Jewishness within the Realm of American Independent Film: An Analysis of Identity and Film as Activism Michelle E. Carreon Most of us rarely think about the impact the cinematic experience has on us. The cinema has become a part of our everyday lives. Whether we find ourselves at a local multiplex shelling out eight dollars for one showing or sitting in the comfort of our own homes in front of the television glued to the talking pictures and flashing images, the experience is prevalent. In the beginning of the film age, this was, for the most part, a magical experience. This was a special treat given, in this country at least, by Hollywood. The Hollywood industry was somehow this larger-than-life entity that worked behind closed curtains to produce products for the public to view and enjoy. Its wonders spread (and still do) as far as foreign countries. Movie stars and movie house idols graced the screen with their distracting good looks and all too perfect dialogue. The public sat through it all, ate it up, and left the theater full. They exited those doors with a feeling that they had just been part of something special. And then it was over. They found themselves back in their dull, monotonous lives. Cinema was purely entertainment—something different than their realities. Cinema is still entertainment, and just by watching only fifteen or so minutes of television, it is not difficult to figure out that Hollywood and the notion of “celebrity” still rules the mainstream and even society, to a degree. Everywhere you look, someone in the limelight is getting married, getting divorced, is “with child”, or oh no, caught in an act of a criminal nature. These events are news. Film is also something that the average Joe doesn’t seem to do a lot of analytical thinking about. You still give the Hollywood machine your hard-earned cash as you file into the multiplex, and you still leave with a feeling that you have been somewhere else, that you have lived another life—all for about two hours. Film is not only a mere form of entertainment. It is a tool and a vehicle for reaching the masses—whether to strike an emotional chord in the hearts of many, to show them a “good time,” put playful fear into their hearts, or lastly and importantly to call for action. Film is a tool for activism. It is an instrument to tell the stories of the human spirit as well as help pave a road to self-discovery. It is a tool used to do whatever the filmmaker pleases, and it is no longer only the tool of the Hollywood machine. The independent film genre is a continually growing and changing industry that goes beyond making films for mere entertainment or profit. American Jewish independent film is one genre that can be examined through in-depth analysis. Each culture, region, and community has its own stories to tell. Although, how does 2 one define “Jewish film” as a “genre”? How is a film categorized as being “Jewish”? In this same case, how is a film constituted as being “independent” and “Jewish”? Also, what purposes do these films serve? This paper attempts answer all of these questions through a number of ways, which includes taking a closer look at and defining “independent film,” (as opposed to the “mainstream,”) and “Jewish independent film”. It also analyzes such topics as: “Jewishness” in film, Jewish themes, the notion of the Jewish filmmaker, and film as activism within Jewish studies, with the aid of particular focus on two important independent films: “Hester Street” (1975) and “The Pawnbroker” (1964). What is Independent Film? When attempting to define “independent” film today, there are a few problems that emerge. Today, the line between independent and mainstream has become blurred. It is becoming more difficult to distinguish what is considered “independent” and what is considered “mainstream”. Under many circumstances, the two tend to overlap. “Independent” may be viewed as referring to independent thought as well as independent from the Hollywood machine. Mainstream is a term that tends to refer to the norm for public consumption, in other words, the most accessible. In the earlier days of independent film the line was a bit more distinguishable. It has been over twenty years since the movement of independent American cinema began. Deborah Kaufman1 describes in her article entitled, “Independent Jewish Film and Video in America,” how technology and access were vital in the development of independent film. She states, “Aided by the breakthroughs in light-weight synch-sound film equipment, the invention of video, and the creation of federal and state arts funding agencies in the 1970s, artists and political 1 Deborah Kaufman was founder and former Director of The San Francisco Jewish Film Festival. She is a film producer and partner in Snitow-Kaufman Productions. 3 activists translated their visions into images that reflected and defined a generation.” 2 These directors and their production of original and challenging works challenged the forms of the Hollywood “product” and the industry’s thematic conventions. They were free from the constraints of Hollywood studios or networks. In another article by Kaufman entitled “American, Jewish, and Independent,” (Spring 2000, National Foundation for Jewish Culture website) she states the following: Radical changes have swept the landscape of American, Jewish, independent film and video over the last 20 years. These changes have diverse causes and manifestations: a revolution of technology, the elimination of old and the development of new funding sources, and the coming of age of a new generation itself. These and other fundamental changes have paralleled a dramatic shift in the formal structure of films, in the choice of subject and themes, and even in the language used to discuss the subject.3 The emergence of the digital age has also become a factor. Many films today, including many independent films, are shot with digital cameras and made more easily editable on desktop computers and editing machines. Anyone could try to make a film these days with a consumer grade digital video camera and the right editing programs and software on a PC or laptop. Although, it has to be stated that not anyone can make a “good” and “successful” film, and not anyone can get it seen by the public. The notions of “good” and “successful” in the film industry, independent or otherwise, are two other subjects for a whole other paper. Aesthetics are important in this analysis as well as how films are received, of course, but in this case, particular attention will still be paid to content and thematic concerns. 2Deborah Kaufman. “Independent Jewish Film and Video in America.” Independent Jewish Film: A Resource Guide, 3rd Edition. Janis Plotkin, Caroline Libresco, and Josh Feiger, Eds. Published by The San Francisco Jewish Film Festival. 3 Deborah Kaufman. “American, Jewish, and Independent.” National Foundation for Jewish Culture website, <http://www.jewishculture.org/filmfestivals/film_jew_film_fest_keynote.html> 4 Kaufman also gives an interesting account in relation to the changes of technology and political climate in the following passage (from “American, Jewish, and Independent”): Paralleling the changes in technology came changes in funding sources as well as in political climate. Conservative attacks slashed federal funding for the arts and humanities, and Jewish subject filmmakers were hit hard. Independents have always had to struggle for financial support, but the cutbacks encouraged a change already underway, away from the production of large-scale historical documentaries incorporating increasingly expensive archival footage and toward personal diary documentary, requiring perhaps only the family photo album or home movies as archival materials. This passage is a perfect example of not only how political climate affects independent film but also how independent film can be viewed as more focused on telling stories of individuals while still relating to a whole on a larger scale rather than focusing on the general. In the previous article mentioned, “Independent Jewish Film and Video in America,” by Deborah Kaufman, the author gives a definition for an independent work as being “loosely defined as one where the director has creative control, and where financing and distribution are independent of the major studios, networks or similar corporate entities driven by the profit imperative.” There is a uniqueness of vision in the film as well as creative control by the director. In the early days, at the beginning of the movement, independent film in America was clearly defined as being an alternative to the Hollywood studios and network television. Kaufman further discusses this in her article, “American, Jewish, and Independent,” and states, “Independent at that time meant small scale, independently financed and distributed, and reflecting an original, unhampered directorial vision that was clearly outside or opposed to the industry’s thematic conventions.” In the same article, she refers to independent film today as a “vague marketing term, designed to appeal to a youngish, ‘hip’ demographic.” The truth is that 5 most of the major Hollywood studios today are aiding (or at least starting to aid) in funding for independent films. Creative control being granted is not as unheard of now as it was in the past. Another way that independent films have been distributed besides being picked up by Hollywood studios is the reliance on film festival circuits. Many films are viewed through these festivals not only in independent film as a broad category in general, but also through successful Jewish film festivals. Thus, the line between independent and mainstream is becoming more blurred today. What Makes an Independent Film “Jewish”? If drawing the line between “independent” and “mainstream” film is difficult these days, then, how do you distinguish what constitutes as a “Jewish” independent film? The all too familiar question of “Who is a Jew?” also comes up with attempting to analyze such a matter.