Ha ha ha ... donc pas de revue de livres, ni de discussion intellectuelle ici aujourd'hui.
Bon anniversaire, mr Arnon
PS. J'aurai plus de temps pour continuer à lire "Onze oom" - j'en suis à la page 309 - en deux jours ...

Arnon

Ah! Of course! I knew it and missed it. Happy belated birthday Arnon. All my best wishes to you.

oja
Happy birthday!

It gives me great pleasure to read you had at least a small party for your birthday.

Nice bed. Looks like an 8,5 to me.

Lychee fights

A belated happy birthday. I guess the days of big Lycheefights are over, then?

The birthday paradox

Happy birthday Arnon. I also celebrated my birthday today, which I had felt a little uneasy about celebrating beforehand. Luckily, it turned out quite pleasant. Celebrations consisted of a slice of carrot cake in the morning, a cinema visit in the afternoon ('An Education' by Lone Scherfig) and roast chicken with potatoes and parsnips from the oven, washed down with a red Saint Mont 2007 vintage from a supermarket shelf. Desert was a slice of Banoffee pie. I never came close to passing out. I just read on Wikipedia that "the probability that in a set of randomly chosen people, some pair of them will have the same birthday...is known as the birthday problem". Putting aside the requirement of randomness, and regarding this blog as a room, it seems we are a problem or a paradox as mathematicians like to call it. Did you have a sense of being either today?

Philip

His Birthday was yesterday.

An Education

Anybody here seen the film?

Philip

http://www.arnongrunberg.com/blog/1214

Arnon

Thanks for the link, I had overlooked your post about An Education. The discussion that followed was mainly about Mr. Hesper's and Mr. Dee's views on the subject of love.

An important aspect of the film that was not discussed here however, is the antisemitism in the film. On the one hand the film exposes antisemetic inclinations of some of the characters in the movie, like Jenny’s father’s mildly antisemtic leanings and the more outspoken ones of the head mistress, who makes no apologies for her dislike of Jews. Schoolgirl Jenny protests both. On the other hand, so many antisemitic clichés are attached to the manipulative, deceitful and perverted David, that it really is quite hard to overlook. The ending of the film seems to reinforce that. What is your take on this, Arnon?

Siem

Well, there goes the birthday paradox. Quite a relieve. I was not looking forward to a discussion on probability and mathematics. Shortly after bringing it up I felt like a fool for doing so. Do you ever feel like a fool, Siem? Read my next comment and guess how that will make me feel in a few hours.

Philip

We're all in the same position as commentators from this blog. I often wonder how many comments would be deleted again- after the 15 minutes period in wich one can edit his text- if possible.
I am aware that I sometimes border on exposing myself. Not only a fool , but an exhibitionist too.

Philip

I never feel like a fool. Although, I must say there are many times I probably should feel like a fool.

Mieke

Maybe we should open a sub blog to publish the comments that have been retracted before the 15 minute editing cut-off kicks in. All ananomously of course. Even exhibitionism has its boundaries. I'm sure these deleted comments are being saved somewhere by one of Arnon's dutiful employees and handed to him, so each evening before resting his head on his pillow he can read our unredacted feelings on the various subjects of the day.

Philip

The post important thing about Jack and Jenny was that Jack was twenty years her senior, and married on top of that.
The fact that he happened to be Jewish as well was nothing more than a detail. At least that’s how I perceived the movie.

My computer broke down on A.G.’s birthday. Let’s blame it on the Calvados.

Arnon [lengthy comment alert, apologies]

I think that there is a little more to this film, Arnon. I do think you’re right to say that the fact that David was already a married father, turned out to be the problem for Jenny (the relationship ended because of it), and not him being Jewish, but the film does have a lot to say about David, and it isn’t all too pretty I’m afraid. His fraudulent way of making a living completes the picture of him as a man - a Jew we are made sure to remember from the beginning of the movie - who manipulates and deceives everybody he meets; both in love and in business. As soon as he is uncovered as a cheating husband who has led young Jenny astray with his lies, Jenny returns back to her boring but more honourable world of hard work, studying, Oxford and a respectable future as a teacher or civil servant awaits her. What is bewildering, is the one dimensional picture that is painted of David. And it cannot be denied: almost everything we get to know about him seems to fit the antisemitic stereotype about Jews.

From Jenny’s point of view however, it was very much like you commented. David happened to be Jewish and she couldn’t care less. Jenny was interested in David purely because he invited her into a world that was so much more exciting than her own. His Jewishness did not seem to have any bearing on her opinion of him. (and even if it did, that would not make this film antisemitic of course) As I noted before, Jenny resisted the dormant antisemitism her father could not always keep under wraps, as well as the more potent variety from the head mistress at her school. So far, the film as a whole, is not anti-Semitic in its message as far as I am concerned, although one has to wonder: if the Jewishness of David really was so unimportant, why introduce this element into the story so forcefully and explicitly? It could have been the coming of age drama it is, perfectly well without it I would have thought.

What really did make me scratch my head on my way home from the cinema, questioning the film’s motive and underlying message, was the rather blunt way David is first introduced as Jewish (not just any charming man in a beautiful car) and then seems to become a walking, talking antisemitic cliché as the film wears on: an outsider, yet an outstanding charmer who manipulates people effortlessly, like puppets on a string, to make them do what he wants. We learn that he steals art from unsuspecting elderly people in sleepy, picturesque villages. An even better business activity, is him being a landlord and property speculator. Buying and selling houses is all the more profitable for David because he has of course got a cunning trick up his sleeve to buy his properties as cheaply as possible: he purposely moves Caribean immigrants (‘coloureds’) into white neighbourhoods, to chase away the elderly white owners next door. The unsuspecting white residents, often old pensioners “are scared of coloured people”, explains David “so we move the coloureds in and the old ladies out and I buy their flats on the cheap.” When Jenny first finds out about David’s dishonest way of making a luxurious living (the stolen etching) he tells her: “This is how we are, Jenny…we are not clever like you, so we have to be clever in other ways. If we weren’t, there would be no fun.” It remains somewhat unclear who the “we” are David refers to in his admissions to Jenny. Wait a minute…surely, it can’t be…can it…?

Arnon, I hope you will take the trouble of seeing the film again! I must say you have contradicted yourself a little in your comments on this film, so maybe you haven’t paid it the attention it deserves. Allow me to show you (I don’t mean to be a wise ass, really). In your most recent comment in response to me you say: “The post important thing about Jack and Jenny was that Jack was twenty years her senior, and married on top of that.” [David arnon, not Jack] Yet in your original post on ‘An Education’ you write: “The main problem is not his age nor his fraudulent activity, but (spoiler alert) the fact that he is married and has a child.” Hmm, looks like somebody cannot quite make up his mind…do watch it again, and tell me I am imagining things.

Philip

PS
I would like to add that I didn’t find David that unpleasant. He is a man with a healthy appetite for the more pleasant things of life.
But I’ve to add that I don’t go to the movies as an ethicist.
Beauty is the first thing. Morals follow on.

Philip

Excuse me, David not Jack. Wasn’t her father named Jack? And “most” instead of “post” – not a lapsus linguae, just a typo. I saw the movie a few weeks ago and it didn’t make such an impression on me that I would like to see it again. I would be careful with the label anti-Semitism. You seem to overlook the fact that the movie takes place in the fifties, when a certain dislike of Jews was probably more accepted than it is now in English society. But then again, I’m not a connoisseur of contemporary English society. What makes David problematic to accept as a future husband are, in order of importance, the fact that he is married, with children if I’m not mistaken, the fact that he is twenty or fifteen years her senior, and the fact that he is Jewish. (What you label a “contradiction” is merely a matter of context. Your emphasis on David as a Jew seems to me just not the point of the movie.) You seem to me oversensitive when it comes to his Jewishness, but yes I might have missed important clues, although in general I consider myself an apt movie critic. And I would like to remind you of the fact that we should be able to deal with unpleasant Jewish characters, whether in movies, books or real life.

Arnon [apologies to everyone else here, this won't happen again I promise]

Arnon, I commend your carefulness about jumping to any ill considered conclusions about anti-Semitism. Yet, I do feel that my point may not have come across.

I agree with your analysis on why David is not acceptable as a husband to Jenny, I think. It is simply because he has not told Jenny and her parents that he is already married with children. Period. Him being Jewish or too old has not made Jenny or her parents suddenly decide the relationship must end. They had approved of him going out with Jenny despite knowing he was Jewish in the first place, after all.

You say that you think I put too much emphasis on David being Jewish, as this is not the point of the movie. I say you may be putting too little emphasis on it, maybe you’re missing a point the film makes as well, in addition to the coming of age story. I have not said that this is THE point of the movie, but I don’t rule it out either. It is a matter of perspective. All I am saying is that the anti-Semitism undeniably is an important part of this film, even if you acknowledge that the main story line is not determined by him being a Jew and that it would still have worked as a story if David would not have been a Jew. And I do acknowledge that. It does not necessarily change the outcome story itself (Jenny and David splitting up), but it can change the appreciation and meaning of this film as an artistic product considerably. You have to take a step back from the main story line about their relationship, to appreciate this. I don’t know how I can explain this the best way. It seems so obvious to me, yet so hard to convey.

To put it bluntly: We see a beautiful, studious, underage schoolgirl from an honest, hard working lower middle class family, who is on her way to an Oxford education and most likely a respectful life as a teacher/academic or civil servant. She is led astray by a charming, manipulative, selfish Jew, (we can safely say that so bluntly, as the film makes such a point of conveying he is first and foremost a Jew; please watch the scene where David is introduced) who has no morals in both his private life or his business dealings (thieving and speculating, profiteering from defenceless old pensioners). He distracts her from her studies, and though he seems attracted by her intelligence, shows little concern for her school results. Only when he is exposed as the married cheat that he his, does Jenny find her way back to studying and getting into Oxford. Her experience with David has given her a fresh appreciation of the life and virtues which seemed so pointless and boring not long ago. The immoral Jew did come in handy to make that point!

Even when you regard the anti-Semitism and the rather one dimensional David that emerges as social context, it cannot be ignored.

You point out that a certain dislike or prejudice towards Jews was probably more accepted in the 1950s. I agree, and so were other forms of racism. An example from the film is how white people can apparently be chased from their houses by moving in a black family next door. In those days, white English people were obviously not too keen on coloured people from the Caribbean either, the film seems to say. This was a reality, whether we like it or not. I don’t have any issues with the film for exposing that kind of racism of course. The subdued prejudices of Jenny’s father Jack and the overt ones from the headmistress towards Jews, are probably examples that fit into the category of ‘a certain dislike of Jews’ as you put it, that was probably not uncommon in 1950s Britain. Again: this is not the anti-Semitism that I object to in the film! It does not make the film anti-Semitic for me.

My concern is the film makers’ portrayal of David as such an obvious anti-Semitic stereotype, with no redeeming features at all. You cannot say he is an unpleasant guy, or a guy who does some unpleasant things, and happens to be Jewish. I can certainly deal with that. The film goes out of its way to first say he is Jewish, then introduces us to his behaviour and character traits, which turn out to fit one-by-one the way anti-Semites portray Jews. The film seems to say: yes there was anti-Semitism in 1950s England, we expose it, but our portrayal of David shows you it was not without any justification that people did not like Jews much.

PS1 I also did not find David so unpleasant and I can only agree with your earlier PS about his appreciation of the finer things in life and life itself. I certainly don’t go the movies as an ethicist either, far from it. It doesn’t stop me reading between the lines though and thinking about what message people who may or may not be ethicists are trying to send to their audience.

PS2 Although I actually quite enjoyed the film, I would probably not want to see it twice on its own dramatic merits either. Yet for understanding the point we are discussing about it here, I do think it may be worth seeing it twice. I wish I could make you, but I am still working on my manipulative side. Be warned when you see a shiny car pull up any day soon and offer you a lift. When it happens, don’t assume the (wo)man behind the wheel is a manipulative Jew(ess) though. You may be disappointed. But then again…

PS3 I was surprised to see that you have now gone as far as putting David being a Jew as the 3rd reason for him being unacceptable to Jenny (and her parents) as a future husband. Am I wrong to think that initially you stated this had no bearing on it? I am too tired to check. I would not put it as reason at all, because it had no bearing on it whatsoever as far as I can see. I get the impression that you think I’m trying to convince you that it did make David unsuitable as a husband for Jenny, but I don’t!!!!! It has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. The anti-Semitism is in the film itself, not the views of the main characters of David…If you excuse me now, I am going to pour myself a drink and have a cry. Or maybe a laugh, we’ll see what happens.

Arnon, happy birthday. I noticed your comment, "...that we should be able to deal with unpleasant Jewish characters, whether in movies, books or real life...." It made me think of Shylock.

Aliefka

Have you actually seen the film?

Philip, the film you and Arnon are discussing? No. I referred to that one sentence of Arnon's and said what it made me think of. If I had seen the film you are discussing, I might have attempted to analyze whether a parallel can be drawn between David and Shylock. Have you seen/read the Merchant of Venice?