More on Barton Fink: Aggression and Intellectual Superiority

I saw Barton Fink a long time ago, before I had any sense of things Jewish, so Andy Nowicki’s fascinating TOO article was a real eye-opener. I was intrigued enough to take another look. What sticks in my mind are the characters of Jack Lipnick and Ben Geisler as prototypical Hollywood figures of the period. Lipnick’s aggression, his massive ego, and his brutal treatment of everyone around are a sight to behold.  As Nowicki notes, Lipnick is “a brash, loud, frightening and hysterically tyrannical man, who proudly declares himself to be ‘bigger and meaner than any other kike in this town.’”
There’s an amazing scene where Fink tells Lipnick that he doesn’t feel comfortable talking about his screenplay before it’s finished. Lipnick nods to his underling, Lou Breeze. Breeze has to figure out what his boss wants, so he berates Fink for daring to defy Lipnick by not giving him an account of his screenplay. But he guessed wrong. Lipnick verbally assaults Breeze and demands that he kiss Fink’s feet in apology on pain of losing his job. Breeze finally walks out without kissing Fink’s feet, but we see him later in the film, indicating that everything was patched up even after his humiliation. Working for Lipnick must have been an ulcer waiting to happen.

Michael Lerner as Jack Lipnick


Geisler has the same personality. But without the same level of power, he has to suck up to Lipnick, doubtlessly waiting for his chance to stab him in the back. Lipnick talks about the “sharks” surrounding him in Hollywood.

Tony Shaloub as Ben Geisler

Both of these characters feed into the stereotype of Jewish aggression. Any group with a significant number of people like Lipnick and Geisler (they are also portrayed as fast talking and intelligent) is going to be successful in whatever field they are in—whether in other types of business, the legal profession, or influencing the political process—especially when combined with high levels of ethnic networking. It is likely an important influence on Israel’s aggressive behavior toward friend and  foe alike. Anecdotal reports of aggression as a feature of Israeli life are common.
Jewish aggressiveness should be given more attention as a key aspect of Jewish success. I discuss it here (p. 26ff), but only briefly, emphasizing the contrast between the aggression of diaspora Jews toward the people and cultures they live in versus the behavior of the overseas Chinese. As sociologist Edward A. Ross commented in the early 20th century, “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews”—pretty much a description of  Jack Lipnick. Unfortunately, there are few good psychological studies on the subject. This makes Barton Fink all the more valuable.
The character of Barton Fink is a quite different Jewish stereotype of the period: the leftist intellectual radical. Fink seems rather subdued and unaggressive, his intensity apparent only when he suddenly bursts into monologues on the plight of “the common man” and the  need for artistic integrity. He is intensely intellectual with a strong sense of intellectual and and artistic superiority. This was a theme of the discussion of Jewish radicals in Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique. The following is a relevant passage:
Some gentile intellectuals found the movement attractive because of its Jewish dominance, but for the most part the essentially Jewish milieu was a barrier (Liebman 1979, 530ff). The Jewish commitment of these radicals, their desire to remain within a Jewish milieu, and their negative attitudes toward Christian gentile culture prevented them from being effective recruiters among the gentile working class. As David Horowitz’s communist father wrote while on a trip through Colorado in the 1930s, “I have feelings . . . that I’m in a foreign land. And it strikes me that unless we learn the people of this country so thoroughly so that we won’t feel that way, we won’t get anywhere. I’m afraid that most of us aren’t really ‘patriotic,’ I mean at bottom deeply fond of the country and people.” Similarly, former communist Sidney Hook (1987, 188) noted, “it was as if they had no roots in, or knowledge of, the American society they wanted to transform.” [In other words, like the Barton Fink character, they didn’t listen and felt superior to the people they were ostensibly trying to help.] A similar situation occurred in Poland, where the efforts of even the most “de-ethnicized” Jewish communists were inhibited by the traditional Jewish attitudes of superiority toward and estrangement from traditional Polish culture (Schatz 1991, 119).
And once in the party, many non-Jews were repelled by its highly intellectual atmosphere and dropped out. As expected on the basis of social identity theory on the hypothesis that radicalism was fundamentally a form of secular Judaism, there are indications of an anti-gentile atmosphere within these organizations: “There was also present among Jewish intellectuals and leftists a mixture of hostility and superiority toward Gentiles” (Liebman 1979, 534).
There was also an ethnic divide between Jewish and Black Communist Party workers resulting at least partly from “a missionary and patronizing attitude” of the Jewish organizers (Lyons 1982, 80).
Encounters between Blacks and Jews always seemed to involve Jews reaching out and “helping” Blacks, “teaching” them, “guiding” them. Many Black intellectuals ended their flirtation with the Communist Party bitter not only at the communists but at Jews they felt had treated them condescendingly. “How can the average public school Negro be expected to understand the exigencies of the capitalist system as it applies to both Jew and Gentile in America . . . since both groups act strangely like Hitlerian Aryans    . . . when it comes to colored folks?” asked Langston Hughes, bitter after a feud with Jewish communists. (Kaufman 1997, 110)
This sense of condescending superiority of Jewish radicals in the civil rights movement has been identified as a source of the current upsurge of anti-Semitism among African Americans.
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

28 Comments to "More on Barton Fink: Aggression and Intellectual Superiority"

  1. SG's Gravatar SG
    November 28, 2010 - 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Andrea OL, I don’t believe KM says Jewish success is a result solely of ethnic networking. But it is a significant part of the package, and should not be downplayed.

  2. Andrea OL's Gravatar Andrea OL
    November 24, 2010 - 1:35 am | Permalink

    “Any group with a significant number of (aggressive) people like Lipnick and Geisler (they are also portrayed as fast talking and intelligent) is going to be successful in whatever field they are in—whether in other types of business, the legal profession, or influencing the political process—especially when combined with high levels of ethnic networking.”

    This is too simplistic. After all, non-Jewish whites were no slouches when it came to global domination. Were the white folks who drove the Indians off their lands non-aggressive? Did the British and the French conquer and rule much of the world through passivity and non-aggression? Did the Spanish conquer much of South and Central America by not being aggressive? Were the Prussians non-aggressive when they forcibly unified the smaller Germanic states into a unified Germany? Did Russians create the great Russian Empire by being non-aggressive? And let’s consider the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians. And the Chinese and Japanese, etc. They were all aggressive. And consider the histories of Venice, Florence, and other major Italian principalities. Aggressive! And who gave us WWI and WWII? Were the Russian Tsar and the Kaiser Wilhelm Jews? Was Hitler a Jew? In this sense, Jews were no more aggressive than other people. And besides, Italian-Americans have also been very aggressive and tribal. And gypsies in Europe are also aggressive and use social networking. But how many media empires and banks are owned by gypsies or mafia hoodlums?

    Europeans and Japanese often complain that
    (cowboy) Americans are, by and large, very aggressive, uncouth, and vulgar, yet your average American–white gentile, black guy, or Hispanic American–isn’t very rich or powerful. Blacks are very aggressive and very tribal, but they don’t control Wall STreet or Hollywood. Neither do ‘white trash’ Southern rednecks who are unapologetically aggressive, tribal, and wave Stars and Bars. Blacks and some hillbilly whites are big in sports, but the teams are mostly run by Jews or upper crust wasps.

    So, it’s misleading to focus only on Jewish aggression. Rather, it is the KIND of aggression that is important. The advantage of Jews is they know how to play both aggressive AND passive in a very creative way. Take Hyman Roth in Godfather II. Why is he formidable. He is indeed a hard man, very aggressive, and tough. But he is also devious, plays gentle and soft when he has too. Or take Mayor Bloomberg. Or Sergei Brin of Google. They are not screaming aggressive ‘kikes’. Indeed, they could be very amiable, kind, and gentle on the outside–while being steely cold and ruthless on the inside. Some Jews are indeed hysterical but many Jews are effective and dangerous precisely because they know how to amass power by seeming powerless, be aggressive while seeming passive. Steven Spielberg is a far less aggressive personality than Mel Gibson, but he knows how to play the game. He doesn’t get drunk in public and say stupid things. Or, take Joe Liberman and so many other influential Jews. They may be ruthless and cunning but come across as very gentle and nice.

    Dr. MacDonald has a tendency to underestimate Jewish intelligence by crediting Jewish success on social networking, BUT Jews made great strides in US and Europe even at a time when there had been open antisemitism and when white gentiles–especially of elite status–routinely favored their own kind in the game of power.

    Also, the quality of social networking cannot be separated from the intelligence of people involved. People with the IQ to be lawyers will practice a higher kind of social networking than a people with IQ to be chicken thieves(like gypsies) or hoodlum thugs(Sicilian Americans).
    Why did the mafia often hire Jews to run complex operations like the Las Vegas Casino? Shoudn’t Italian-Americans have favored their own? It was for the same reason that South African blacks still wanna hold onto some whites to run the industry since blacks don’t have the brains for it.
    Surely, we can’t credit greater white success over blacks in South Africa SOLELY to the history of blatant white social networking called Apartheid. It was also because whites are more intelligent, thus able to practice a higher kind of social networking than stupid tribal blacks. There is plenty of tribal networking in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, but what has aggressive black social networking done for the AFrican economy?

  3. German's Gravatar German
    November 11, 2010 - 9:49 am | Permalink

    Ok, the formulation was not very clever. Better: Preventing that the firemen, whose colleagues died in a trap laid out by Jew, speak out.

  4. German's Gravatar German
    November 11, 2010 - 9:42 am | Permalink

    4) Preventing that the firemen, who died in a trap laid out by Jews, speak out. Instead they feel warm and fuzzy about their “heroism”.

    Jews praised the “Greatest Generation” for the same reasons.

  5. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    November 11, 2010 - 6:25 am | Permalink

    “Can anyone explain this paradox?”

    Three options off the top of my head – probably many more

    1) Human groups are never all the same. If jews have certain traits out of proportion to other groups it just means the Bell curve for that trait among jews is shifted to the right or left. There are always exceptions to the rule.

    2) Money. Cashing in on 9/11.

    3) Neocon propaganda. Extolling the victims of 9/11 increases hostility to the people who killed them.

  6. Henry Ford's Gravatar Henry Ford
    November 11, 2010 - 5:34 am | Permalink

    The movie Fargo now makes sense to me now that I know the Coen bros. grew up in Minnesota.There’s no doubt that they hated the locals.They call this jewish humor ? An old jewish saying Never forget and never forgive.

  7. Sunshine's Gravatar Sunshine
    November 11, 2010 - 5:03 am | Permalink

    Has anyone here read the 2002 book Firehouse? It’s a moving tribute to white working class men, specifically, the firemen from one NYC firehouse who lost their lives on 9/11. It talks explicitly about how their values of mutual help, humility and self-sacrifice are superior to the values of our shallow, celebrity-and-wealth-obsessed culture. All of the firemen the book profiles as heroes were non-Jews. Yet the author of the book was Jewish. Can anyone explain this paradox?

  8. Andy's Gravatar Andy
    November 9, 2010 - 10:22 am | Permalink

    The Coen brothers are some of the worst offenders. Honestly, if you can stand to watch “Burn After Reading,” you’ll see a movie that seethes with contempt for the stupid, useless goyim and their worthless lives.

    Ditto Fargo. It’s a barely disguised attack on the Scandinavian-Americans that the Coens grew up around in Minnesota.

  9. November 9, 2010 - 8:57 am | Permalink

    I think Barton Fink serves as a stand-in for the Coen brothers themselves. It is about the experiences they are having in Hollywood. Obviously, they have contempt for Gentiles (I think particularly of John Goodman turning out to be a serial killer and the cops in the movie that are portrayed as horrifyingly anti-semitic) but I also think the Coen brothers are capable of some introspection despite the cultural critique the film obviously plays as.

    The scene in the dance hall where Fink proclaims that his brains are “his uniform” is over the top. It is meant to be comical and it is. Fink is promptly dealt a swift blow to the nose after his stupid outburst and winds up on the floor. The penultimate scene where Fink has his final encounter with the serial killer reveals something about the Coen brothers, and Jews more generally; they don’t listen.

    I think the film is an indicator that the Coen brothers thought they were hot shit in rural Minnesota – thought they had it all figured out – and are bewildered and perplexed and down on everything now that they are in Hollywood.

  10. Phil's Gravatar Phil
    November 8, 2010 - 3:46 pm | Permalink

    In the book Rivers of Blood, Years of Darkness, by Robert Conot, on the 1965 Watts riots, the animosity in urban areas where blacks and Jews came into contact regularly is discussed. It seems blacks migrated into urban areas where the local merchants were often Jewish. Running scams against the black residents became common. One technique used by furniture dealers was to sell on credit. Then, if the black purchaser missed or was late on a payment, the Jewish proprietor, under the terms of the contract, would repossess the furniture and keep all the money that had been paid previously. Such occurrences fueled dislike of blacks for Jews.

  11. MOB's Gravatar MOB
    November 8, 2010 - 3:27 pm | Permalink

    This is an interesting article on the subject under discussion, hopefully not already posted::

    Jews in Oscar films: Are they vile throwbacks to Jewish stereotypes?
    February 3, 2010

  12. MOB's Gravatar MOB
    November 8, 2010 - 3:24 pm | Permalink

    In the BBC’s 2-disc set of Anthony Trollope’s The Way We Live Now, David Suchet plays a fat Jew widely known for his gift of making money, who comes to live in a town of genteel Gentiles not as well off as they act. What’s fascinating is the way he, his wife, and his daughter are portrayed — Cuddihy could have written the characterizations! The wife and daughter are ugly and completely lacking in all the manners of civilized English women, and the Jew that Suchet plays is coarse, crude, sloppy at table, and sly and contemptuous in the full knowledge that he has the Gentiles at his mercy because of his wealth.

  13. MOB's Gravatar MOB
    November 8, 2010 - 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Injecting desired Jewish images into films is ongoing. Example: in the long-running 7th Heaven, which I saw only sporadically, I noted that of the seven children, one daughter, having social problems, was told by her mother that the cause was her exceptional intelligence, and one younger sister needed to go to a different school because she was gifted. Both actresses had looked Jewish to me. If I can believe the “chacha” website, Beverley Mitchell’s mother’s maiden name is Weisz, and Mackenzie Rosman’s mother is Jewish.. Also, when I check in after a long absence, the eldest son, drifting for years, experimenting with drugs, had settled down; he’s in med school, engaged to a Jewish girl whose father is a rabbi, and is converting to Judaism. The son’s father, a minister, doesn’t like it, but the rabbi talks him down (as I recall).

    That’s one form of Jewish image-making. Here are 3 examples of a more noticeable form:

    1. Anne of Green Gables

    I’ve watched this beautiful television series several times, loving it each time. . . except for one grating annoyance. From the instant I saw her totally self-confident face – tolerant amusement in her eyes and authority in her voice, it was clear that the Intelligent One had arrived. . . and that she was a Jew. Miss Stacy, teacher, mentor and friend to Anne, is played by noted Jewish actress Marilyn Lightstone (who is also wife or partner of Moses Znaimer, “whose Polish and Latvian Jewish parents fled the Nazi invasion.”

    Author Maud Montgomery did partially model “Miss Stacey” on a favorite teacher; a dedication reads, “To my former teacher HATTIE GORDON SMITH in grateful remembrance of her sympathy and encouragement.” Harriet L. Gordon was born in 1864 in New Perth, Prince Edward Island (about 56 miles from Cavendish). Her parents were the descendants of the “Brudenell River pioneers” (James MacLaren and his daughter Christian(a) and her husband Donald Gordon), who emigrated from Scotland’s Blair Atholl parish, Perthshire, to the Island in 1803. Her family tree contains Macdonalds, Stewarts, Robertsons, and Camerons. It’s written that “Maud immediately liked her teacher with the pretty wavy golden hair.”

    The first Jewish settler arrived on Prince Edward Island at the turn of the 20th century. At the present time, there are no more than 50 Jews in the Canadian Province of 180,000.

    Somebody saw an opportunity to plant a Jewish image, the Superior Jew, into the lovely all-White village of Avonlea., and did it.
    2.. The Day the Earth Stood Still

    Just as the image of the Jewish super-teacher/friend above grates, so does Jewish super-brain Professor Jacob Barnhardt, played by Sam Jaffe, in the 1951 film, The Day the Earth Stood Still. Everyone in town (the Gentiles) knew he was the only person who would be able to communicate with the man from outer space.

    This film was based on a science fiction short story, “Farewell to the Master,” written by Harry Bates (Hiram Gilmore Bates III) and first published in the October 1940 issue of Astounding Science Fiction. Many changes were made. In “Farewell,” Klaatu is killed after emerging from his ship and greeting those present. There is no Nobel Prize-winning Professor Barnhardt, no Helen Benson, and no “Klaatu barada nikto,” the alien language created by screenwriter Edmund North.

    Instead, a newspaper photojournalist named Sutherland deals with the robot, which is named Gnut, not Gort, and can speak.
    The relationship between Klaatu and Gnut is much different from that between Klaatu and Gort. In the surprise ending, when Gnut prepares to leave, Sutherland insists that it tell its masters that Klaatu’s killing was accidental. Gnut responds, “You misunderstand. I am the master.”

    Producer Julien Blaustein said his aim with the film was to promote a “strong United Nations .” Director Robert Wise wanted the film to drive home the core message against armed conflict in the real world.

    Somebody saw an opportunity to plant a Jewish image, the Superior Jew, into this science fiction movie.

    3. A Song to Remember

    This is an admittedly fictionalized 1945 film about Frederic Chopin, but between the wonderful music and handsome Cornel Wilde, I suspect millions have gotten to see the colorful, idealistic, deeply emotional, most steadfast and loyal of friends, the Jew Paul Muni (Meshilem Meier Weisenfreund). The person he’s portraying, Professor Józef Elsner, is Jewish, thinks the audience..

    But he isn’t. He and his ancestors were Silesian Catholics, with a preference toward Germans (rather than Poles). Joseph Elsner was initially educated for the priesthood at Breslau’s Dominican monastery school, St. Matthew’s Gymnasium, and a local Jesuit college, but chose the music field. In 1832–37 he composed religious pieces for Breslau Cathedral He is perhaps best known as teacher of the young Frédéric Chopin.

    One has only to look at his photo ( to see that there’s no chance that he would have engaged in the over-dramatic, over-emotional, scene-stealing behavior that Paul Muni does. Muni is the star of the film.

    Someone saw an opportunity to inject into this film a beloved Jewish image: the colorful, idealistic, deeply emotional, most steadfast and loyal of friends–the Jew.

  14. Anthony's Gravatar Anthony
    November 8, 2010 - 3:10 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t find the movie all that anti-semitic when I first watched it years ago. If anything it appeared more biased towards the white working class demographic above all else. Nowicki’s article emphasized the film’s portrayal of the sailors as scrapping monsters, and Goodman’s character–a lovable portly working-class white man–turns out to be a serial killer. If there is anything that Jews find more antipathetic to their notions it is the white working class, and the Coen brothers are no exception. It’s as if it is entirely impossible for Jews to make a film about blue-collar whites–and ONLY about blue-collar whites–who live amongst their own as noble people trying to survive in a dominant culture which is openly antagonistic towards them.

  15. JIm's Gravatar JIm
    November 8, 2010 - 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Maybe someone has already asked this question in one of the two Barton Fink comment threads, but if this movie shows the negative side of jews in the movie business, where are all the mainstream media reviews condemning it as anti-semetic? I didn’t see any when I google searched. Are there any out there?

    I wouldn’t think the jewishness of the Coen bros. would make them immune, as that hasn’t helped a lot of other jews who are critical of jews/judaism. I haven’t seen the flick…just curious.

  16. Braeden's Gravatar Braeden
    November 8, 2010 - 8:58 am | Permalink

    Reading through this review and other reviews of the Cohen brothers, I fear that we seem to always “miss it”. There’s a tendency to see things that aren’t really there. Perhaps we are so hungry for a little honesty that we’re quick to gush. The character of the studio head is not really making a statement about Jews, or even Jews of Hollywood, today- it’s a time piece. More likely he represents Jewish corruption by goy society, perhaps Capitalism. I see no evidence that the Cohen brothers believe there is a responsibility on the part of Jews as the heads of Hollywood. And at the end, dressed in a general’s uniform and talking about the “yellow man” isn’t it possible the studio head represents a metaphor for the complete corruption of the Jews by the gentiles. They may even be making the statement that Israel is part this corruption.

  17. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    November 8, 2010 - 8:03 am | Permalink

    No one said anything about *contamination* Jeff, I just don’t see the point of going over old ground and paying for it to boot. As Ryan pointed out the same themes were peresent in the Marx Brothers. How many times do you have to be told something. Hollywood is fiction, entertainment and propaganda but with all good propaganda there is truth on which to hang the lie. I’m tired of having the Big Jew frame the debate and that is exactly what this movie does. We need to tear ourselves away from the mental framework that we’ve grown up in. I’ve had more then enough of the Jewish point of view.

  18. November 8, 2010 - 1:40 am | Permalink

    Aggression and IQ from Wikipedia.


    Aggression takes a variety of forms among human beings, and it can be physical, mental, or verbal. Aggression should not be confused with assertiveness.

    There are two broad categories of aggression. These include hostile, affective, or retaliatory aggression and instrumental, predatory, or goal-oriented aggression.

    Empirical research indicates that there is a critical difference between the two, both psychologically and physiologically.

    Some research indicates that people with tendencies toward “affective” aggression, defined in this study as being “impulsive, unplanned, overt, or uncontrolled” have lower IQs than those with tendencies toward “predatory” aggression, defined here as being “goal-oriented, planned, hidden, or controlled”.


    Michael Santomauro

  19. November 8, 2010 - 1:24 am | Permalink

    @Edmund Connelly: “in modern times in the English language there is relatively little insightful gentile writing on what Jews really are…”. Get a copy of Bill Grimstad’s book ANTIZION; I think it’s available as a PDF at You’ll find a few hundred published items on topic, in English, many recent.

  20. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    November 8, 2010 - 12:43 am | Permalink

    The (verbal) aggression is critical. On the left they literally screech down any talk about immigration, flapping their arms and squawking like church gargoyles come to manic life.

    They tried to do the same when people mentioned the Israelis building their wall and other such things but the blatant double-standard forced them to tone it down a little and their inablity to express their usual screech tactics to the fullest extent led to the neocon phenomenon of fanatically pro-Israel jewish leftists infiltrating the right imo.

    For them all opposition, even 2% opposition, is Amalek and must be completely obliterated.

    I’ve started re-watching the Coen brother’s films also. jews do have a lot of talent. It’s just a shame 90% of it is dedicated to destroying all the nations of the earth (apart from theirs).

    • Felix's Gravatar Felix
      November 27, 2010 - 2:20 pm | Permalink

      Because most whites who encounter Jews fail to recognize the deep chasm that exists between the two cultures, they mistake the screeching and yelling, part of the every day Jewish persona, for sincerity and depth of belief. Since they wouldn’t behave normally like this and would only act in such an outrageous fashion under extreme circumstances, they don’t recognize that their Jewish counterparts feel little inhibition acting in, what is for them, an outrageous way.

  21. Call Me Mr. Tibbs's Gravatar Call Me Mr. Tibbs
    November 7, 2010 - 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Steve Sailer wrote an article a while back about how the movie “Borat” draws on themes from Yiddish literature and is basically mocking the goyim in the same tradition. Since then I’ve looked for anti-goy themes in movies and (surprise!) found them pretty much everywhere I’ve looked. The Coen brothers are some of the worst offenders. Honestly, if you can stand to watch “Burn After Reading,” you’ll see a movie that seethes with contempt for the stupid, useless goyim and their worthless lives.
    Thanks for publishing these types of articles. They provide a lot of insight into what our “elites” are really thinking.

    • November 10, 2010 - 11:22 pm | Permalink

      Ah yes, the Coens. The only work of theirs I’ve seen is the “universally acclaimed” “Fargo.” What a mess! All the white people – and being set in Minnesota, there’s a lot of them- are fools and bunglers except the heroine, a police chief who is in the final stage of a pregnancy but still manages to upstage everyone else with her superior resource and acumen. Her hubby is a passive stay-at-home artist. In other words the usual transvaluation of values but with a backdrop of cold blooded murder just to make sure everyone understands that it’s a comedy.

  22. Ryan Oblivion's Gravatar Ryan Oblivion
    November 7, 2010 - 6:11 pm | Permalink

    I still think the best films to watch if you want to understand Jewish psychology are the ones made by The Marx Brothers.

    The three brothers represent three different Jewish personality types: Groucho is the nervous hyper-active manipulator, Chico is the calm, rational calculator, and Harpo, the weirdest of the three, is pure aggression.

    In all of their movies they attack Western norms, mock Western symbols of authority, and ultimately subvert (make kosher) social order.

  23. Edmund Connelly's Gravatar Edmund Connelly
    November 7, 2010 - 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Guys, I don’t think it’s a mistake to study Jewish cultural artifacts. Because in modern times in the English language there is relatively little insightful gentile writing on what Jews really are, we need to rely on other sources. While I think it would be fantastic to have all the incredible stuff in Spanish, German and other languages about Jews available to us, unfortunately it is not. So as long as we’re working with English, much of the material will be written by Jews. And I don’t think all of it is typical Jewish deception, either. Reading with a careful eye, one can uncover very good stuff. Much of my own research on Jewish films and Jews in film comes from Jewish sources. True, most authors have predictable blind spots and biases, but I still learn a lot. Let’s face it, to clean out this sewer, we’ve got to get down into the sewer.

  24. Jeff Maylor's Gravatar Jeff Maylor
    November 7, 2010 - 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Helvena, I don’t think understanding how some Jews reflect on their own culture is somehow going to “contaminate” us.

  25. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    November 7, 2010 - 2:17 pm | Permalink

    I don’t get my history from Hollywood, so I don’t think I should get my sociology from it either. Lets stick with real people instead of pumping for the biggest propaganda machine ever created.
    No offense meant :-)

  26. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    November 7, 2010 - 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Doc, I would hope that folks would send you the money, rather than rush out to rent Barton Fink, Avalon, or even the Jazz Singer. :)

Comments are closed.