gobbled up by stores bigger than Morris Bober could ever have imagined Works Cited Abramson, Edward A. “The Assistant.” Bernard Malamud Revisited. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993. 25-42. Rpt. in Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism. Ed. Janet Witalec. Vol. 129. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Literature Resource Center. Web. 11 Aug. 2010. Birmingham, Stephen. Our Crowd: The Great Jewish Families of New York. Harper and Row: New York, 1967. Howe, Irving. The World of Our Fathers. Simon and Schuster: New York, 1976. Kessler-Harris, Alice. Introduction to Bread Givers. Persea Books: New York, 1999. Malamud, Bernard. The Assistant. MJF Books: New York, 1992. Moon, Krystyn R. “The Gift of Bread Givers.” Journal of American Ethnic History, Winter 2010, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p74-78, 5p. Pinsker, Sanford. “The Re-Awakening of Henry Roth’s Call It Sleep.” Jewish Social Studies 28.3 (July 1966): 148-158. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Deborah A. Schmitt. Vol. 104. Detroit: Gale Research, 1998. Literature Resource Center. Web. 11 Aug. 2010. Renny, Christopher. “Rags to Riches to Suicide: Unhappy Narratives of Upward Mobility” College Literature, Fall 2002, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p79, 30p. Roth, Henry. Call It Sleep. Noonday Press: New York, 1962. Segal, Elaine. “‘I want to be in business . . . I like to be in business.’” Smithsonian; Apr 94, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p80, 11p. Yezierska, Anzia. Bread Givers. Persea Books: New York, 1925.
Asimilation vs. Tradition: Reflections of the Yiddish Film Industry Bruce Sullivan
During the twentieth century, a new art-form took hold in America. Motion pictures combined the beauty of photography, the majesty of orchestral music, art and set design, with acting and directing talents from the stage to create what many consider to be a new, higher art form. What today is a billion dollar industry was created, in large part, by Jewish-Americans. The cultural impact of Jewish-Americans to popular culture is difficult to quantify, but for a populace that merely accounts for 2% of the over-all American population, Jewish American contributions are enormous. “Their contribution to popular culture is so rich, their impact so pervasive, it is impossible to describe fully even a modest zone of cultural influence” (Weber 130). Nowhere is this influence greater than in the American film industry.
24 It is difficult to imagine the American film landscape without the Jewish voice. It would be tantamount to imagining American popular musical traditions without the African American influence. Blues, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock and roll, soul, disco, Motown pop, hip hop, and rap would not exist. What would be left? The Jewish American impact on Hollywood is no less important. Jewish American studio chiefs headed virtually every major American studio. Jewish American singers, and dancers, like Al Jolson (The Jazz Singer), comedians and actors like The Marx Brothers and directors like Steven Spielberg changed the face of American society. “The streets are crucial… they became the training ground for Jewish actors, comics, and singers” (Howe, World of Our Fathers). Alfred Kazin claimed that Jews were “prepared not in universities… but in the vaudeville theaters, music halls, and burlesque houses” (Weber, 130). Within the American film market existed an important Jewish Film Industry. This industry began in the 1910’s and flourished during the twenties and thirties. While films like The Jazz Singer reflected the anxiety of Jewish society, which was trying to balance assimilation with tradition, nowhere was the Jewish American psyche reflected more perfectly than in the Yiddish language films of the 1920’s and thirties. This paper will explore this industry and one of its most important contributors, Edgar Ulmer as a means to understand the Jewish American hopes, dreams, and fears during the period leading up to WWII. Jewish American filmmaker Edgar Ulmer had, by the 1930s, already gained a reputation as a talented filmmaker. “Ulmer had studied philosophy at the University of Vienna and was a contemporary to such future cinema giants as F.W. Murnau, Ernst Lubitsch, Robert Siodmak, and Billy Wilder”(Muller 178). Prior to coming to the United States, Ulmer worked in Berlin as an art director and assistant stage director, where he worked on Murnau’s Faust in 1922 and The Last laugh in 1924. Ulmer traveled to America in 1925, a decision that probably saved his life, and went into training as a director. Ulmer developed a reputation as an egoless director who could produce films under extreme conditions and low budgets. He worked briefly for Fox and MGM before arriving back at Universal Studios, where he became interested in a screen adaptation of Edgar Allen Poe’s short story “The Black Cat”. The film starring horror giants Bella Lugosi and Boris Karloff would ultimately be Ulmer’s biggest Hollywood success, but not without controversy. “The psychologically scarred Ulmer integrated into the work his personal quirks, including a childhood Oedipal complex and a fascination for such larger than life personalities as the notorious modern-day Satanist and all-purpose degenerate, Aleister Crowley” (Brunas 80). Shot in just 16 days (one day over schedule) and for only $91,125, Ulmer completed his expressionistic horror tale. Unfortunately, “the studio brass deemed that The Black Cat was too vile for public and censorial consumption” (Brunas 83). This forced a hasty reshoot over three and a half days. “Reviewers found the picture incomprehensible and revolting… and the subject matter was branded unsavory” (Brunas 83). Today, the film is hailed for its flamboyant technique and as one of the director’s finest works, even rivaling Detour (1945), often mentioned as the finest film noir picture ever made. It stands as “a masterpiece of the horror genre” (Katz 1418).
25 Though Ulmer’s career could have continued into A picture territory, his fate would lie elsewhere thanks to an affair with Shirley Castle on the set of The Black Cat. “She divorced husband Max Alexander, cousin of Universal chief Carl Laemmle, and married Ulmer. Laemmle got even by blackballing Ulmer at all the major studios. Poverty Row became home, but Castle remained his devoted wife for the rest of his life” (Muller 178). Ulmer would then go on to produce and direct some of the most important Yiddish language films in Jewish film history. Jewish cinema during the twenties and thirties reflected the hopes, fears, and dreams of their audience. “Audiences watched their deepest anxieties and desires literally enacted, displayed before their eyes” (Weber 131). Many of these Yiddish language films depicted a reoccurring struggle for balance between the need to hold on to tradition and the desire to assimilate and become part of modern society. As depicted in Green Fields (1937), Ulmer’s first Yiddish language film, “the turn of the twentieth century saw the beginnings of the break-up of traditional Jewish life in the villages of Poland, Russia, and the Ukraine, where, for centuries, a large part of the Jewish people had lived. The East European Jews were becoming increasingly secularized and increasingly urban and they were immigrating in large numbers to more hospitable shores” (Green Fields film credits). Many of the popular Yiddish language films produced in New York were actually adaptations of traditional Yiddish theater. Though Jewish immigrants poured into New York during this time, many missed their homelands and traditional ways of life. This desire to hang onto tradition was reflected in the art. “The Yiddish Literature that flourished in this period often lamented the disappearance of the old way of life, which was portrayed in idyllic terms. One writer whose work exemplifies this nostalgia is the great dramatist Peretz Hirschbein, who was born in a village in Poland in 1880 and died in LA in 1948. It is from his popular play Green Fields, first produced in 1923” (Green Fields credits). This play was adapted for the screen in 1937 by Ulmer. Ulmer, now in exile from Hollywood, seemed a perfect choice to help raise the level of Yiddish cinema. Ulmer’s reputation as a fast, budget conscious shooter was perfect for these limited market films. “He once bragged about completing 80 set-ups in a day” (Brunas 84). In Green Fields, Ulmer produced a film that appears far more lavish and expensive than its tiny budget would indicate. Green Fields “is a partnership of two outstanding talents: Edgar Ulmer, an Austrian-Jewish immigrant to the United States, who had made a reputation for himself as a maverick, versatile, highly productive filmmaker.; and Jacob Ben-Ami, an early disciple of Hirschbein’s and one of the leading serious actors and directors of the New York Yiddish stage. Though produced on a shoestring, (it was made in rural New Jersey), the film was a great critical and box office success, when first released in 1937, praised for its pastoral realism and Jewish authenticity”. Critical praise included suggesting that the film “has caught the beauty and poetry of the classic work and transferred it to the screen in a masterful manner” (The Film Daily). The New York World Telegram declared it “A new high in vernacular art!” In the film’s opening scenes, Young Levi leaves his friends and synagogue for greener pastures. His friends openly worry, “He will lose his way.” The new land he stumbles upon offers an idyllic vision of pastoral family life, with young
26 lovers stealing kisses during a happy planting. “Sunlit and air-filled, yet suffused and yearning, the film recalls Renoir and Vigo… It exudes a dreamy pantheism” (J. Hoberman). Like many Yiddish theater goers in the Lower East Side, the peasant farmers who inhabit this land are uneducated, but hard working Jews. They know little of the Torah, as they cannot afford to educate their children. Making a good match for sons and daughters is of primary concern. Levi arrives at this new home and announces, “I’m wandering… I’ll stop whenever I find true Jews.” Tsine’s parents, along with a neighbor, are anxious to prove that he has found such true Jews and that his journey is over. They also hope to hire the impressive, learned man of God into a teacher for their children. Levi is unconvinced, but agrees to stay temporarily out of respect. Running barefoot, planting fields, dreaming of matches, Ulmer presents an idyllic vision of the old world, one that had completely vanished for the Jews living on the lower East Side of New York in the mid 1930s. Young Levi is well respected as a learned man, much like the father in Yezierska’s Bread Givers. He has no time for physical labor as he devotes his life to study. Despite this, the families squabble over the teacher’s services, He teaches Avrem, but longs for his books and the teachings of “the Great Jews.” Things are too easy here. I can’t live like this.” “It’s true we don’t study Torah”, argues the father. “But we don’t sit idly.” It becomes clear that the Levi (Rabbe) wants to leave and continue his search for meaning. Tsine cries as she imagines life without the wandering stranger. “When he speaks… I could die… Why can’t I be his wife? I’ll die if he leaves.” Mother laments, “We’re just country people…City girls know how to pray.” Daring to dream that Levi would want to marry their poor, uneducated daughter was too much to even imagine. Tsine and Mother hatch a plan to show that peasant Jews can still respect the ways of God. Tsine must “dress modestly or he won’t even look at you.” While the always barefoot Tsine puts on shoes and a shawl for the first time, father racks his brain in order to think of ways to keep the pious, learned stranger from leaving. “Tsine, make him a new bed. Fill his bed with fresh hay. He needs a soft bed.” Here, Ulmer is able to include suggestive, humorous dialogue, with a double meaning. “Tsine replies, “Should he have my bed?”, to which the desperate father replies, “That may be a good idea, but first fill his bed with fresh hay. He needs a soft bed to sleep in.” This humorous exchange, even in a non-comedy, displays the importance of the well established Jewish comedic tradition. The peasant family goes to great efforts to observe Jewish tradition, properly washing, and preparing the meal. They honor tradition and God. Levi begins to see God’s hand in the beauty of the land. As traditional religious score music plays, scenes of beautiful green fields and blue skies are depicted. “The earth is beautiful… honest people living from their own toil. The work your father and mother do is pleasing to God.” Young Avrem asks, “Would you like to be a farmer?” “Would you teach me how to till the soil?” Here, the teacher becomes the student. A montage of fruit bearing trees, fertile lands, happy peasants farming, and beautiful pastoral landscapes effectively communicates the Ulmer’s vision. Levi is changing. He begins to understand the beauty of the land and the fulfillment that can come from working it. “The Lord desires both Torah and labor”, Levi declares 27 to an attentive father. In an allegorical scene about temptation, Tsine falls from a tree and is hurt. Levi comes to her aid and she admits that she climbed the tree to retrieve apples for him. She wipes the fruit on her bosoms and eagerly presents them to the Rabbi. “Look, two big apples” says a grinning Tsine as she offers the two pieces of forbidden fruit from her chest. To which the pious Rabbi responds, “It’s not right to taste new fruit before the New Year.” “What if one can’t resist to eat one?” asks a naive Tsine. “One must learn to resist temptation.” “Who can wait so long?” This biblical tale replays man’s fall from grace in the Garden of Eden. But here, Levi has learned from Adam’s fall. Or has he? After Tsine exits for the home, Levi is tempted and even picks up the apple to bite, but relents. He will wait to taste her fruit. Much of what makes writing Jewish is its tendency to comment on the Torah. Tsine is anxious to show that, she too, has changed. The previously illiterate girl writes her name for the astonished Rabbi several times. The Rabbi cannot believe his eyes. How could a girl learn to read and write? He is intrigued by the peasant girl. Tsine then steals a kiss. This bold move bucks tradition, but Levi is not repulsed. He has fallen in love with Tsine. There is room for both change and tradition in this new Jewish culture, just as there is room for both in New York during the mid 1930’s. A woman’s role is being transformed. She is able to read and write. She is also able to take initiative in matters of love. The balance of progress and tradition is once again being played out. Levi pulls father aside to announce that he does not wish to leave this land and that he wishes to wed his daughter Tsine. A grateful father rushes to share the good news just as the neighbors arrive with their daughter in tow. Tsine’s brother is in love with their daughter, but they stubbornly disapprove of the marriage, despite the couple’s obvious love for one another. Tsine’s brother passionately announces his love for their daughter. At this unexpected forceful show of emotion, the man relents and agrees to the marriage promising a dowry. Now, Tsine learns the miraculous news of her betrothal to the rabbi and everyone embraces and readies for two weddings. Mother declares, “The Almighty doesn’t forsake us, the country people.” As the film closes, the wandering Jew and his bride walk hand in hand behind a shot of a plow in the foreground. The learned holy man has found fulfillment at last among the simple country people and God’s green fields. This was an important message for the Jewish community searching for an identity and a home. Being a good Jew does not rely upon location or occupation, but on character, the acceptance of change, and the honoring of tradition. Similar themes are explored in Ulmer’s next film, The Singing Blacksmith, starring Cantor, Moishe Oysher (1937). Yankel, a fifteen year old student is brought to the local childless blacksmith to learn a trade in Tsarist Russia. Based on David Pinski’s 1906 play “Yankl der Schmid”, this production traces the young man’s struggle to resist sin and temptation in shtetl life. In the film’s opening scene, a nervous father drops his son with the town’s blacksmith for a three year apprenticeship. “I can’t teach you, so you’ll be a tradesman, but a virtuous man.” This line draws the film’s message. The desire to
28 remain a virtuous man while living in a working man’s world filled with temptation is at the core of this conflict. Once again, the Yiddish film reflects the hopes, dreams, fears, and anxieties of its Jewish audience. Ulmer is able to create an effective, beautiful film on a modest budget. An early, wordless montage tells the story of young Yankel’s transformation from boyhood to manhood. Ulmer dissolves from shots of Yankel’s trade progress into shots of the changing seasons. This one minute montage perfectly communicates what would take several pages of dialogue in a play or novel. Ulmer’s mastery of the art of filmmaking transforms Pinski’s average play into a higher art form with deeper emotional connections. Idyllic scenes of nature are mixed with man’s labor to communicate the virtuousness of honest labor and rural life. Yankel grows and assumes his position as the village blacksmith. Before his mentor leaves, he advises Yankel to avoid marriage as it is a source of trouble. While others in the village enter into arranged marriages, the desirable Yankel avoids this fate. Real life Cantor and talented tenor Moishe Oysher perform several songs during the film. Comedy is also an important feature in this romantic drama, as one villager, a frustrated matchmaker, displays an absurdly humorous stutter and high pitched squeal. Rivke, a desirable young village girl has been forced into an unhappy engagement with an awkward homely young man named Raphael. Against her mothers wishes, Rivke is attracted to Yankel. “I see that I don’t like the groom”, argues Rivke. “I actually prefer the dancer.” “A non-Jew, that’s why you like him.” Though Yankel is Jewish, he is a working man. In the old country, men of books and religion were honored above all others.. Rivke continues: “So handsome…Healthy, strong.” “You are getting a religious, learned groom!” “I don’t like him.” “You’ll grow to like him.” This scene of an unhappy bride to be, dissolves into another as Yankel walks with yet another young village girl, who seems apprehensive as the two approach the woods. The woods are associated with darkness and sin. “I should have brought my sister” the girl protests. “Yah, then why didn’t you?” Ulmer effectively uses the double entendre to communicate the sexual tension. “Are you really going further?” she asks as they approach the woods. Indeed he is and the scene fades to black as they move towards temptation. Yankel, unwilling to settle down, cavorts with both single women as well as the married Rivke. Though competing matchmakers attempt to marry him off, Yankel argues, “Why should I eat stale bread, when I can eat fresh rolls?” Yankel is unmoved, until the appearance of the beautiful Tamara, the freshest roll of all, whom is attracted to Yankel’s singing. Yankel immediately changes his ways and arranges for the match maker to arrange the marriage. Yankel promises Tamara, “I will be a better man” and he is true to his word. Yankel is a dynamic character who rejects sin and temptation, a lesson of the Torah. Another important message relates to laborers. Pinski’s play reflects the changing socio-economic status of the Jewish-American community. Yankel is distressed that Tamara’s friends no longer call on her because she “has married a lowly blacksmith.” “Let them stay away… why are they any better than you... Because their fathers are shopkeepers? Wise men have written that the world goes on thanks to tradesmen… who make shoes, and clothing and wagons and
29 wheels, to cart the merchandise from one place to another… and horseshoes so the horses don’t slip outside.” Yankel and Tamara have found fulfillment with one another. There is honor for the working man. This message is delivered for the working class Jewish audience as well. Yankel’s joy is increased upon learning that Tamara is pregnant. His fate will not follow the fate of his childless mentor. Everything is right in Yankel’s world, but will his past sins come back to haunt him? Rivke leaves her husband and asks to rent a room from Yankel and Tamara. “Should you wave a red flag in front of a bull?” asks Yankel’s cynical mother. “They are afraid Yankel will stray from the path”, dares Rivke. Tamara shows faith by agreeing to rent the room. This sets up a test of Yankel’s new morality. His divorced former lover is living under the same roof. As appears in many stories within the Torah, a test of morality must be passed. In the film’s climactic scene, a drunken Yankel celebrates his son’s birth. He discovers a seductively dressed Rivke, metaphorically fanning his hot embers in his smith shop. “It is time to take out your iron”, she hisses. She removes her shawl revealing her heaving bosom, and Yankel succumbs to her temptation, kissing Rivke as his family enters. Yankel is shamed and wanders the town a broken man. His mentor tells him to repent and return home. There he finds Tamara and Rivke arguing over Yankel’s love. Yankel sneers “Get out!” to Rivke, who in turn drowns herself in a river as a fallen woman. Yankel, Tamara, and their son embrace in happiness. Tamara has forgiven Yankel and he has passed the test of temptation. The Singing Blacksmith contains strong lessons of morality tied directly to the teachings of the Torah. While Yankel breaks many commandments early in his struggle, he eventually finds salvation. This film is a cautionary tale and reflects traditional Jewish teachings, but also portrays more contemporary issues of finding a balance between being a man of religious learning and finding honor as a common working man. The film suggests that a good Jew can be an honest, hardworking laborer, as long as he avoids all of the temptations of modern society. Ulmer’s third Yiddish film is an adaptation of social satirist S.Y. Abramovich’s The Light Ahead. Released in 1939 on the eve of WWII and the Holocaust, The Light Ahead brings to the screen the fate of East European and Tsarist Russian Jews during the 19th century as a way of addressing Jewish fears just prior to the WWII. “It is a story of contrasts, the city of Odessa, the city of hygiene and hope, is held up against the quintessentially “Jewish” Glupsk (Foolstown), city of pestilence and poverty, with its teeming bathhouse and dangerous back alley” (National Center for Jewish Film credits). Poor young lovers dream of a better life free of hunger, poverty, and corruption in city of Odessa. With the help of a kind- hearted bookseller named Mendele, the two lovers may achieve their dreams. “From this tale, Ulmer creates a luminous allegory that suggests the possibility of escape on the eve of World War II” (National Center for Jewish Film credits). The film has been praised for its performances, calling Helen Beverly’s depiction of the blind orphan girl and Opatoshu “the most beautiful couple in the history of Yiddish cinema and their scenes have a touching erotic chemistry” (J. Hoberman Bridge of Light: Yiddish Film Between Two Worlds). Ulmer’s direction was once again recognized for its brilliance. “Yiddish film producers will probably
30 look to The Light Ahead for their inspiration when new productions are under consideration. As well they might as the film touches undreamed of heights” (New York World Telegram). The film opens with Medele traveling towards Glupsk. Along the waythe wise Mendele encounters the lame beggar boy Fishke. Fishke is distressed as he has recently quarreled with his blind orphan girlfriend Hodel. Mendele convinces Fishke to return to Glupsk and reunite with the beautiful, but impoverished Hodel. Hodel, regrets insulting Fishke, by calling him a “cripple” and hopes for his return. Hodel is proud, despite her handicap. When opportunistic roommate Dropke advises her to beg to avoid poverty, Hodel refuses. “With those eyes, go from door to door. You could be rich”. To which a proud Hodel responds “I told you I’ll never beg. I’ll be satisfied with what God allows me to make as long as I earn it myself and don’t beg.” Upon Fishke’s return the two make-up and vow never to leave one another “no matter what happens.” There is a sense that despite their desperate circumstances, the two have hope that they will be delivered. This mirrors feeling among Jews prior to the outbreak of WWII. “You’ll see, God will help us. We’re young.” The two dream of an escape from the tyranny of Dropke and of a life of never-ending poverty and suffering. The film is set in the city of Glopsk, an imagined ghetto where no progress is made and Jewish elders are frozen in indecision on how to improve lives. Mendele, the wise bookseller, suggests a hospital and a project to clean the disease infested river, but ignorant elders suggest “It is God’s will whether we live or die.” Mendele offers “It is also His will to clean the river and streets and to build the hospital. God created man and gave him wisdom. Be fruitful and multiply said the creator and live with wisdom and understanding… build houses to protect you from the cold, become doctors so that you can heal the sick, build hospitals so that you can save lives.” Throughout this film and Ulmer’s other Yiddish offerings, there exist lessons in morality whose origins flow from Torah. Mendele is unable to convince the bickering elders to help themselves. At the zenith of Mendele’s desperation, he appeals directly to God “Oh like a sick child to its mother, I will lament to you! Oh how hard it hurts…How can one look on and keep silent? How long will they torture us? When will there be an end?” The suffering of the Jews only gets worse as poor sanitation and healthcare lead to more needless deaths. Hodel is approached on Friday night by a group of girlfriends asking that she join them for a fun nightly swim. Though Hodel knows it is wrong to do this on the Sabbath, she is convinced to go along. The girls swim in the contaminated river and within a day, Gotel is dead of cholera. Hodel blames herself for sinning against God. “Only yesterday Gotel was so full of life.” As young people continue to die, village men begin to demand an accounting of the tax collectors. The film serves as social commentary and takes jabs at Jewish authority for wasting money on wasteful projects, loans for prayer and psalm services, holy animal slaughters, and expensive synagogue remodeling, in spite of the lack of hospitals and clean water. As the town falls into a panic because of the looming cholera outbreak, they attempt to find a way to appease God. A superstitious woman tells thetown
31 elders that the town may appease God by marrying the poorest boy and girl in the town’s cemetery. They are to become the cholera bride and groom. They choose Hodel and Fishke for the ritual marriage, which feels more like a sacrifice. The two are forced into the unholy ritual as the townspeople celebrate around them. Of course, this superstitious attempt to avoid further tragedy doesn’t work as the wedding is interrupted with more news of despair. Mendele understands that the only hope for the young Jewish couple is to leave and escape Glupsk. He leads them to the road to Odessa: “You take this road, children and may it lead you not to wretched need and bitterness, but to a normal life full of joy.” There is hope that the two will find a new land free from grief, superstition, and death. In the film, it is Odessa, but for film-goers, itis America. Mendele laughs with joy at the vision of the two young lovers heading to freedom. He addresses his mule, “See how the lame leads the blind. Wonderful people of Israel, with their eternal hope and belief in a better dawn, may it bring joy and peace to all the Fishkes and Hodels and to all mankind joy and peace.” The film ends with an effective shot of beautiful pastoral landscape with the two innocents moving towards salvation. The film served as a kind of Jewish fantasy which addressed the anxieties of an American Jewish Community on the eve of the Holocaust. The Light Ahead is a poignant reminder, that for most European Jews, there would be no escape from suffering. Ulmer’s final Yiddish language film was called American Schadchen or “American Matchmaker”. The screenplay was written by Shirley Castle, Ulmer’s wife. The film blends modern Hollywood romantic comedy produced to counterpoint the Depression, with traditional Yiddish theater components “with its musical interludes and stock comic characters” (National Center for Jewish Film). The film reflects the changing Jewish American audience as well. The old world custom of arranged marriages meets the modern sophistication of second generation Jewish Americans. It is another example of the push and pull of tradition versus assimilation. Critics hailed the film: “None is more charming than American Matchmaker. The title says it all - a clash between the urbane, slick manners of the new country and the old busybody communal ways of the shtetl” (Museum of Fine Arts, Houston). Yiddish films needed to change with the times and reflect a changing, more assimilated Jewish public. “The film, in both style and substance, reflects this Americanization process, which caused the immigrants much uneasiness, but could also provoke humor and delight” (American Jewish Film Institute film credits). The film opens in the lush Manhattan penthouse apartment of Nat Silver, a fabulously successful Jewish American business man who is lucky in all things but love. His rich, well dressed associates tease Nat about his seven previous broken engagements, and wonder if his latest will finally be the one to settle Nat down. “When will we finally break a glass at your wedding?” The men toast Nat’s luck. Comedy plays an enormous role in this film. Though this is Ulmer’s first true Yiddish comedy, there were comic elements in even his most serious dramatic offerings. In “American Schadchen”, Ulmer often satirizes high class American culture in the way that Marx Brothers films had already explored. This comedy serves to “demystify… the high toned claims (social and political, moral, and
32 aesthetic of the host culture” (Weber 135). This tradition would extend in later years in films by Woody Allen. “Like Groucho, Woody often summons aself knowing, punning, parodic, wise-ass wit to get even with the pious authority of the dominant culture” (Weber 135). In Ulmer’s film, the dominant host culture becomes the butt of many jokes, though the film reverses the roles with the Jewish business men having the power and authority with the WASP serving as the stuffy, bumbling, English speakers. Nat goes to sleep following his bachelor party, dreaming of his bride to be, only to be woken in the middle of the night by a gunman, who threatens to kill himself if Nat marries his longtime girlfriend. When Nat learns that his latest engagement is simply a play for his money, he relents and breaks off his eighth engagement. Heartbroken, Nat returns to his mother’s home, where she explains that he is just like his Uncle Shaya in the old country. Uncle, in a flashback played by the same actor Leo Fuchs, also had no luck in love, until he became a matchmaker. Only when this unlucky uncle had helped others in love, could he himself find fulfillment. The clash of generations is apparent in the Silver household, as Nat’s younger, second generation sister, speaks English, dresses in the latest fashions, and engages in American activities like skiing and tennis. Nat’s mother is old world in every sense of the word, as she honors tradition above all else. It is Nat’s mission to balance the two. One must somehow, even in a modern society, find a way to balance both tradition and assimilation. Ulmer’s film perfectly captures this moment in Jewish American culture when the pull between the two worlds - old and new - were reaching a breaking point. Nat takes drastic action to change his fortune. He adopts a new identity, Nat Gold “Advisor in Human Relations”. Nat will become an old world matchmaker, but he will do so in a fully modern, urban fashion. Unlike old country matchmakers, who dress in traditionally modest clothing and who work in the village, Nat will dress in modern black tie, and work in a Bronx high-rise catering to Jewish families who are trying to ensure respectable matches for their Americanized daughters. Comedy ensues as Nat is continually harassed by mothers who fall for his debonair style, good looks, and wealthy lifestyle. Gold is also picketed by the old world matchmakers threatened by his new world approach. Ulmer’s seemingly light hearted comedy manages to perfectly reflect the conflict of the two clashing cultures. Some may believe that the existence of old world Jewish stereotypes damages the Jewish community at large. Sam Levenson argues against these stereotypes. “It is my belief that any Jew who, in humor or otherwise, strengthens the misconceptions and the prejudices of his own people is neither a good Jew nor a responsible human being” (Weber 137). Others however feel differently. Stereotypes can be ugly, but their emergence can signify the confidence that they are only stereotypes, not proof of the collective malevolence of the Jewish people” (Whitfield 91). Ulmer’s film, made specifically for an assimilating Jewish American audience, seems fairly innocuous and the majority of Jewish characters buck long held stereotypes. Silver eventually meets his romantic match in an Americanized girl, Judith,
33 unconvinced that she needs her mother’s interference in finding a man. While Nat searches for the right man, he realizes that he is falling for her, but is afraid to act upon this feeling due to his numerous past disappointments. Instead he arranges for Judith to marry Marten Geller, the most eligible Jewish bachelor in New York. Judith falls for Nat, but misinterprets Nat’s inaction and agrees to go through with the wedding to Geller. On the wedding day, Geller sends a telegram that he has moved to South America, and Judith confides that she is in love with the matchmaker. The two marry and everyone has a promising future by the film’s conclusion. The same cannot be said for the Yiddish Film industry, which was vibrant in the 1920’s, but slowly lost an audience as Jewish assimilation grew. Movie houses were concentrated in ethnic neighborhoods and audiences slowly declined from over a half million in 1916 to under 250,000 by 1940. Yiddish theaters went from 20 to a handful in this same period (Weber 131). By the end of WWII, the industry was all but extinct. Following the Holocaust and during the conservatism of the 1950’s, Jews were naturally nervous and wanted to fit in. Additionally, the natural assimilation of second and third generation Jewish Americans meant that more Jews identified themselves as Americans first and Jews second. The Yiddish language slowly disappeared in even traditional Jewish neighborhoods. Ulmer, however, survived the disappearance of the industry and continued to create highly stylized, well crafted films, which appeared lavish, despite their humble budgets. In 1945, Ulmer, using the tools and skills he gained during his Yiddish period, created Detour, a film many consider to be, the greatest film noir picture in history. “For some, Edgar G. Ulmer’s six-day wonder – cheap, tawdry, rumpled, and unshaven – is the ultimate expression of fatalistic film noir” (Muller 177). Ulmer continued to work right up through the mid sixties “with miniscule budgets and often with impossible scripts… but amazingly, an unmistakable personal style can be discerned throughout much of his grade Z work” (Katz 1418). Ulmer died in 1972, still married to Shirley Castle. Art can be said to reflect the hopes dreams, fears, or anxieties of the artist or its intended audience. Certainly there exists a great deal of art reflecting the Jewish American experience during the first half of the twentieth century. Literature, by Yezierska, Malamud, Bellow and Roth, films like The Jazz Singer, “the most famous version of the Jewish Immigrant story”, capture the difficult balancing act that Jews had to navigate between tradition and assimilation (Weber 133). Nowhere was this conflict reflected more clearly or more beautifully than in the Yiddish language films and specifically those made by talented director Edgar Ulmer. These films stand as compelling evidence of a people striving to achieve the American dream while maintaining their proud tradition and identity.
Works Cited
American Schadchen. Dir. Edgar G. Ulmer. Perf. Leo Fuchs. 1940. Videocassette. Brunas, Michael, John Brunas, and Tom Weaver. Universal Horrors: the Studio’s Classic Films, 1931-1946. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990. Print.
34 Green Fields. Dir. Edgar G. Ulmer. 1937. Videocassette. “IMDb Search.” The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Aug. 2010.
JEWISH IMMIGRANTS AND THE LOWER EAST SIDE: PLYMOUTH ROCK OR MILL STONE? Peg Snyder
When you hear the term “Lower East Side”, it evokes images of overcrowded streets lined with tenement buildings. But it has also become a mythic place – a Jewish Plymouth Rock (Diner 8). It is commonly thought of as the crucible that transformed virtually all Jewish immigrants into Americans. But is this popular narrative true? In 1892, 75% of New York’s Jews lived in the Lower East Side. By 1903 it was down to 50% and by 1923, only 23% lived in that quarter (Rischin 93). In his book, Becoming American: An Ethnic History, Thomas Archdeacon states, “an immigrant group’s ultimate success in the United States depended on its ability to reestablish a normal pattern of family life in the new country…” (137). Did the Lower East Side of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century help or hinder this process of regaining normalcy? Much of the recent writing about Jewish immigrants in the Lower East Side during this time period tends to center on nostalgia. Hasia Diner’s Lower East Side Memories: A Jewish Place in America (2000) and Beth S. Wenger’s article “Memory as Identity: The Invention of the Lower East Side” (1997) both look at what is largely an imagined memory of a place during a time that is seen as embodying the entire Jewish immigrant experience. Since at least the 1960s, every decade seemed to produce a book about the Lower East Side. Mario Maffi’s Gateway to the Promised Land: Ethnic Cultures on New York’s Lower East Side (1995) focused on the evolving ethnic make-up of that neighborhood; as one ethnic
35