I found it curious that in the first time Juliette ventures out by herself in Cairo, she is acosted by a mob of muslim males who obviously wanted sex from her and she literally had to run into a shop to escape, where an older gentleman then simply shooed them off. No harm no foul I guess. Then she continues to wander around oblivious as Arab women in Burquas glare and point at her in her summer dress, bare legs, and uncovered head, eventually ending up in Tariqs all male coffee shop where everyone again glares and frowns and she is again clueless util she is told what the problem is, and that Arab women go other places and do other things. (than sitting around smoking hooka’s and drinking coffee I guess) Later, she wanders into a Mosque during prayers and stands staring at the man leading the prayers, and no one reacts or asks her to move. My issue is we all know what would happen in the REAL Muslim / Arab world if a western female were to act this stupid and ignorantly.

So Ms. Nadda has issues with how Israelies may possibly stop a bus at an imaginary checkpoint, but no issues with a woman almost being attacked and possibly raped, or the chauvinist Arab culture that makes women second class citizens? Like I said, she seems to have a romanticized view of her “culture” (seeing as how her parents left and she was born and raised in Canada) which is not based on the harsh reality the world knows.

That’s my 2 cents worth.

Please keep your comments coming. I try to be “a good Jewish girl” who “always does her homework,” so it’s great to have intelligent feedback

Not playing a Jewish character very often is not a condition reserved for Johansson, though (or Parker). While annoying Jewish comedians often play explicit Jews (typically though their own designs and no one else’s, i.e. Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen), most attractive young Jewish actors, of which there is a plentiful supply especially these days, never or almost never play explicit Jews (i.e. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anton Yelchin, Mila Kunis, Natalie Portman, Logan Lerman, Andrew Garfield, Paul Rudd… and I haven’t even gotten to the “half Jewish” ones yet…).

But what is this thing some people have about who Woody Allen casts in his movies? Who cares? Woody Allen makes one movie a year, at best. That leaves hundreds of others. Why would anyone want a Jewish woman to be subjected to the fate of playing Woody’s love interest? Isn’t it better that Chris Columbus casts a lot of Jews in his movie (and he does), for example, than Allen?

I was surprised that you made no mention of Bel Kaufman. Especially since your “tiny” (1/3 of the column) kvetch was about the “male-oriented view.” Since the males included Hillel Halkin, whom I found very bright and articulate, I am grateful to Dorman for the talking heads he did have, including Ruth Wisse.

An author I knew, criticized for not including an item in a critic’s agenda, told the critic that that wasn’t the book he wrote, and that perhaps the critic should write a book on the subject from that point of view.

I am posting this comment with my reply (below) for those of you who may have the same question about the absence of Bel Kauman’s name in my original column:

Dear Reader, With only 742 words in the entire column (& only 284 in the section devoted to Dorman’s film), it was difficult to address the subject of Bel Kaufman.

She was born in Berlin in May 10, 1911: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_Kaufman

Rabinowitz died in New York on May 13, 1916. So the truth is, she could barely have known him under the best of circumstances, and the actual circumstances were very bad indeed. She was a young child living in Ukraine; he was a sick man who had already lived in America for approximately two years at the time of his death.

So where did “the memories” she recounts in the film come from? The memory of her mother (Lyala) receiving the telegram “Papa very ill” was a vivid one, but the others? Nowhere does Dorman mention the name Marie Waite-Goldberg, author of My Father, Sholom Aleichem, which is their likely source.

I called Dorman’s film “wonderful,” said it did a “superlative job… of masterfully combining,” noted that it “has been embraced by audiences everywhere,” & predicted that it would be very “popular” here in Metro Chicago. But with all this high praise I will tell you what I told him face-to-face after the Saturday afternoon Q&A at the Music Box Theatre: 99% perfect still leaves a 1% problem, and as a critic, I felt it was my responsibility to point it out.

We have since traded several additional messages which convince me that Dorman did not consciously intend for his film to be so male-oriented. What we both agree on is that Rabinowitz loved women–especially his wife Olga and “his large family (with its many daughters)”–and it was this love that enabled him to create so many wonderful women characters. Therefore, as I said to Dorman in my most recent message: “We as ‘his heirs’ owe them [meaning both the women he loved & the female characters he created] our respect.”

Since Dorman will likely be presenting his film to many, many new audiences in 2011 & 2012, my hope is he will find ways to fill this 1% gap when opportunities to do so present themselves. But that is his job, not mine. My job was to present the strengths & weaknesses of his film as best I could in the space available, and any critic who told you he/she did not write “from a point of view” would be lying.

I thank you for your comments, and I hope you feel I have responded sincerely. I would like to post your comment as well as my reply on my Blog because I’m sure others had the same reaction you did. Should I mention your name in my post or would you prefer that I enter your comment anonymously?

Zay gezunt,
Jan

“I disagree, Jan. Saw the preview the other night. Thought it was important to see the principals in this trial that was organized by one of my great juristic heroes – Justice Robert Jackson – and to see him in person. But that’s me!”

“Following up on your recommendation my sister and I went to see MIRAL on Tuesday afternoon. There were about 10 people in the audience. I agree with you that MIRAL wasn’t anti-Israel, but thought the picture was very unfocussed and unsatisfying, although the acting was excellent. My sister browsed through the book after we saw the movie. The book starts with Hind’s funeral and she thought that provided a better focus for the story line.”

This is very perceptive comment! Even tho the first line in the narrative is: “My name is Miral and my story begins in 1947 with Hind Husseini,” this thread was obviously lost in all the subsequent detail. My own eye was focused on Hiam Abbass from the start, but most people didn’t come to MIRAL thinking that Abbass was the star, & Schnabel obviously didn’t make it clear to them (even tho he gives her top billing in the credits).

Oy! If only Schnabel had brough Abbass with him to some of those interviews! Another entry in my case book: When Bad Marketing Happens to Good Movies