The great thing is that we can learn much from those of other faiths without sacrificing our own beliefs and, hence, the value of “A Serious Man.” The film is about faith.  It doesn’t matter how you cloak that faith in religious terms.  The Coens have made a film that speaks universally to all faiths, and even to atheists. So while it happens to be set in a Jewish world, every single thing that happens could just as easily have happened to Christians or Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus.

And that is why you should see it. No matter what branch of faith you reside in, you will find plenty to identify with in this wonderful, dark, insightful, and thought-provoking movie.

There are spoilers ahead, but for now I’ll speak in generalities and a few specifics that do not impact the viewing experience and let you know about the big spoilers.

To Dybbuk or Not To Dybbuk?

The film’s central theme is replayed over and over again, which demonstrates the Coens’ outstanding writing talents.  Every scene places the main character, Larry Gopnik, in a position where he is made to wonder — what the heck is going on and why is all this stuff happening to me? Sound familiar?  Maybe the story of Job?  Maybe your own life, or that of someone you know?

The film opens with a quote from Rashi, short for Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki, an 11th century French rabbi who commented extensively on the Talmud (a rabbinic discussion on Jewish law).

Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.

For anyone who wonders what the heck “A Serious Man”  is about, the Coens state it right up front and the message is delivered repeatedly. In essence it is this: it is fruitless to ask “why?” We aren’t in a position to question God’s motives.  All we can do is act in faith, be good, and find somebody to love.

Then comes this mysterious prologue.

Dybbuk?  Human? Who knows? The Coens tell us: all you can do is act in faith. The complete quotation from Rashi is, “Conduct yourself with Him with simplicity and depend on Him, and do not inquire of the future; rather, accept whatever happens to you with simplicity and then, you will be with Him and to His portion.”

The wife did what she thought was right, coming from a place of faith. Will she be cursed? Will the husband? Will the body be found? What will become of the couple? Their descendants? The Coens tell us that not only should we, and they, not worry about it, it is pointless to do so.  The events occurred. There was no reason why, they just did.

The Coens don’t even let us know if they think he’s a dybbuk. The end credits read, “Fyvush Finkel – Dybbuk?” However, I have an interpretation of this scene that goes deeper. Of course it’s a dybbuk. Not just because he gets stabbed in the chest, laughs heartily and exits without dropping dead, as he should — but because he inserts doubt and deception into the relationship of the husband and wife. Like Satan, this is a dybbuk’s purpose. The husband is left consumed with doubt.  But the wife….ah!  The wife remains steadfast in her faith and, consequently, her actions.

Faith vs. Doubt

And so it goes throughout the entire film, to the main character, Larry Gopnik.  Is God punishing him?  Who knows? But the fact is that Larry does not ever act out of faith. He remains steadfast in his doubt, and may (or may not) pay dearly for it in the end.

Now we move to the body of the film. Larry is first glimpsed discussing Schrodinger’s cat to his physics class. The lesson of this famous thought experiment is that until the box is opened and it is determined if the cat is alive or dead, either possibility exists. And once we open the box, we have disrupted the experiment, so we in fact can never know if the cat was alive or dead before opening the box. This scene, like almost every scene in the film, revolves around the same thematic element.

Larry’s wife is leaving him for a smug and condescending man by the name of Sy Ableman. Both he and Sy experience separate car crashes at apparently the same moment. Sy dies. Larry does not. Why? We don’t know.

Someone has been writing disparaging notes the to tenure committee at Larry’s university, as we await the committee’s decision. Later on, we learn Sy “wrote the tenure committee.” Are they one and the same? We don’t know.

His stern next-door neighbor — a Gentile — seems to have a personal dislike for Larry…and owns guns. Later on, as Larry is confronted with Mr. Park (see below), he comes by and asks, “Is this man bothering you?” Does the neighbor dislike Larry? Is he an anti-Semite as the film implies? We don’t know.

His unemployed homeless brother is living with Larry’s family while he writes “The Mentaculus”, a tome on something having to do with how the universe and probability works. Larry later finds it and it appears to be the scribblings of a madman. Is it? We don’t know.

Later in the film, during his son’s Bar-Mitzvah, his wife makes the first move towards reconciliation. Is it genuine? Will they reconcile? We don’t know.

Throughout the film, Larry is confronted with one crisis after another. He wonders why all these things are happening to him. He asks why God is doing this to him. Why is he being made to suffer? We don’t know.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

Wisdom?  Yes and No.

He does what we all might do — seek out spiritual guidance. He goes to visit three Rabbis. The first seems to offer only surface platitudes. The second seems to offer a pointless fable. And he can’t even get in to see the venerable third, the one who might actually have all the answers.

In truth, however, each rabbi’s message is useful. The problem is that Larry isn’t listening — or hearing — what they say. In fact, the answers to all of Larry’s questions are right there for the taking throughout the movie, just as they always are for each of us. But Larry is so far removed in his relationship with God that he doesn’t see them.

The first rabbi’s point is simple: revel in the everyday miracles God provides us. The second rabbi’s point is that you’ll drive yourself crazy asking “why? Is any of what happens supposed to be a sign from God?”

As the second rabbi tells him straight out:

Larry:  I want an answer.

Rabbi:  Sure, we all want an answer.  Hashem doesn’t owe us the answer, Larry.  Hashem doesn’t owe us anything.  The obligation runs the other way.

Larry: Then why does he make us feel the questions if he’s not going to give us any answers?

Rabbi:  He hasn’t told me.

Accept The Mystery

It is the screenplay’s great triumph that every scene reinforces this theme over and over. Indeed, the subplot involving Mr. Park and his son Clive practically screams to the audience what the movie is about. Notice in the first scene how Clive sits in a chair in Larry’s office across from Larry’s desk, which we see in a wide shot . We see the top of the entire desk. There is no envelope.

Clive leaves.  Larry makes a call.  As he is dialing, Larry notices (via a POV shot) an envelope on his desk. It was definitely not there in the wide shots immediately before.  We see that Clive doesn’t drop it on the desk as he exits.

It just appears.

How did it get there? Why is it there? We don’t know, nor should we even ask. It just is. And Larry is driven crazy when confronted with a real-life version of Schrodinger’s cat.

Park: This is defamation. Ground for lawsuit.

Larry: You’re threatening to sue me for defaming your son?

Park: Yes.

Larry:  Let’s keep it simple.  I could pretend the money never appeared.  That’s not defaming anyone.

Park: Yes, and a passing grade.

Larry: Passing grade?

Park:Yes.

Larry: Or you’ll sue me?

Park: For taking money.

Larry: So he did leave the money.

Park: This is defamation.

Larry: It doesn’t make sense.  Either he left the money or he didn’t.

Park: Please. Accept the mystery.

Accept the mystery. The message of the film. Again. One might even choose to view Mr. Park and Clive as angels sent to deliver a message to Larry — stop asking why, accept the mystery, and live your life — just like the Goy.

The third rabbi? That Larry doesn’t even get to see him is itself the message — the old man has no more wisdom than anyone else.

Indeed, Larry has been beset by a dybbuk known as Doubt. He needs to stab it in the chest and send it on its way. We hear him say throughout the film,”I haven’t done anything” in many different contexts. The subtext the Coens are providing us is that Larry is simply puttering through life.  He is not doing anything remarkable. He is out of touch with his family, his wife, his brother, his students, and with God. He is even exiled out of his own home to a motel called The Jolly Roger — an obvious reference to a pirate ship, a ship without a port, without a home.

Larry’s Lesson

So what finally happens? With everything seemingly falling apart around him, jammed into a tiny motel room with his suffering brother, he awakens to his brother sobbing by the motel’s empty pool. The man is at wit’s end himself, in trouble with law, homeless and unemployed and probably crazy. He sobs, “Hashem has given you everything. He’s given me sh*t!”

And Larry shows compassion. He embraces his brother. It’s the first time we’ve seen an expression of caring for a fellow human from Larry.   What follows is a dream where he sends his brother on a boat across a beautiful lake to Canada — using the money from the envelope. There his brother will be safe. It’s this moment of reaching out that seems to turn the tide for Larry. One by one, all the crises drop away and are resolved. It seems as if all will be well.

But this is a Coen Brothers film. They have shown us what the movie is about, over and over again. And as if to test us — Larry returns to his office, and it is implied that he will take the cash to pay an attorney to defend his brother, and give Clive a passing grade of “C-”. The phone rings. It’s his doctor. He has concerns about some recent tests — the kind of concerns where he needs Larry to come in and talk, but he is not specific. Simultaneously, his newly Bar-Mitvahed son and his classmates congregate outside a concrete building, as an old teacher fumbles with a set of keys so they can get in….for a tornado approaches. And as the tornado bears down….

The End.

What’s going to happen?  What does it mean?  If you are asking those questions, you haven’t been paying attention.

Conclusion

So we return to A Serious Man as a faith-based film that anyone can enjoy and yield great dividends from. The circumstances and questions that Larry faces are the same that we all face, and every religion responds in essentially the same way. We already know what Judaism says. I imagine Christians would assert that we are not one to question God’s plan, but to play the hand we’re dealt and have faith that He has his reasons. His Holiness XIV Dalai Lama said at a speech I went to, “There is no point in worrying about whether or not something is going to happen. If it happens, then it happens, and worrying about it won’t change anything. If it doesn’t happen, then you spent all this time worrying over something that didn’t happen.” Religious Science might say that once something happens, we have the power as individuals not only to derive a personal meaning from it, but by virtue of the fact that our mind has provided that meaning, then that is the meaning. We should thus act accordingly to make the best of the situation and use it in a positive fashion. Even atheists should look at the film and be heartened. God isn’t causing anything, so at the end of the day, you either press on or you give up regardless of the situation.

We, the audience, are even given the real wisdom of the film because we (but not Larry) get a message from the venerable Rabbi Marshak, delivered to Larry’s son after his Bar-Mitzvah. The message? He quotes Jefferson Airplane — the song that recurs throughout the movie.

When the truth is found to be lies, and all the hope within you dies…be a good boy.

And, we know the rest of the words. “Find somebody to love.” Because that’s all you can do, because God is love. Participate in what God is.

Then again….the ancient Rabbi was listening to the boys’ transistor radio and that’s the song that was playing. Is Marshak just senile and repeating what he’s hearing, or is it wisdom?

Or is it…?  Or maybe…?  What if….?

If you want to hear another perspective about this movie, have a look at Father Barron’s comments.  He often comments on the spiritual messages of films.

Gibson’s career reads like a Shakespearian Tragedy.  After becoming arguably the biggest star in Hollywood he began displaying his hubris, spewing hatred against different ethnic groups, much of it against the Jews (or as he has called them “oven dodgers”). Gibson’s hatred nearly destroyed his career turning him into at best a b-player.  But announced last week, Gibson successfully wrangled funding for a big Hollywood project withy Warner Brothers.  He will be producing and possibly directing and starring in a movie based on Jewish history, the story of Judah Maccabee.

This is not the first time Gibson has tackled Jewish History, just the first time he’s attempted it in film. In 2004, Gibson was interviewed by Peggy Noonan for Readers Digest.  Noonan asked Gibson if he believed the Holocaust happened. He answered by questioning the number of Jews slaughtered by the Nazi’s and seemed to downplay the Holocaust as a Jewish experience. 

“I mean when the war was over they said it was 12 million. Then it was six. Now it’s four. I mean it’s that kind of numbers game. I mean war is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million people starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century 20 million people died in the Soviet Union. Okay? It’s horrible.” 

These are just a few of many anti-Jewish acts made by Gibson, the most famous of which occurred during a drunk driving arrest in 2006 when he kept screaming “f***ing Jews” and  later stated that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world”  

So should Gibson’s Antisemitism prevent him from making a movie about the Maccabees? Well that’s kind of a hypothetical question because it was Gibson who brought the picture to Warner Brothers. It won’t be made without him. But is it the right thing for Warners to do, and once it is made should Jews consider seeing the movie?

Rabbi Marvin Heir, founder and dean of Los Angeles’s Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance, voiced his displeasure in statements to The Hollywood Reporter and predicted that Jews should stay home.

“Warner Bros. is making a terrible mistake,” Hier says, adding, “most of the people that are going to come to a film about Judah Maccabee are the Jewish community. Surely they know the Jewish communities are not going to come to this film.”

I am not as sure as Rabbi Hier. As a people, Jews are quick to forgive. Israel considers Palestinian Authority President Abbas a moderate despite the fact that he was one of the people responsible for the Sbarro bombing, American Jews still support Barack Obama despite his anti-Israel policies. In the end, the good Rabbi is likely to be disappointed to learn how many Jews  see the movie.

More than his anti-Semitic history, I am not sure that Gibson has the background to appreciate the real story of the Maccabees. Gibson is a passionate member of the Catholic Traditionalist movement, a minority Catholic sect that rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in 1964-65 — in particular the abolition of the Latin Mass. Part of the traditional Latin Mass that Gibson so fiercely believes in is about the conversion of the Jews. The prayer reads: “Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.” It also refers to their “blindness” and prays for them to be “delivered from their darkness.”

This is a direct conflict with the story of the Maccabees who fought against conversion. Only part of the Hanukah story was the Maccabees fight for getting the Greeks out of Israel, and the cleansing and dedication of the Temple. The Maccabees fought a civil war against other Jews. Judah and the boys were fighting Jews who had turned away from their faith by combining it with Greek/Hellenistic practices (or in some cases abandoning the Jewish faith totally).  The resulting assimilation caused a loss of Jewish faith and tradition, and finally laws against practicing Jewish ritual.

Sadly, in many way’s this story about a war against assimilation of the Jewish people has become the most assimilated of Jewish holidays.  Too many treat this holiday as a “Jewish Christmas,” the exact opposite of what the Maccabee story is all about.

The reason I don’t believe Gibson is qualified to produce, direct and possibly star in a movie about Judah Maccabee is not his love or hatred for the Jewish people, but the fact that his view of the Catholic faith argues Jews should be cured so they can accept Christ — and that is the exact opposite of the Maccabee story.

Mel Gibson is entitled to his religious belief, that’s not the issue.  The real question is:  based on his religious beliefs could Mel Gibson do the story of the Maccabees justice? Personally, I do not see how a man who prays that Jews convert can do a movie about a civil war waged to prevent Jews from losing their faith.

Mel Gibson’s decision to make a biopic of the Jewish religious icon Judah Maccabee is the latest twist in the star’s long, tortured history with the Jewish community.

In a May 2003 interview with National Catholic Reporter Jesuit Fr. William J. Fulco, who translated the script into Aramaic and Latin, assured the nervous Jewish community, “In no way do I experience it as offensive to Jews or anyone else.”

But as Gibson began to screen the film to selected Catholic and Jewish leaders, accusations of anti-Semitism sounded louder and louder in the media. Unhappy with the film’s tone towards the Jewish people and their culpability in the crucifixion of Jesus, leaders such as New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind.

Eventually, Twentieth Century Fox passed on picking up the film, now titled The Passion of the Christ and it was distributed by indie company, Newmarket Films.

Full story here.

Remember the monster hit video “The Great Schlep,” from late in 2008 by Jewish comedian Sarah Silverman.

If Barack Obama doesn’t become the next president of the United States I’m gonna blame the Jews. I am.

Florida can make or break an election. I’m making this video to urge all of you to schlep over to Florida and convince your grandparents [Nana, Papa, Zadi, Boobie, et.al.] to vote Obama.

It was oh, so hip and cool in a Comedy Central/MTV sort of way. Nearly 2 million views. And as we all know, Obama did squeek by in Florida.

And now from political analysts Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (Politico), via AZCentral.com “Obama adviser: Numbers grim for ‘12 campaign” Aug. 4:

Obama’s electoral map from 2008 will be tough to duplicate, with all three perennial bellwethers — Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania — once again up for grabs.

[Obama] may have been hurt in Florida by unhappiness in the Jewish community about Obama’s handling of Israel…

And this from the NY Post, “Jews won’t vote for Obama again,” July 13:

American Jews will stop voting against their own interests and abandon the Democratic Party. A new poll, Tevi Troy argues… Pat Cadell and John McLaughlin’s bipartisan survey shows that only 43 percent of respondents plan to vote for Barack Obama next year.

Consider, 78% (!) of Jews voted for Obama in 2008.

And now get ready for a stunner.

Politico reports:

Sarah Silverman: Loving Obama ain’t easy

Is Sarah Silverman falling out of love with Obama?

On Thursday, the comedian who‘s been a big supporter of the president tweeted a link to the song “Trying My Best to Love You”

Losing Silverman now?

Maybe in retrospect Sarah, it might have been better to have endorsed that other (rumored-to-be) Jewish Sarah in 2008. At least Nana would have been happier.

—–

Released last week in Los Angeles and New York City, and this weekend in select cities nationwide, the 2010 French film “Sarah’s Key” brings that tragedy to the screen. “Sarah’s Key” is based on author Tatiana de Rosnay’s New York Times bestseller by the same name, and follows two lives, decades apart, connected by a long-kept, horrible secret. Sarah (Mélusine Mayance), a young Jewish girl taken with her parents to the Vel’ d’Hiv, fights to return to Paris where her brother is locked away in a secret closet in their apartment, hiding from the police. Years later, in modern day Paris, American journalist Julia (Kristin Scott Thomas) begins to research Sarah’s story while struggling with the decision of whether to keep or abort her baby – a baby that her husband does not want. 

The film, like the book, flips between 1942 and modern-day France and New York, defying traditional World War II films, since over half of the story takes place in the 2000s. Co-writer and director Gilles Pacquet-Brenner added a few scenes to flesh out Sarah’s history, and streamlined Julia’s relationship with her husband and fellow journalists, but left the bestselling story largely intact. 

Young Sarah, played by a brilliant French actress named Mélusine Mayance, has haunting eyes and maturity beyond her years. As Pacquet-Brenner says, “She’s a great actress. She’s not a child who acts.” Coupled with the stunning, mysterious Charlotte Poutrel playing a grown up Sarah, Pacuqet-Brenner presents an unforgettable character who endures almost incomprehensible tragedy. Kristin Scott Thomas also delivers a moving performance as the journalist Julia, and between Thomas and Aidan Quinn, they keep an emotional ending from becoming melodramatic. 

Pacquet-Brenner presents the roundup and holding scenes at the Vel’ d’Hiv roughly, pushing the camera right into the crowd, below the adults, giving the audience the perspective of a little child. Later, when mothers and children are torn apart at Drancy, he does it again. The unsettling style drives the scenes home. 

“Sarah’s Key” draws a comparison between what happened during World War II to our lives today in a very unique way, showing how lives can intertwine and impact, even when separated by the years. “It was very interesting to show how the facts of the past can affect the present and how you need to know, understand and face your past,” said the director recently in an interview with BH. “Because we in the present come from the past; the past is what defines us.” 

In “Sarah’s Key,” Julia’s quest to discover Sarah’s history becomes not only an effort to keep the horrific truth of the Vel’ d’Hiv roundup from dying, but to illustrate that the Holocaust’s detestable devaluation of human life is not forgotten, and that through remembering, there is “the hope of what we can become” – better, changed people ourselves. It is a moving reminder to never forget this tragedy, and to value every life.

1. The film is based on an old and well known Jewish joke. So old is the joke that I actually heard this back in high school when I was a student at the Brooklyn Talmudic Academy.

2. A certain segment of orthodox Jewish men wear black suits and black hats only. Think of it as a regulation uniform. Why? The most common explanation is that black signifies mourning and the Jewish people are still mourning the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. Also—and this is just my personal opinion—black is, y’know, slimming.

3. Be sure to watch the film all the way through the credits. Enjoy!

]]> http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ravrech/2011/07/04/america-the-melting-pot-jewish-catholic-short-film-to-cleanse-the-palate/feed/ 18 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/epokroy/2011/06/15/leonard-nimoy-spock-wants-to-divide-jerusalem/ http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/epokroy/2011/06/15/leonard-nimoy-spock-wants-to-divide-jerusalem/#comments Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:51:53 +0000 Evan Pokroy http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=483584 There is nothing that says “expert on Middle Eastern conflict resolution” more than playing an alien on television. So, the consummate expert has penned a missive to Americans for Peace Now on how he sees an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Spock has spoken.

Leonard Nimoy has called for a two state solution for which, in deference, several notables (amongst them Israelis), have called.  Nimoy does make a telling statement about the whole idea of two separate states.

“In fact, there is an end in sight. It’s known as the two-state solution – a secure, democratic Israel as the Jewish State alongside an independent Palestinian state.”

He does deserve some credit for seeing Israel as a Jewish state but, if you notice, there is only one democratic state mentioned here. It isn’t expected that another Muslim Arab state will be democratic. As a matter of fact, as always, Israel is expected to remain multicultural andrespect the rights of all its inhabitants, yet the proposed Arab state would, like all the other Arab states, not be open to Jews. Not that many Jews would like to live in an Arab state, considering the centuries of slaughter and pillage that have been the lot of Dhimmi Jews in Arab lands.

This is pretty par for the course, but what is even more egregious is his call for the division of Jerusalem.

“Their plan includes a Palestinian state alongside Israel with agreed-upon land swaps. The Palestinian-populated areas of Jerusalem would become the capital of Palestine; the Jewish-populated areas the capital of Israel.”

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the demographics of Jerusalem would see this as being very “Pie in the Sky.” Without discussing the merits of the argument, the city is a patchwork of neighborhoods, with communities which are impossible to separate without a mass transfer of population. In the eyes of the world, this means kicking Jews out of their homes. There is also the historical precedent set by the last time parts of Jerusalem were under Arab control, between 1948 and 1967, when Jewish holy sites were used as places to corral animal and the headstones from Jewish graves as flooring in bathrooms. Lest one think this is a relic of a bygone era, recall what happened to the Synagogues left behind following the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif in the Gaza strip.

“Peace Now’s activities and programs… keep peace on the world’s agenda… Like those Israelis who issued the peace plan, the members of Peace Now have their boots on the ground. “

Peace Now keeps one thing on its agenda, and that is the expulsion of Jews from their ancestral homes in Judea and Samaria. They have no other platform except returning Israel to its 1949 borders, otherwise known as the Auschwitz borders. The group has never called for any change to the maximalist demands of the Arabs, nor acknowledged the plain facts that the entire Arab-Israeli conflict is based on the desire of the Arabs to return the Jews to the degraded state they were in when they were under Muslim rule, where they could be beaten, robbed or killed with impunity.

Bringing his extensive resume to the forefront, Nimoy then compares the situation to an episode of Star Trek. “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” in which the two remaining survivors of a planet continue their battle fifty thousand years after every other inhabitant on the world has died in the war. This would be a strong political statement, were it not hopelessly naïve.

Israel and the Jewish nation have two options: fight for survival or return to the time when they were at the never tender mercies of the nations that lorded over them. The Muslim Arabs, following the precepts laid down by the Koran, were historically amongst the worst oppressors of the Jews. This is something worth fighting to prevent, even if it lasts for fifty thousand years. Giving in to evil does not bring peace, it only brings more evil.

The bottom line is there is no solution to the conflict in Israel as long as the Arabs demand everything and still see themselves as the rightful rulers, not so much of the land, but of the infidels who reside upon it.

“Tradition” is not only the title of one of the film’s best known songs, but also the story’s over-arching theme that plays out as we watch the beautiful and time-honored Jewish faith and culture put to the ultimate balancing test (like a fiddler on the roof) due to unrelenting social change and terrible political circumstances. In the form of three different suitors for his three cherished daughters, Tevye will — with varying levels of success — be forced to accept circumstances outside of what he’s always known in matters of love and marriage. These personal conflicts, however, pale when compared to the  antisemitic attacks launched by the Russian government that always threaten to undermine the tranquility of Tevye’s modest village — a dot on a map filled with colorful characters just looking to eke out a quiet life, worship in their own way, and be left alone.

With such timeless songs as “Matchmaker, Matchmaker,” “Sunrise, Sunset,” and ”If I Were a Rich Man,” along with composer John Williams’ toe-tapping score, a screenplay that keeps the story turning, and sure-handed direction by Jewison, the 181 minutes simply fly by. Topol is such a bear of paternal warmth and the people around him so accessible (though nicely flawed), that you never want to to leave them. The film’s greatest success, though, is that right along with Tevye and his family and neighbors, you feel their crushing sense of loss as political and social winds — even in those rare instance when it’s for the better — undermine the village’s serenity.

The entire production defines the word “infectious” and looks gorgeous in high-definition, probably as good as it ever has. The intricate details only found on-location, along with the actors’ faces and even the texture of the fabrics, pop out in ways that only help to draw you deeper into the story and world. The sound, mixed in 7.1 DTS-HD, sounded just perfect through my antiquated 5.1.

Though all the performances are universally note-worthy, the whole show really is Topol who, amazingly, was only 34 or 35 years old during filming. A perfect part cast with this perfect of an actor is a rarity and such a unique kind of pleasure that you can’t help but smile every moment he’s on screen. Topol played the part on the stage and how lucky we are — like Anthony Quinn in Zorba and Brando in Streetcar — to have this Academy Award- nominated performance forever captured on film.

The Blu-ray comes with a ton of extras, including a number of short features that look at specific aspects of the film, including the score and production design. There’s also a deleted song and audio commentary by Jewison and Topol. An extra almost as good as the film itself is a revealing, 50-minute documentary that examines Jewison as a director during the arduous “Fiddler” shoot. Not to be missed.

I not only love this movie and always have, but I also love how deceptively complicated it is. “Fiddler” is about about some very big social and political issues, but it explores and handles them in ways that are never divisive, preachy, or turn the rich subtext into text.  The people might be Jewish but their humanity –like the film’s themes — are universal.  Not only do musicals not get much better than “Fiddler on the Roof,” neither do films about social and political issues.

While we at Big Hollywood are quick to point out that celebrities can use their soapbox to do some good, but each time they open their mouth to tell us how to behave, they run the risk of losing the magic of their screen persona.  So to help remind you who spoke up on behalf of “all people” this year, here is a rundown of the 10 most asshat celebrity comments of 2010:

———-

10.  When Whoopi Goldberg went on O’Reilly to discuss her reason for walking off The View (i.e. plug her new book Is It Just Me?: Or is it nuts out there?”) rather than defend her position about the world having a “Muslim problem,” the two also touched on the issue of whether a Jewish kid or a Muslim kid is more likely to be bullied in the US because of his religion.  O’Reilly had the facts but like most good, Hollywood liberals, Whoopi just said, “I don’t believe it.”

———-

9. Mel Gibson finds himself on the list for having a long history of racist rants, drunk or not. He gets an extra asshat mention for not checking for a wire when being honest in the face of a Russian.

———-

8. When Hollywood leftists cannibalize one another as if they were a bunch of Troglodytes forced into an out of control Kubrick film, it sends a spool-of-drool to my mouth like a Pavlovian dog. In April, Sigourney Weaver served up this little dish about her showbiz sister Kathryn Bigelow while in Brazil promoting Pocahontas… I mean Avatar.  “Jim didn’t have breasts, and I think that was the reason,” she told told Folha Online, a Brazilian news site. “He should have taken home that Oscar.”

———-

7. After apologizing profusely throughout 2010 for grabbing Taylor Swift’s spotlight at the 2009 Grammys, Kanye West did an about face and complained that, after he dissed her onstage, he was disappointed that Taylor Swift “didn’t have my back.” Why would she have his back? He’s the one who humiliated her!

———-

6. After doing what all celebrity women who can’t maintain a healthy relationship do–buy a child–Sheryl Crow got back up on perch to tell Katie Couric about it for Glamour magazine last June. After Crow complained in the interview that Americans have become too blasé about politics and that nobody has taken to the streets to cause “a riot or a revolution,” Couric correctly pointed to the Tea Party as an example of modern day activism.

“What do you think of the Tea Party movement? Because that is the specific sort of group of people who would say we’re out there, we’re getting involved in the process…” asked Katie Couric.

“I appreciate the fact that those people are out there and that they are fired up,” responded Crow, before adding that Tea Partiers “haven’t educated themselves…they’re just pissed off.”

“My main concern is that [the Tea Party is] really fear-based,” said Crow, a cancer survivor and environmental activist. “What’s coming out of the Tea Party most often, especially if you go onto YouTube, and you see some of the interviews with these people who really don’t even know what the issues are, they’re just swept up in the fear of it and the anger of it.”

“They’re not sure what they’re angry at,” Crow continued. “[T]hey don’t understand what’s happening on Wall Street.”

This from a woman who every year tours the country in custom buses so people can hear music inspired by Eric Clapton, Don Henley, Owen Wilson, and Lance Armstrong.

———-

5. Gwyneth Paltrow said that losing her baby weight after the birth of her second child, son Moses, in 2006, was “by far the hardest thing I’ve ever done,” the Huffington Post reported on July 11. “It was really hanging on. It was not easy…but I really was seeing results so it motivated me to just work through it,” Paltrow said. She added that her celebrity trainer, Tracy Anderson, helped her lose the weight by having her work out for two hours a day. Two hours a day!  I don’t know any mother with small children that have time or energy to work out for two hours a day.  Oh, but it gets worse.  Paltrow explains: “Every woman can make time–every woman–and you can do it with your baby in the room. There have been countless times where I’ve worked out with my kids crawling around all over the place. You just make it work, and if it’s important to you, it’ll be important to them.

———-

4. As reported by Hollywoodland, Ben Affleck on NPR said, “The banks shouldn’t — people shouldn’t make such a giant profit off just moving money back and forth. And CEOs’ pay shouldn’t be 200 times the average worker. It used to be nine times.”

NPR didn’t ask whether that sentiment about overpayment counts for movie stars that make $250,000 for simply showing up at a casino grand opening.

———-

3. When not backing homophobic and misogynistic rappers on their latest “art” and winning awards from the Gay and Lesbian Community, Pink is thinking about beating her unborn child.  “It’s a great idea to spank your children!” And she’s not just talking about a light tap on the butt, either: “I think parents need to beat the crap out of their kids,” the 31-year-old pop star said to Access Hollywood. “Yes, I think the whole spanking and how it’s all gotten P.C. is just for the birds,” says Pink. Apparently Pink herself got paddled on the butt a time or two as a child by her dad. “Oh, he put me through a wall,” says Pink. “It’s the only reason I’m still here. It’s the only reason I’m still alive.” Thanks Dad.

———-

2. In her self-made YouTube PSA, Kathy Griffin reaches out to young gay teens the way tobacco companies hope today’s youth will bum a “fag,” light up, and pay their future bills. In it, Kathy sympathizes with gay kids stuck in a Bible-belt closet because of evil Republicans practicing trickle-down homophobia. Because Hollywood knows what’s best for everyone, Kathy also reminds us of how wrong Prop. 8 was and how the courts must overturn it. Laws only apply when they favor Hollywood’s agenda; when the law doesn’t and sides with the majority, Hollywood bullies everyone with a differing view. Days later, hosting VH1 Divas Salute the Troops, Griffin decided to bully Bristol Palin about here weight on “Dancing with the Stars,” shedding a light of shame on all young women who struggle with weight issues and don’t have access to personal trainers.

———-

1. Watching The Joy Behar Show on Headline News is akin to watching dead tuna dry in the sun–and the only thing that squashes this tuna melt more is when her guest is the man who inspired the term “jumping the shark.” I’m not sure what tank Henry Winkler’s been swimming in since he starred in that hit movie Heroes in 1977, but I wish he’d stayed there. Winkler, on the show to promote his children’s book that deals with dyslexia, felt the need to debase an American family that’s done nothing to him other than be different. In the clip, Winkler says this about Sarah Palin and her family: “I do know that she is the most articulate person in her family.” He and Joy then go to criticize Palin for living the good life they have enjoyed for many years.

Who are your Hollywood Asshats of 2010?

Although this news initially horrified me, I now realize that the time to be horrified is over. It is high time to fess up and tell the world the truth: We Jews do control US policy; in fact we run the world. And we’ve been running things for a very long time, manipulating world events for our own needs.

It’s time to reveal the truth that many famous people throughout history were actually Jewish — part of the plot to perpetuate the myth and keep us in charge.

Martin Luther – yep, a Jew! But that one was pretty obvious. After all, he is famous for quitting his church to form a new one. Ever talk to a Jew about where he prays?  He will tell you about the Synagogue he goes to and the one he would never set foot in.

Napoleon was a Jew — no wonder he wanted to reconvene the Sanhedrin. The French Emperor had this nervous habit of playing with the Star of David hanging on a chain around his neck all the time. The guy would look ridiculous always sticking his hand in his shirt to play with the Star. 

Alexander Graham Bell, another closet Jew, the only reason he invented the telephone was so he could call his mother.

Now that a great film director such as Oliver Stone has brought things out in the open,  maybe we should be totally honest and start telling the world everything.

For those of you wondering about the media…yep it’s Jewish controlled. We have this guy Lenny (a Levite) who lives in Cleveland with his wife and two kids. Lenny inherited the media-control job from his father, Mel, who in 1942 was able to convince the New York Times and other western newspapers to bury coverage of the Holocaust on page 27.

All the news media in the world report to Lenny. As a news director, he is the best we’ve had for centuries. It was Lenny who thought up the idea that most news media should slant their coverage against Israel. He figured that if reporters give the impression that Jewish blood is cheap, no one would figure out that we were actually running things. A few years ago Lenny won a UJA (Underground Jewish Action) award for coming up with the idea that media should not use the word “terrorist” whenever a Jew was killed.

For those of you who follow football, this year’s entire NFL Cinderella story of the New Orleans Saints was Lenny’s creation. Lenny’s cousin Freddie (on his Mother’s side) owns a pizza joint in New Orleans and Lenny owed him a favor, that championship season was great for Freddie’s business, take out was up 300%.

The banks? No one believes that silly thing about Jewish bankers in New York controlling all the money. Sure, they’re all Jewish, but they come from the Netherlands, not New York. We run the world’s monetary system from the EU central office. Our man there is named Harvey Cohn. Harvey runs a tight ship.

I spoke to Harvey today; he agrees that it’s time to let the cat out of the bag. But there is one thing he would like to do first. You see, much of the world’s “anti-Semitism” is part of the plot to perpetuate the myth that we do not run the world. Heck, Harvey even has Mel Gibson on the payroll (please don’t tell anyone it’s bad for his image). One country’s leadership isn’t involved in the scam. Great Britain’s government really does hate the Jews. Harvey says that before the word gets out, he wants to use his vast financial powers to cancel every credit card owned by a member of the British government and its royal family (especially Prince Charles).

One thing that may surprise people is that Barack Obama is actually Jewish. He converted five years ago (it’s the only way we would let him run for president). I was honored by being invited to his bris. My wife made even made a cheesecake. We told him that he had to pick a Jew like Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Obama’s anti-Israel policy was also Harvey’s brainchild.  With his apparent over-the-top hatred of Israel, no one will believe that he is really Jewish.

As far as foreign policy goes, it’s been Jewish controlled for a long time. Even deceased Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was in on it; he just acted like he hated Jews to throw people off the trail.

Oh, and that those tensions with Iraq? Well, Pat Buchanan was right — our idea. But it has nothing to do with Israel, and everything to with chickpeas. You see, one thing that we don’t control is the falafel market, and that is going to change very, very soon.

And by the way, the Saudis were right; Barbie dolls were created as a plot to destroy the minds of Muslim children. And about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, can you believe that some people still think that’s a forgery?!

I think the most fun project we have done recently is giving the Iranians missile technology, we put a flaw in the system and can hardly wait for the Iranian government to find out that they are a bunch of tools…Zionist tools. The credit for this idea goes to Secretary of State Hillary (her real name is Hadassah) Clinton. Don’t believe me? Why do you think her daughter is marrying a Jew?

Coming out with the truth may lift a terrible burden from our shoulders. No more hiding, no more plotting, just going about the business of ruling the world. There is, however, a downside. What if people don’t believe us? What if people were to hate us so much that they start to think we have little control over world events? What if they were to think that the Jews are an ancient people who survived only through love of God and His Torah? What if people were to look at us, not as world dominators, but as the teachers of how to love God and each other? What am I saying? No one could believe that!

[Ed. Note: It took two kicks at the cat, but Oliver Stone's apology for his anti-Semitic remarks has now been accepted by the Anti-Defamation League.]