reunite so she won’t have to hear their quarrels. That Batia promises.
  In the episode’s key discussion Broide tells Anna that he learned real fear when he was nine years old; it’s the wound he has learned to live with since. Again the episode closes on that primal scene. He witnesses his father’s murder in the riot. “You can’t take fear to the grocery store,” Broide advises. But it enables his desperate attempt to salvage his spirit and to make a new life. 


  Episode 4. High Walls in the Heart
       The title points to both the personal and socio-religious obstacles to ardent commitment. At the episode’s core is the Jonah story that Broide tells Gonnie, to calm her as a truck smuggles them across the border.  The story proves “You can’t run away from God the Almighty.” Jonah’s attempt to imperils the ship on which he is fleeing God’s assignment, resulting in the storm, his ejection and his swallowing by the whale. In despair and alienation Jonah stumbles through the darkness inside the whale: “like here inside the truck’s belly.” 
The police station scenes present a range of isolations, as the Rebbe and the conflicted mothers are interviewed in separate rooms. As ever wielding religion against the law, the Rebbe fends off interrogation by praying and citing homilies: “The angry man is governed by all sorts of evil.” So, by the way, is the self-serving patriarch.
  When Batia is brought in to meet Elka the police fear there may be violence. Instead the women’s emotions bridge their antagonism. “I just want to know [Gonnie’s] all right,” says Batia, logically suspecting the birth-parents are behind the abduction. When Elka approaches her, her intention is not aggressive: “Feel my heart. I would never do that to my child.” Later Elka visits Batia at home to make a joint appeal on the media for Gonnie’s safe return. She surrenders her claim: “Do not fight on our behalf. We have had enough of war.” The voice and values of motherhood oppose the patriarchal ardor for a self-righteous war.
Elka was converted to Batia’s side by the Rebbe’s unwitting confession. Though he denies responsibility for the  kidnapping, he reveals how it serves him. Again pleading God’s support, he claims that God planned the problem of Gonnie’s parenthood to prevent the Autonomy from returning to the former unified Israel. Gonnie has saved the orthodox “from that crisis of unity.” Elka sees through his righteousness to his real purpose — to extend his rule over the Council and the public. “Is this how you see your father?” he asks in weak indignation.
When the Council meets —  in the Rebbe’s house, for additional pressure — he claims that past generations of Jews are watching them, demanding their “right choice for Israel,” their independence from the modern State. He receives no support. 
  In a brief scene Leibish transmits Broide’s divorce to Blumi. She responds with tears and concern for her children, “who love him so much.”
Gonnie’s opposing fathers respond differently to their wives’ initiative. When Batia insists she will not leave the Israeli police station until Gonnie is returned to her, he finds her sleeping erect. Despite having blamed her for the abduction, now he plants a tender kiss. That provokes her rejection: “Moron!” In contrast, Elka returns home to find her Hilik leaving her. Her television appearance has undermined the Autonomy. Now he doubts her ability to raise their children. When the Luzzattos hear Gonnie has been found, they refuse to wait upon the Ukrainian police and hie themselves off to Kreinitz.  
The Rebbe has three responses to his (supposedly religious) political defeat. The stress results in his hospitalization and minor surgery. By his homily, “A living dog is better than a dead lion.” With his political intention thwarted, he can fall back upon proper fatherliness. He tells Elka he now supports Gonnie’s return to the Luzzattos. The TV appearance persuaded him which Jewish mother should hold sway. Instead of admitting political defeat he pretends to respect familial emotion. He despatches Elka and Hilik to Kreinitz with the money to pay Broide and to retrieve Gonnie.
  But the Rebbe tries to rebuild his political hold. He calls on the yeshiva students to immediately go to his hometown, Kreinitz, to establish there the orthodox enclave he sees threatened by the reunion of Israel. They will buy back the original yeshiva building, at whatever cost, to save it from its current function as a gentile cinema. He assigns Rebbe Ichiel to head the new school. The young men follow their leader. 
More sappily, the Rebbe ignores the healthiness that bodes his imminent release from the hospital. Instead he pretends a deathbed request of his faithful aide. Though older, the personal assistant has been like a son to him so would he please say his kaddish (the prayer for dead). With apt bathos, the Rebbe also urges him to stop drinking so much Coke. The secular ever intrudes upon the religious. (Despite his healthy prognosis, in the last episode the Rebbe dies in disappointment.)
Meanwhile the kidnappers’ course does not run smooth. At the Ukraine airport the “family” are taken aside for questioning about their Estonian passports. Broide qualifies by reciting the first lines of Genesis in Estonian. As the interviewing woman continues to scrutinize them suspiciously, Broide disarms her: “You look at me a lot. A lot. I look good.” Smiling, she returns their passports and admits them. “We go to rob a bank,” Broide assures her. “You can come.” 
Her suspicion concerns them, though. Afraid of being recognized, Anna loses her black wig and Broide shaves his full beard and — to Gonnie’s suspicion — doffs his yarmulke. Gonnie has cooperated fully so far, even giving the border official her assumed Estonian boy’s name. But when Broide eats a traif sandwich on the train — which makes him privately vomit — Gonnie concludes that the couple are not her real parents. When they disembark at Heinitz, Gonnie jumps back on the departing train. 
One detail requires special attention. Gonnie’s boy-cap bears the label “Why.” So, why?
  First, the word is a question. Why is Gonnie in this situation? What religious or moral principle has been served by casting her into a familial tug-of-war, then an abduction? Why should she be obliging her ostensible “parents” who are neither her birth nor adoptive ones? Why should this nine-year-old suffer an uprooting trauma like the nine-year-old Broide did?
More broadly, why was she switched away from her parents in the first place? Was this an accident, a human error, a quirk of fate? Or was it indeed an act of divine intervention? As the Rebbe contends — and may or may not actually believe. 
In Shtisel the writers often posed this question, however implicitly. “We are all in God’s hands; we know nothing,” the characters often claim, especially around funerals. But this can also seem a convenient, evasive denial of human agency and responsibility. Thus Nachum always blames someone else for his financial problems. 
But the writers leave open the possibility of divine intervention. Why did Lippe call to report Malka’s coma just in time to abort Giti’s abortion? Why did Ruchami’s glue not work when she posted Lippe’s humiliation? Of all the kugel joints in Jerusalem, why did Hanina for his pre- divorce court lunch choose Giti’s restaurant? Divine direction, accident, or was he returning to the scene — under new ownership — of his impromptu wedding? The writers are respectful enough of religion to allow the possibility of divine intervention, even as that evades human responsibility.
But the “Why” word is also an answer. This child is the reason two factions are fighting for her. But they have different compulsions, different “whys.” To the Rebbe she is a useful instrument for his personal advantage, in the name of a religious cause. That feeds Elka’s and Hilik’s blood-claim on her, which is as tribal as the Rebbe’s authority. To the Luzzattos she is the child they have raised and love. She is also a new reason why to renew their marriage, to give her the comfortable family she craves. Perhaps Batia — with her new career and self-assertion and with her successful campaign to recover her daughter— can give the marriage a second chance, as she has promised Gonnie. Gonnie is the "why" of her cap.
  Beyond the family, Gonnie is the future generation, the “why” for which the liberal Israel here focused on the State, capital Tel Aviv, is in conflict with the orthodox Autonomy, centered in Jerusalem. Here this dystopian fiction reflects a radical tension in the real Israel today. How will the next Israeli generation(s) be raised? Will they be prepared for the challenges and with the opportunities of the new advancing world or will they be restricted to the old ancestral customs and limits? This battle over Gonnie is the battle over what Israel will become.   
But the drama is not over yet. As the title of the final episode warns:

Episode 5. Things turn out differently

As the previous episode was the only one not to close on Broide’s flashback to his father’s murder, this one opens on that old riot and closes on the new one. The opening is a unique composition in this series, a bird’s eye — a.k.a. God’s eye — view of the historic riot’s aftermath. At the dark four-way intersection a line of corpses lie in the middle, with black-suited witnesses behind them. The ambulance flashes at the left. The shot seems to be another “attack of remorse. It’ll pass in an instant.”
At the end Broide awakens in a yeshiva to find the students wielding molotov cocktails against the IDF rifles, deployed to enforce their conscription into the army. As the Autonomy has been annexed into the State, the government is enforcing the army’s claim on all its citizens. The education department is raiding the yeshivas to enforce the addition of basic secular education. 
In between, the kidnapping plot stumbles to conclusion. Gonnie turns herself in to the conductor, who leaves her with the local police. When the two sets of parents meet across the tracks at Kreinitz, with no sign of Gonnie, Asher attacks Hilik and both men are arrested. In the station Batia spots Gonnie and they rush to each other. As the adoptive family leave, Gonnie impulsively runs over to Elka and gives her a long hug. She seems explained by the word “Explore” on the shoulder of her jacket. Hilik notes how like Elka the beautiful Gonnie looks. There is the implicit prospect of both families’ unification.
As Broide and Anna try to find Gonnie (and the money owed him) they are variously distracted. To counter his first frightening flashback Broide urges the non-believing Anna to join him in a hymn — “Song of Ascents” (the hymn Shulem had his class sing in a protest when he sought to recover his lost salary). He corrects Anna’s doubt: “Someone is always listening.”  
Broide wins an old Lada from a rural barkeep by beating him in a chess game. “You’re sure you’re not Jewish?” the defeated stranger asks. Expecting prejudice, Broide had denied his faith. He tells Anna he learned chess from his father, a soft man who played him chess every Friday and only once let him win. His father placed more faith in the Torah than in protest so he didn’t want to go to the yeshiva demonstration. But young Broide insisted so they went: “I still don’t know why God Almighty refused to let my father come home.” He repeats the dubious distinction between human agency and divine intercession.
Broide has been revealing himself only haltingly, to Anna so to us. For: “Broide is like a sausage. Better not to know how he was made.” The simile conveys his low regard for himself, ever penitent, ever sinning. Yet he has been showing an increasingly moral and humane character. He offers a ride to a cold pedestrian and gives him his own jacket: “Some Jews aren’t human beings, but all human beings are Jews.”  That jacket enables Broide to escape his own identity. When he survives his stalled car’s ramming by a train, the stranger is reported to be the dead Broide. 
Again the question of human agency arises. Did God inflict the fatal crash on Broide to punish his licentiousness with Anna? But save him because of his kindness to the stranger? Or was it all just another case of human impulses and unintended consequences? Until Judgment Day the jury is out.  
That day comes soon enough, in the dream during Broide’s six-month coma. It recalls Shulem’s dream of the Day of Judgment in Shtisel and similarly provides the character’s renewal of spirit, a rebirth. As in that drama, the writers makes the metaphysical world as “real” as the normal waking life. 
As the various people wait to be judged by the Heavenly Court, Broide is surprised to meet the esteemed Rebbe, still waiting to be judged. But now he is wholly uncertain of his fate: “I don’t know if I fixed more than I broke or if I broke more than I fixed.” As he advises Broide, with the Almighty “Even when you intend to do His will He may see it differently.” He seems to acknowledge his earlier sophistry when he claimed God required Broide to kidnap Gonnie. Now the Rebbe asks Broide to intercede, to sing “Peace Unto You” for him. He even asks for Broide’s forgiveness. 
After Broide recovers consciousness in a Ukraine hospital he returns to Jerusalem. There, from the security of his taxi, he sees a fragment of his funeral poster on the wall, then Bluma, with her new husband, two of their children and a new infant. Broide asks the cabbie to drive away, anywhere. 
Assured that his family is secure and whole, bereft of his Anna, the man who was torn between the orthodox and the secular life finds he cannot escape the trauma he experienced at nine. As he lost his father in the riot that gave birth to the Autonomy, he awakens into another yeshiva riot militantly protesting its end. To avoid joining the army they wage war against the Israeli military.
He leaves his cane, takes a black suit jacket and hat and picks up two molotov cocktails. We think he will join the throwers. Indeed the television news reports that he set fire to himself to protest the annexation. 
To the contrary, however, Broide seems rather to emulate the Buddhist monks’ self-immolation in protest against the Vietnam war. As in the parallel Shtisel episode, the Judgment Day experience transcends religious distinctions. Broide was never dutifully orthodox and he was always haunted by the human costs of the campaign for autonomy. Indeed his personal autonomy has been the drama’s primary victim of the Autonomy’s war against the State. In his final and fatal act Yoni Broide at last performs what he takes to be God’s will — not to fight either the unifiers or the rebels but to sacrifice himself in protest against their war. In self-immolation he finally asserts his own will. 
        Broide's climactic atonement for his father's death and his own loss of moral will contrasts to the Rebbe's sophistical claim to having wanted to atone for the first yeshiva deaths, but coheres with the young nurse's finally confessing to her baby switch in the nursery, when she switched the baby she killed for the more newly-born one, that might have prevented suspicion. 
But Broide’s truth is buried in the news, in the public presentation of the event. As a reminder that the drama’s war continues, the same news broadcast promises an upcoming report on the mass exodus of Autonomy Jews to revive the old settlement in historic Kreinitz. There the rural barkeep watches that news, soured at the prospect of more Jews to best him at chess. 
Not that he has anything against Jews.   


The author's episode-by-episode analysis, Reading Shtisel, is available from lulu.com. As is After Shtisel, which covers Season 3 and also includes the present study of Autonomies.

     
     
  

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Emma (2020)

The music provides a telling structure in Autumn de Wilde’s adaptation of Jane Austen’s  Emma. In particular, there’s a difference between the music that originates within the narrative — i.e., the songs and music performed by the characters within the plot — and the outside music — i.e., the score that frames the narrative. The outer reflects upon the inner. This strategy points to the drama’s central concern with the class structure, its privileges and its responsibilities. 
The internal music is classical, whether symphonic or traditional lyricism. That is, it represents the upper middle class — better educated, richer, in short, privileged — which the wealthy and beautiful Emma rules with her assumed sense of power. 
Arguably the key song is the Knightley/Fairfax duet of “Drink to me only with thine eyes,” a period re-setting of the Elizabethan Ben Jonson’s “To Celia.” Popular in Jonson’s day, it’s classical in Austen’s (and in ours, as even Johnny Cash has visited it with gritty ardour).   
In addition to the charm of its performance, the song serves a key thematic function. It initially suggests the singers’ romantic pairing. This is what Emma assumes, while she nurses the romantic possibility of the mysterious Frank Churchill. Ms Fairfax has already trumped Emma with a brilliant piano solo that outshone Emma’s song. But we eventually learn Fairfax and Churchill have long been engaged. Emma and Knightley happily graduate from their compulsive antagonism into love. 
The ironies around this performance of the Jonson song undermine Emma’s confidence in her own judgment, especially as she contrives marital matches. Also, as the song portends, it is through their eyes — fixed upon each other as they dance — that the climactic love between Knightley and Emma takes hold. 
Their dance is a pairing within a collective dance. Their intimate harmony is thus a part within a larger group harmony. This contrasts to the other pairings that would challenge the social order, like Emma’s plan to join Harriet, the woman of unknown (hence inferior) origins, to the respectable but ludicrous Mr Elton (a prospect he indignantly, snobbishly rejects) and Harriet’s subsequent design upon Knightley.   
In contrast, the songs that frame the narrative from outside are traditional folk tunes, i.e., the songs of the lower class. That is, this drama of the upper class is framed by, set in the context of, the life and liveliness of the lower class, the ever-present but ignored servants and farmers.. This is the music of the good Mr Martin, the farmer whose appropriate engagement to Harriet Emma thwarts, presuming for her companion to marry above her station. As her governess did. 
Their intimate service is exemplified when a servant puts the bare forked Knightley into trousers. Otherwise Knightley is the film’s moral center because he respects and attaches to the working class. In his noblesse oblige, he feels responsible to the people that serve him. To feel closer to the land he spurns the carriage to travel the countryside on foot. He properly criticizes Emma for thoughtlessly insulting the social inferior, Mrs Bates. He gallantly — a Knightley in shining armour — rescues Harriet by asking her to dance after Elton has flagrantly rejected her. His love ultimately redeems Emma.
When Emma is twice forced to apologize to her social inferiors both cases are by generous visits. To pay her new respect to Mrs Bates Emma brings her a basket of flowers. Her very appearance is her apology, as Mrs Bates gratefully resumes praising Emma’s goodness, glossing over her evident hurt. To Mr Martin Emma brings another basket, with a generous goose, and an encouraging articulation of her regret for having interfered with his proposal to Harriet. Harriet and Mr Martin eventually rush to each other with the unbridled enthusiasm of a country ditty.  
In song as in life, the upper middle class may have the polish but the lower has the energy. 


Wednesday, March 4, 2020

Corpus Christi

Here another carpenter grows into a saviour. Daniel is an undefined criminal in a Polish detention center for juveniles.  There he catches the Christian spirit and aspires to holy orders. But as the prison priest re-affirms, no seminary would accept someone with his record.
Clearly the Church hasn’t caught the allegoric implications of the film’s first line: “Use the whole saw. Cut at right angles.” That is, everyone should be admissible to divine service, whatever the person’s past and limitations; everyone can be turned to rectitude, to stand aright.  
As proof, here sinner Daniel is paroled to a remote village sawmill. Instead he drifts into the role of priest. The vicar’s salutary absence puts him into full-time service, as Father Tomasz. With his devotion, humility and his hunger to serve God and man unbroken by the usual formal training, he proves a most effective village priest.    
Daniel brings a worldly earthiness and honesty to his engagement with the congregation and the village outsiders. In particular, he exorcises their grief over the five teenagers killed in a traffic accident. The head-on collision was caused by a man whose wife has since been ostracized and vilified in a most unChristian manner. Father Tomasz confronts them with their viciousness and directs the poor man’s postponed burial.     
When another ex-prisoner spots the fake priest, he tries to blackmail him. Daniel resists the temptation to use the money he raised for that funeral. Betrayed, Daniel is returned to the detention center lions’ den, where he’s set up for a vicious beating by Bonus, the prison’s largest brute. That’s his calvary.
Earlier Daniel was the watch for another victim’s sadistic assault. In defending himself now he turns into the warrior saviour. Our last view is of him bloodied and bowed, but with his destiny unclear. Will he be charged with murder? Will he beat the rap? 
We don’t know because we’re not told because it doesn’t matter. Here a sinner grabbed his fleeting chance to serve  God in the Christian spirit and he did it right. He instinctively grew into his office. After that height, no nadir he falls to can diminish him.  
     Imprisoned himself, before and after, he has liberated the villagers, including the young woman who lost a brother to the accident and her mother to unforgiving bitterness and now seeks a new life. The “priest” freed her to love and to sing.       

Saturday, February 15, 2020

One Day in the Life of Noah Piuguttuk

Here Inuit sculptpr-turned-filmmaker Zaccharias Kunuk presents one of the year’s best films — from anywhere. It’s an intensely felt story of the tragic assault upon Inuit culture. 
In North Baffin Island, 1961, a government agent is despatched to compel a historically nomadic people to leave their life for a “settlement.” They will give up their igloos and their hunting for wooden houses with a heater and medical treatment — and their children will be put into the white man’s schools. That “progress” costs the people their roots.
Ironically, while this drama is shot in the spectacular open space of the North, its long, most compelling scenes are in close-up. Two or three faces fill the screen. The agent Boss (Kim Bodnia) speaks through the earnest but struggling Inuit translator Evaluarjuk (Benjamin Kunuk) to persuade the elder, Noah Piuguttuk (Apayata Kotiurk), to move his people off their free, nourishing land into the strictures of a settlement.
But from his experience with an Anglican priest Noah has learned to distrust the white man. And for all his goodwill, tact and sensitivity, Evaluarjuk misses some key translation, like Boss’s threat to remove the tribe’s children to the school, and Noah’s willingness to accept an improved new house — if it’s on his present home site.
Kotiurk in particular presents long scenes of unarticulated but eloquent interiority. Kunuk is humorous, tactful, a wholly engaging spirit, but helpless before the cultural abyss  before him. Even as the relative villain Bodnia reveals a generous soul, committed to doing the best he can but unable to bridge the cultures. The film’s core shows two well-meaning people simply unable to understand each other. Yet as one has the power, the other is doomed.
These three performances rank with the best honoured at the recent  Oscars. But they will be as ignored in awards season as the cast of the much-honoured Parasite was. After all, the two main actors are Inuit, as those others are Korean. So guess they really weren’t acting. Nonsense. These are simply great performances well beyond the actors’ selves. The Academy still disrespects the Other.  
The translator’s name, by the way, could be director Kunuk’s homage to the master Cape Dorset carver Henry Evaluarjuk, famous for his prowling bears.   
The key themes are subtlely limned in the opening scene, where Noah awakens his wife and daughter in their sod hut. From the opening credits on, Noah is struggling to read the Inuktiktuk Bible that the minister gave him as (inadequate) payment for a two-month job). It’s a struggle because even the Inuit’s written language is new to them, a break from their oral tradition. 
There’s no sugar for the tea, his wife informs him, but Noah appreciates its flavour anyway. He jokes that the white man considers even that tea to be food, as if it were soup. But he resolves to go hunting that day, to be able to trade for the white man’s goods. Their fresh bleeding walrus head is not sufficient. 
As the day proceeds the culture’s undermining by modernity unfurls. Noah’s daughter comes along, hoping to meet a particular young man (who has “a cute bum,” she giggles with a girlfriend). He does appear, on Boss’s sled, but Noah rejects that relationship. The Catholic boy is unacceptable to the Anglican Noah. Again, the traditional Inuit culture has been fractured by the white man’s intrusion, here its religion with its imported prejudices and suppressions.
Absent the sheriff in Stagecoach, here no-one can save the Inuit from “the blessings of civilization.” Those dubious blessings include that negative religion, a forced removal from their traditional life and the ruinous white man’s diet. The people raised on raw fish and cariboo are seduced by the white man’s sugar and empty filler biscuits slathered with jam. Noah’s wife has a cough suggestive of the tuberculosis the white society also brought in. 
In the penultimate scene, as Noah is home enjoying that destructive diet, he implicitly reconsiders his rejection of the settlement. His wife’s cough enhances the promise of medical attention. 
His decision is implied in the documentary epilogue — a recording of the late, real Noah Piuguttuk. In an archival tape he sings an Inuit song of his longing for the sea he has abandoned. So Noah did buckle and move to the settlement. In his yearning for the sea he yearns both for the life he lostand the traditional death he would have with dignity enjoyed, adrift in the sea instead of in the painful alien culture. His sole remaining tooth summarizes the cost of the white man’s subversion of the Inuit culture and people.  
One last irony. Noah recalls the silly priest who wanted to “shoot” a polar bear with a camera instead of securing its hide and meat. He was willing to sacrifice Noah’s life for that shot, for the Inuk’s life was more expendable than his own. Now Zaccharias Kunuk brings back the camera — to honour the life and culture so tragically wasted. This is truly a moving picture.