Trudy Gold
Images of Jews on the Silver Screen: 1920s - 1950s

Trudy Gold | Images of Jews on the Silver Screen 1920s - 1950s | 02.27.24

Visuals displayed throughout the presentation.

Well, good evening everyone, from London. It’s becoming increasingly divisive in our country, and all I can hope is that somehow by having Lockdown, it’s giving us at least a sense of comradeship. And what I’m going to be doing over the next few sessions is I’m actually going to look at how Hollywood dealt with Jewish issues from the 20s. In fact, I’m going to go all the way through, hopefully, to the 90s, because to me, cinema does reflect culture. And one of the culture of the times, and one of the questions you have to ask yourself is, does art follow life? Or life follows art? And because it’s dark, I must give you one or two interesting little asides. For example, mirroring art or following. When Clark Gable took off his vest, took off his shirt and revealed he wasn’t wearing a vest, sales of vests in America, believe it or not, went down by 40%. So the image of the Jew on the silver screen.

Now, one of the greatest ironies of the film history is that Hollywood, as I think we very, very well established, was largely a province of Jewish executives, directors, producers. I mean, you could go as far as to say that Hollywood was the brainchild of a bunch of Eastern European immigrants. And as we then talked about, the soft underbelly is slashed by the middle Europeans, but a disproportionate number of them were Jewish. But the point was, because of the insecurity of being Jewish in America, plus, of course, the wanting to be part of the great melting pot, there are very, very few films, particularly in the early days, of anything to do with anything Jewish. Don’t forget that the term the melting pot was actually coined by that incredible writer, Israel Zangwill, who was, of course, very much with Theodore Herzl in the creation of Zionism, in the Zionist movement.

But he was the guy in his play, he coined the phrase, the melting pot, which Roosevelt, Roosevelt, the uncle of Theodore, thought that he’d really done something wonderful by giving the melting pot to the American stage. The other point to make, of course, is that the detractors of the Jews in the 20s, the 30s, the 40s, as things become ghastly in Europe, they warned the moguls not to be too Jewish. They said, particularly when America was no longer in the war, it could be Jews who pushed you into the war. And look what that would do to antisemitism, the level of antisemitism. And also, if you think of characters like Louis B. Mayer, the biggest mogul of them all, what were the films he most liked? He liked what we call the backyard musicals. I’m sure many of you have seen them. The musicals of Judy Garland and what we call the backyard musicals. Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland. Daddy’s a judge, Mommy makes apple pie, and everything is perfect in those little towns with the white picket fences, the beautiful wooden houses where there’s no violence and everything is perfect.

That is the homogeny of America. That is what the moguls like best. And don’t forget, people like Goldwyn and Warner even went hunting to hounds. They tried so hard to be WASPish. However, what I’m going to look at in the next few sessions is how gradually the whole issue of Jewishness is brought to the screen. Now, I fear I’ve been over programming a little bit in my enthusiasm over film. So I am going to go a little slowly, but bearing in mind some of the films I’m going to show you, we’ve dealt with them in different contexts. So the ones I’m going to concentrate on more are the ones that either myself or my colleague hasn’t dealt with. Please don’t forget also what Scott Fitzgerald said. He said, “Hollywood is a Jewish holiday, and a Gentile tragedy.” Even a writer as great as Scott Fitzgerald, the notion of the Jew.

So let’s remember in the 20s, even in the days of the silent movies, there is still very little of Jewish interest, and yet there was a series, it’s called “Cohen and Kelly.” Now, can we see the next slide if you don’t mind, Hannah? “Cohen and Kelly in Hollywood.” Now, this was actually quite a popular series, it’s a silent series, and what you have are two rival businessmen, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Cohen. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Kelly’s son falls in love with Mr. Kelly’s daughter. And then there’s the issue of money. And in the end, there is a reconciliation. This was a very, very popular series of very light silent pictures. Important to remember that the studios are just pumping out so many different films. If you think about how many films each studio made, it is absolutely ridiculous. And don’t forget, also, cinema going, you know, today those of you who are my age can remember going to the cinema.

It was always a big night out. You would see the B picture. Then there would be the cartoons and the news reels, and then you’d have the A pictures. So amongst the huge number that are pumped out, you do have this small little series, “The Cohens and the Kellys.” But of course, the first important film that hit the screen was “The Jazz Singer.” And let’s have a look at the poster for that. Now, I’m not going to concentrate on it because we’ve already spent at least half a session on it. And the point is, it had been bought by Warner Brothers. And what is special about “The Jazz Singer” is it’s the first part talkie. At first what they did was to synchronise song with sound, but Al Jolson ad-libbed. And in that scene you see him with his Irish mother, who is an Irish actress, in fact, playing the Jewish actress, his Jewish mother. And of course, the famous words, “You ain’t heard nothing yet.”

And “The Jazz Singer” is important because it’s the first talkie and part talkie, and it completely changes the nature of Hollywood. And please don’t forget the theme of “The Jazz Singer.” He’s the son of a cantor. And it’s fascinating because there’s dialogue between the son and the mother. But when the father comes in, there’s total silence. The father is the Old World. He is a cantor, but his son wants the world of showbiz. And the great tussle comes when there’s been a huge rift between the father and the son. And the father is very ill and he cannot sing and Kol Nidre.

For a cantor not to be able to sing the Kol Nidre on air of Yom Kippur and his son steps in, has there been a reconciliation? The father dies. But then you see the next scene where his mother is sitting in the audience. He’s the great jazz singer with his non-Jewish girlfriend, flashing a big diamond. So in the end, assimilation wins. In “The Jazz Singer”, he is American, assimilation wins. And what is interesting about “The Jazz Singer,” it’s been repeated twice, and it was repeated with Peggy Lee in the 50s. And of course in the 80s, you had a version with Neil Diamond. And who played the father, but good old Laurence Olivier? You know, Laurence Olivier’s final films, which he obviously made for the money. He was either playing an artsy or an elderly Jew. And even though the lure of the songs of Neil Diamond, I think I still prefer the original “Jazz Singer.”

But as I said, in a way, it’s a kind of anomaly. The fact that a Jewish subject was chosen to a large extent is an irrelevancy, although it has to be said, do not forget that the older Warner Brothers were the most Jewish of all the studio executives. So you have “The Jazz Singer,” and then another very interesting little film. And that, can we see the next one? Again, it’s Warner Brothers, and it’s Warner Brothers. And it’s a story of Disraeli. Now, it was based on a stage play, which George Arliss, he was a great actor, I’ll talk about him in a minute. He toured the play for five years. It had been written by a Jewish-British writer called Louis Parker. It was first staged in 1911, and Arliss contributed to the script. Now, the synopsis, I’m sure many of you know the story of Benjamin Disraeli.

As far as I’m concerned, one of the most fascinating characters, who ever came out of the pages of history. And if you are interested in my version of him, you can get it on. I’ve lectured on him and he’s in our wonderful device now. So if you want to hear me on Disraeli, all you’ve got to do is just put it in and you will find it. Now, the point is, so the story is faction. The central character is Disraeli and it’s over the purchase of the Suez Canal. Now, what is the fact is Britain had aspirations in the Middle East, so did the French, so did the Russians. Go back to the 1870s, the Turkish Empire is crumbling. The last great Islamic empire is on its knees. Egypt is part of the empire, but because the empire is crumbling, the Khedive of Egypt doesn’t take much notice of the central power of the Turks. And now the Khedive of Egypt is bankrupt.

The brilliant Ferdinand de Lesseps have built the Suez Canal and he puts the shares on the market. Now, everybody wants them. And the real story is that Disraeli, Disraeli manages it. Parliament was in recess, and how was he going to raise the money? And the real story is he sends his secretary, Matthew Corry, to visit his great friend, Lionel de Rothschild. And he asked Rothschild for the money. And we know this because Corry wrote his autobiography. And the story goes that Rothschild is peeling a grape. He doesn’t even look up. And Corry says, “My master wants to borrow the money to buy the Suez Canal.” How much do you need? 4 million? What is your security? The British Empire? You will have it tomorrow. Now, that’s the real story. And what is fascinating is the British public were on the street screaming for empire and Disraeli. Disraeli really had his finger on the pulse. Parliament was furious because it wasn’t recalled. But that’s the real story.

Now, according to the film “Disraeli” what happens is Disraeli, to buy it, has to thwart a spy network. And also there’s terrible tension between him and Gladstone. Now that was true. They hated each other. Disraeli, of course, the flamboyant, cynical, popular novelist. Probably the only prime minister in office to be able to write so many novels, bestselling novels, and the very dour Scott Gladstone. Parliament must have been incredible between the two of them. But the point is, that’s the real play. And it becomes quite successful. Arliss had bought the rights for $3,000, and in 1929, Warner Brothers makes the version. There was a silent version in ‘21, and Arliss actually won an award for his performance. He went on to make 10 films for Warners, including “The Man Who Played God” and Bette Davis’ first film role. Now, as I roll through films, I know I keep mentioning names. I’ve asked Lauren to send you around our list of our favourite films, but you should jot down some of these films. I have them all. I don’t know what’s available and what isn’t, but it’s not a great film.

It’s a period piece. And it was actually George Arliss working for Warner Brothers, who discovered the young James Cagney. So it’s a period piece. He was a great British actor who came to Hollywood, who came first to Broadway, then to Hollywood. He stayed and became the great star of the Warner Brothers. Now, can we go on to the next film, which I think is absolutely fascinating. There you see George Arliss. He was quite a suave, handsome man, wasn’t he? Now this is “Jud Suss.” “Jew Suss”, Conrad Veidt. There is another version, “Jud Suss,” which is a Nazi propaganda film. And of course it is based on the story written by Lion Feuchtwanger of “Jud Suss Oppenheimer,” who was the court Jew to the Duke of Wittenberg. It’s a very, very sad story, and it very much tells the story of Jews in the 16th century even, and 17th century, and 18th century, the phenomenon of the court Jew.

Many of the princes and kings of Europe had as their financial advisor a Jew. And while the leader was safe, the Jew was safe, and the Jew was allowed to live at court. He could actually live the life of a nobleman. And that was the story of “Jew Suss.” He had a beautiful mistress, he had the great life, he had all the possessions he wanted. But tragically, when the duke dies, he is executed and he is hanged very high. He rose too high. It’s a very, very interesting film. And look when it’s made. It’s made in 1934. And it’s made by British-Gaumont. It’s directed by Michael Balcon. Sorry, it’s produced by Michael Balcon and directed by Lothar Mendes. Can we have a look at Leon Feuchtwanger first, because I must talk to you about him.

He was an extraordinary man. I actually met his son, who was a great historian, by the way. And evidently, as a young boy, he lived in Munich in a flat opposite what became Hitler’s home. So a very interesting writer. And he wrote many books, “Jud Suss.” He also wrote “The Oppermanns.” Now, he is a serious writer, those of you who love literature. He was born in Munich to an Orthodox family. He studied literature and philosophy at the University of Berlin. You know, those wonderful little Europeans that we just don’t see many of anymore. His doctorate in 1907 was on a work of Heine’s, “The Rabbi von Bacherach.” It’s an incomplete work of Heinrich Heine. Heine is another character.

I know so many of you will know his works. But those of you who haven’t, that’s another great treat. He was a very, very clever man. He became a theatre critic. He founded a cultural magazine, “Der Spiegel,” not the one that you now know In 1908, he married. He, of course, was in the First World War, but he was released for health reasons. And he wrote “Jew Suss” in 1916, as I said, “Jud Suss Oppenheimer.” And, in the early years, he was a collaborator with Bertolt Brecht. He wrote “A Life of Edward II of England.” Edward II had a very tragic end. He was the weak son of Edward I, married to a woman called the She Wolf of France, Eleanor of France. And she basically had him murdered. And so it’s a rather tragic story.

He also wrote a plague play based on Josephus, the Jewish War. And as early as 1920, he begins to satirise the German Workers Party. Later, of course, the Nazi Party. And in one of his articles called Conversations with a Wandering Jew. And I’m going to give you an extract from it. “Towers of Hebrew books were burnt, and bonfires were erected high into the clouds. And people burnt innumeral priests and voices sing, Gloria in Excelsis Deo. Trails of men and women and children dragged themselves across the square from all sides. They were naked or in rags, and they had nothing with them as corpses and the tatters of book rolls, disgraced soil with faeces, book rolls. And they followed women in caftans and dresses in our day. Countless, endless, endless.”

So basically he is very aware of the dangers of Nazism. One of the few who very early on spotted that, to quote Shakespeare, “There was something rotten in the state of Denmark.” And in 1925, what had emerged as a play, “Jud Suss” was turned into a novel, although it was rejected at first by major publishing houses. Don’t forget the atmosphere of Weimar. Yes, you’ve got the rise of the right, but you’ve also got the left. Remember, he’s close to Brecht. He’s moving in very interesting literary circles. Weimar was incredibly creative intellectually against the backdrop of the cinema of Weimar, which had no taboos whatsoever, against many people wanting law and order. Just think of the times we live in now. And I’m not making parallels, be careful, but what I am saying, it’s in these kind of times when there’s a polarisation and extremism, you can try and get an atmosphere of what was going on in Weimar.

However, when it’s finally published, it becomes wildly successful. By 1931, it’s translated into 31 languages, which gives him total financial security. And in 1934, the film comes out starring Conrad Veidt, which I’m going to go on to in a minute. And then in 1930 he writes a fictional account of the rise of the Nazi Party. And he’s on a tour in America. That’s “The Oppermanns,” which is absolutely an extraordinary book. It was made into a miniseries. It’s about a Jewish family and what happens to them. One of them is a doctor, one of them is a businessman, the other one is an intellectual. And it’s what happens to them under the Nazis. On the 30th of January, 1933, there’s a dinner at the German embassy in his honour. He’s one of Germany’s greatest writers. He’s popular in America. His books are selling and the ambassador. And that’s the day, of course, Hitler became chancellor.

The ambassador resigned and told him not to go back. The Nazis, one of the first things they did was to destroy his library in his manuscripts. He was made stateless. “Oppermanns” is published, he moves to the South of France. He is considered enemy of the state. He’s a violent critic of Nazism. In 1936, he writes “The Pretender,” where he acquits Nero with Hitler. And after the occupation of France, he’s smuggled to Marseilles. And it’s actually Varian Fry and Hiram Bingham who manages to get him out with the help of Waitstill and Martha Sharp. You will remember, ‘cause we’ve discussed the great heroes quite a long time ago. These are a group of Americans who helped, when America was not yet in the war, they went to Marseilles because so many German Jews and Austrian Jews had fled to Paris.

When France is occupied, they flee down to Marseilles, which is Vichy, and Varian Fry and his colleagues decide to save the intellectuals. They can’t save everybody. And can you just imagine that kind of dilemma? You have to decide who to save. But probably about 3,000 of the great intellectuals were saved, including him. And he was very much one of Hitler’s most wanted. He, of course, his books were burnt from the beginning. Finally he was granted. So he escapes through Varian Fry, Hiram Bingham, and these wonderful Unitarians, and with his wife. And he’s finally granted asylum in America. And he settled in Los Angeles. And this film, “Jew Suss,” it’s a very interesting film if you can get hold of it. And if you can possibly do it, and I thought about doing it, but I thought the times were a bit too depressing.

Watch it in conjunction with the Nazi version, because you will see the genius of evil Nazi propaganda. And perhaps I’ll ask David Pima if he could do a session on it. Can we see the next slide? Because it stars Conrad Veidt. Conrad Veidt plays Jud Suss, and of course one of the great stars of German expressionism. And he’s a very, very special man, Conrad Veidt. He’s really one of my favourite characters. He was born in Berlin to a former military man who became a civil servant. He wanted to be a doctor, but he failed his medical exams and he decides he wants to be an actor. And what do people with talent do, young men with talent? He auditioned for the wonderful Max Reinhardt. Don’t forget Max Reinhardt, who created the Salzburg Festival, the great theatre director of Berlin and of Vienna. And I’m so excited, I’m going to the Salzburg Festival this year.

And he recited Goethe’s Faust to Reinhardt. So that got him in, he was offered work as an extra. In World War I, of course, he was in the army, but he contracted jaundice and pneumonia. He’s discharged in 1917, and he comes back to the Deutsches Theatre and he gets his first rave review. And it said, “Keep Veidt from the cinema. He’s too good.” And he actually goes on to make 100 films because post-war UFA, remember, we’ve already talked about it, the great cinema of Europe. And he is the star of “The Cabinet of Dr. Cagliari,” which is a story of madness. It’s one of the great films of Weimar. He was also the man who story, he starred in “The Man Who Laughs.” And you’ve all seen, I’m sure, “The Joker.” And in “The Man Who Laughs,” it’s straight out of his performance, “The Joker,” that he exaggerates the mouth incredibly with his sort of terrible sneer. And that’s the Joker in Batman. And also used in wax works.

He becomes the great star of German expressionism. He starred in films about homosexuals, “Different From Each Other.” He had a leading role in Germany’s first talkie, “A Land Without Women.” In the late 20s, he goes to Hollywood, but he has difficulty with the English language. So he goes back to Berlin. He marries a woman called Lily Prager, who’s Jewish. He is a liberal. He is desperately anti-Nazi. And when he was in, and of course after the Nazis took over, it completely decimated the film industry. Many of the greats had already made it to Hollywood because, of course, the American moguls were in Hollywood doing everything they could from Hollywood, were sending agents in because they needed the talent of Europe. But he doesn’t make it in Hollywood because of the language. But when he’s asked at UFA by Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda, he had to fill in a race card. And he wrote Jew, although he wasn’t. He came to Britain to work with Michael Balcon.

Michael Balcon was a British Jew who did all he could to get as many Jews and liberals out of Germany. And he made “Jud Suss” in 1934. The previous year, he’d made a film called “The Wandering Jew.” A German-Jewish artist has his masterpiece rejected, this is a German film by the Berlin Academy of Art, because of antisemitism. And later in the film, the figure comes to light and tells the story of the persecution of the Jews. That was a German film. Now, it later goes to America, where it’s made into Yiddish film. And that film actually finishes with an anti-Nazi rally in New York in 1933, because the Yiddish cinema was much bolder than Hollywood in the kind of subjects it would take. Later on, he went to work for Powell and Pressburger, “Spy in Black,” “Thief of Baghdad.” He leaves England in 1941. He wanted to make films to persuade America to enter the war. And before he left, this is one of the reasons I love the man.

Before he left Britain, he gave all his savings to the British war effort and large gifts to children who had been evacuated. And in America, of course, you all know his most famous role. He plays Major Strasser in “Casablanca.” And of course he has given some immortal lines with Humphrey Bogart, the brilliant script by the Epstein Brothers. And of course Major Strasser is the evil Nazi. And he says to the Humphrey Bogart figure, why did you come to Casablanca? And Humphrey Bogart said, the figures says, “I came for the waters.” And Conrad Veidt says, “But there are no waters in Casablanca.” And the answer is, “I was misinformed.” But he also says, “How will you deal when we invade America?” And Humphrey Bogart said, “There are certain areas of Brooklyn I suggest you don’t go into.” So this chap, this great anti-Nazi, this great liberal, he spends so much time playing Nazis.

Now, he managed to smuggle his mother and father out of Germany to Switzerland in 1935. Unfortunately, he had a heart condition. And in April ‘43, he had a heart attack playing golf. He’s actually buried in London, in Golders Green. The crematorium in Golders Green, I know this sounds a bit dark, but one could actually do a whole series on it. The people who were buried there, I mean, whose ashes are there, including, of course, Sigmund Freud. And a conversation between Conrad Veidt and Sigmund Freud would be very, very interesting. Can we see the next slide if you don’t mind, Hannah? There you see Michael Balcon. Now, he’s the man who brought Conrad Veidt over. Those of you who were in Britain, he co-founded Gainsborough Pictures with Victor Saville and later worked with Gaumont-British, and then MGM British, then Ealing Films, and then British Lion Films. He was chairman of the BFI.

You know, it’s interesting. Jews had almost as prominent a part in the British film industry as they did in the American film industry. His obituary. “Pioneer of British films who had courage, energy, and flair for showmanship.” I’ve already mentioned, he helped Jews and liberals out of Germany. He was responsible for some of the greatest British films, like “Kind Hearts and Coronets,” “The Lady Killers,” “The Cruel Sea.” He’d been born in Birmingham. He was the youngest son of Lithuanian Jews. He came from a very poor background. But like so many of these clever immigrants, he went into the film business because you know, I’ve said this to you before, but if you think about it, modernity was made for the Jews. They are the outsiders. They come to society, they see what’s lacking. And of course the film business, more leisure time for the working classes and also for the middle classes.

So it becomes incredibly successful. He married the daughter of Polish immigrants. And. in fact, his daughter Jill married against his wishes, the poet laureate, Cecil Day Lewis. But they had a son, Daniel Day Lewis. And of course, Daniel Day Lewis is incredibly, incredibly brilliant actor and he’s already won three Academy Awards. So can we see the next slide, please? The director of “Jew Suss” was Lothar Mendes, born in Berlin. He began his career as an actor. Do I have to tell you who for? Berlin, Vienna, Max Reinhardt. Then he made it to America. And in 1933, he came to Gaumont pictures to direct “Jew Suss.” And he also wrote the screenplay. And it received very strong notices at the box office, from the reviewers, but didn’t do well. But it was praised by Albert Einstein and by Stephen Wise.

The Jews thought it was valuable and brave. But look, in the hundreds of films that are being pulped out, there are very few of Jewish interest. And that same year, “The House of Rothschild.” Can we see the next slide please? Here you see, again, it’s the wonderful George Arliss. And “The House of Rothschild” is a fascinating film because part of it is in black and white. It tells the story of the incredible Rothschild family from the ghetto in Frankfurt. And when he comes to England and becomes one of the most important financiers in Europe, then it’s in colour. And it’s based on fact. It’s faction. His daughter falls in love with a nobleman. And there is an incredible scene, which is not true, but it’s after the defeat of Napoleon at the Congress of Berlin and loans are needed to rebuild Europe.

And Boris Karloff, let’s see his face in the next one. Boris Karloff, a great British actor. He plays the evil, the evil Count Ledrantz, representing the Austrians. And there is a scene in the film where all the British bankers are sitting round. And in fact, “House of Rothschild” is given the best quote, but it is negated. Why is it negated? And Ledrantz says, “Because you are a Jew.” And I’ve got for you, can we come to the next slide, please? I’m going to read the words spoken by Rothschild after Ledrantz says, “You can’t have the loan because you are a Jew.” And he says this, it’s 1934. “Attacks on my race are ignorant and futile. He may strike and strike again, a Jew falls, a thousand are wounded, but the race lives on, for unfortunately for his excellency, we are, evidently, eternal.” It was adapted from a play by Nunnally Johnson. And he was a very close friend of Charles MacArthur and Ben Hecht.

So you see a lot of these characters, the liberals are mixing in Jewish circles and the liberal in the left. And of course they’re all going to come unstuck with HUAC. Let’s come to the next one. 1937, “The Life of Emile Zola.” Warner Brothers, again, directed by William Dieterle, who, as though you don’t know, had worked for Max Reinhardt. He’d come to Hollywood in 1930 and he’d come from a Jewish background in Germany. And it stars, of course, the wonderful Paul Muni, who I’ve already talked about. Just to recap, he, of course, had been born Meier Weisenfreund in Galicia. Yiddish was his first language. Come to America in 1902 when he is three years old. And if you remember, his parents were in the Yiddish theatre and he begins acting from a very, very early age. He is one of the great actors of the screen. Marlon Brando, who worked with him in “A Flag is Born.”

Do you remember when we talked about Ben Hecht? And we talked about “The Great Pageant,” Paul Muni starred in. And then of course “A Flag is Born” starred Marlon Brando. And so many actors said he was the greatest actor of them all. He was also a cousin of Edward G. Robinson. And he had an incredible career in Warner Brothers. And “The Life of Emile Zola” is an attack on Nazism, but it’s quite a gentle attack on Nazism. It’s the story, of course, of Emile Zola who spoke out at the time of the Dreyfus Affair, the great French writer who spoke out. And this is a revue. The musical score, by the way, was brilliant. And who was it by? Max Steiner, who I believe Patrick has already lectured on. Now, think also of the great musicians who came to Hollywood. “The Life of Emile Zola,” it touches on the issue of antisemitism.

But the word Jew does not appear in the dialogue. It’s very light. It’s 1937. Think what’s happening. The Aryanization of businesses, the Nuremberg Laws were two years old. And the papers are full of it, and yet Hollywood is still very soft. But it won the Academy Award for best picture. And this was a review in the New York Times. “Rich, dignified, honest and strong, it is once the finest historical film ever made, and the greatest screen biography, greater even than the story of Louis Pasteur with which the Warner’s squared their conscience last year. Paul Muni’s portrait of Zola is without doubt the best thing he has ever done.” Now, it’s interesting. Warner Brothers would, from time to time, do bios of very important, interesting people. They were kind of their mission films. “The New Yorker,” “Picture of considerable distinction with no nonsense.”

Certain scenes could be interpreted as indirect attacks on Nazi Germany. But Warner Brothers, I think was the only studio by that time who had withdrawn their people from Germany. Most of the other studios, you know, the German market, because even though there was very strict censorship in Germany, nevertheless, think about it, Goebbels was quite happy with the Hollywood musicals, quite happy with the cowboy films, and Hitler loved some of the comedies. But he, of course, would direct the history films, the anti-Semitic films, and everything was monitored. But there was still a big market, money to be made. It won three awards, best picture, best director, best actor from Muni, and best supporting actor, Joseph Schildkraut, who’d also escaped Nazism. And Steiner was also nominated. So don’t forget that Muni goes on to become incredibly political. He was the narrator of Ben Hecht’s pageant for the . And of course he’s working with the great William Dieterle. And can we go onto the next slide, please?

Now, there you see the great Paul Muni. Handsome man, I think, and I think we have one of William Dieterle. Next one, please. Yeah. Now, as I said, he’d begun his career with Max Reinhardt. He worked as an actor for him 'til he was 24, then he started in German films to earn money. He made his first film in 1921. He goes on and on and on. And because it was a very troubled time in Weimar, and he tells a wonderful story. It was a running joke. He was at a restaurant with his wife. And the joke was, if the phone rings at a restaurant, they say it must be Hollywood. But it really happened because some of the films have been seen by the moguls. And he’d formed his own company. He’d made a film called “Sex in Chains” about sexual frustration, theme of homoeroticism, suicide. These are the issues they were touching in Germany.

But of course when you get to America, you can’t do it. So he turns up in Germany and in in Hollywood. And the first thing he’s got to do, he’s going to be an actor in German language films. And the Warner Brothers are very impressed with him. He directs his first film for them in '31. Now, in 1934, his boss and mentor Max Reinhardt arrives in Hollywood and he stages a version of “Midsummer Night’s Dream” in the Hollywood Bowl. And Dieterle convinced Warner Brothers to finance the big budget production. And he made him a major director. And during the production, Reinhardt, who didn’t have much English, he rehearsed the actors. William Dieterle directed it. He was nominated for 10 Oscars.

What are his great films? “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” with Charles Loughton and Maureen O'Hara. “Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet,” the story of Paul Ehrlich, a German Jew who came up with the cure for syphilis, Salvarsan. And if you knew how he had been lambasted by the Catholic press and the right-wing press for altering the natural order of thing. And also “A Dispatch from Reuters,” about the Jewish Julius Reuter. I hope you know that Reuters, again, was the brainchild of a European Jew. Edward G. starred in that. Later on, he was suspected by HUAC because he and his wife had helped a lot of people get out of Nazi Germany. And he was very close to Bertolt Brecht. He said he was on the grey list. Okay, the next film, please, “The Great Dictator.” Can we go on?

Now, I’m not going to talk about this because we’ve talked about it and I know David Pima gave a whole session on it. Of course, Charlie Chaplin, the independent, brilliant Charlie Chaplin who mocks Hitler in “The Great Dictator.” And the speech, we’ve already shown it. So that means you can get it from our amazing library now. And it’s really worth listening to that speech. It’s a scream for democracy. The wonderful Charlie Chaplin, the Englishman from a very poor background who, of course, his girlfriend, his mistress, was Paulette Godard, he met her when she was 21. Beautiful Jewish girl. So an idiot Hitler is called Adenoid Hynkel. So in fact, he later married Paulette Goddard. Now, so I’m not going to talk about him because as I said, colleagues already have. Can we see the next one?

Now this is a very complex one. “To Be or Not to Be,” made in 1942. And it was repeated by Mel Brooks. And the story is controversial. A troop of actors, it’s 1942. So, remember, nobody really knows what’s going on in Europe. They know something appalling is happening. They knew about the buildup to Nazism, but by this time the actual murders are underway. And they didn’t know it. Later on it was said, they wouldn’t have made it if they’d known. And the story is a troop of actors in Nazi-occupied Europe in Warsaw, who used their acting and disguise talents to fool the Nazis. It was written by Melchior Lengyel, who was a Hungarian Jew who’d written for the Hungarian National Theatre. And later on he wrote, he’d already written “Ninotchka,” which had been nominated for an Academy Award.

He went back, later on, he went back to Hungary actually after the revolution of '56. So another Middle European Jew who contributes to Hollywood. And of course it is directed by the wonderful Ernst Lubitsch who I spent so much time talking about, the sophisticated directors’ director. And if you remember when he died, William Weiler, at his funeral in 1948, he says, “No more Lubitsch.” And Billy Wilder’s response, “Worse than that, no more Lubitsch pictures.” And of course, Wilder is established the Lubitsch Prize. The film was actually remade in 1983. This is Kevin Thomas in “The New York Times.” We know far more now of the Nazi evil, especially as regards to the fate of the Jews. Sometime, an entire movie that depicts Nazis as buffoons is not funny, but crass. You see, it’s very, very complicated. And I will be dealing with this as we go through the course.

That’s why I want to do it in decades. Because when we deal with films like “The Producers.” I remember I actually went to see “The Producers” with a close friend of mine. I went with two friends. One, I wonder if you remembers, it was Jeremy Rosen, a rabbi, and a close friend who was a Hungarian survivor of Auschwitz. And their reactions were quite extraordinary. I think both of them were very, very angry about the film. I’m still not sure how I feel about it. On one level, it’s a work of pure genius. Can you ridicule evil is the question I placed before you, and I’m sure you all have your own views on it. I’m going to show you clips later on from “History of the World” where the inquisition scene is set to music by Mel Brooks. Is it ever acceptable? There are certain films I find totally non-acceptable, like “Life is Beautiful.”

But does it also depend on the intent of the filmmaker? And it starred, of course, the wonderful Jack Benny, born Benjamin Kubelsky, who of course was the son of immigrants, one of the most extraordinary characters of Hollywood. And it was directed by, can we see the, and it was directed by Alexander Corder, who I’ve already talked about. He was of course the great Hungarian director who spent most of his working life in England, and he was wonderful at propaganda films and a very close friend of Churchill’s. So can we go on please? Here you see the wonderful Ernst Lubitsch. Yes. What a character. Can we see the next one, please? Aha. “Mr. Skeffington”.

Actually, “Mr. Skeffington” is, I have to admit it, it’s one of my favourite films. Bette Davis, the wonderful Bette Davis. It’s directed by Vincent Sherman. And it stars the incomparable Claude Rains. And the story, made in 1944, America’s in the war, bearing in mind just how few films there are on these kind of issues. In the war, you could make the case, well, let’s give America entertainment, let’s entertain the troops. Let’s go with the great musicals. It’s post-war that they get dark. But “Mr. Skeffington,” I’m sure it’s available. I’ve got it. And honestly, it’s an incredible film. It’s the story of Fanny Trellis. She is a spoiled rich socialite. The only love she has is for her brother. She is adored. She is considered the great beauty of New York. He has embezzled from his employer, Mr. Skeffington. And to save her brother from ruin, she ensnares the love-struck middle-aged Jewish Skeffington. When her brother realises she’s married a Jew, he rushes off to fight in World War I. He is killed. And there’s a terrible scene where Bette Davis screams that the only person she ever loved.

By this time, she has a child by Mr. Skeffington and he loves her in an adoring way, but they finally divorce because the marriage has completely fallen apart. And the daughter, he loves his daughter by Fanny, and Fanny isn’t interested. She’s still a great beauty. She wants her boyfriends. So he goes off with his daughter, he has to do business in Europe. So he takes the daughter to Europe. Where, having given Mrs. Skeffington, Bette Davis, half his fortune, she continues her selfish life. She retains her beauty until she’s struck down with diptheria. And her latest and youngest suitor falls for her daughter who’s returned from Europe. Her father sent her back because of the rise of Nazis. And her loss of her beauty leaves her alone with her maid. And what happens is, Joe, the husband, Joe Skeffington, has been arrested by the Nazis. He’s been in prison. And her cousin, her male cousin, finds him in the park and brings him to Fanny.

And Fanny won’t see him because she’s lost her beauty. And the cousin persuades her and she comes down the stairs and there’s this wonderful scene where he calls, “Fanny, Fanny, Fanny.” He still loves her, but of course he’s blind. And when she realises it, she holds him. She cradles him and says to her maid, “Mr. Skeffington has come home.” And look, it’s overblown. But I love those kind of Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanny overblown. That’s my escapism. But it does mention the Nazis. And both Bette Davis and Claude Rains were nominated for Oscars. It was produced by the Epstein brothers, the writers, the incredible writers of Casablanca. And I must tell you, ‘cause I love the gossip, evidently, when they were asked about Casablanca, which is so, it’s such a popular film.

Remember, it was made as a B picture. One of the brothers died young. And Julius, who survived till his 90s, he said, “I wish they’d leave me alone. I did it for the money.” So the Epstein brothers wrote the screenplay for “Mr. Skeffington.” Now, let’s see the next film. Vincent Sherman, that is the director. He is born actually Vincent Orovitz. He was raised in Georgia and his father was an immigrant. He was an interesting character. He becomes a very important Hollywood director. He directed “The Young Philadelphians,” a wonderful film with Paul Newman, if you haven’t seen it. 30 films to his credit. He was known as the woman’s director. He was a terrible womaniser. He had an affair with Bette Davis. He had a three-year relationship with Joan Crawford. He had an affair with Rita Hayworth. There’s a quote. And he wrote his book. And according to his wife, when he confessed to his affair with Joan Crawford, his wife, “How can I compete with her?”

And anyway, Joan Crawford though, she herself said about her friend Norma Shearer, “How can I ever compete with her? She sleeps with the boss.” She, of course, was the wife of the man who ran MGM when he was 21 years old. Okay, you can find out who he is. Now this is Sherman on Crawford. “I was confronted by a woman who went after what she wanted with a masculine approach to sex.” Later on, he’s going to be targeted by HUAC again on the Grey List. And he finished up working for television. He wrote a very good book called “Studio Affairs: My Life as a Film Director.” We’ve got time for one more, “The Stranger.” And the others I’m going to, I want to do “Crossfire” and “Gentleman’s Agreement.” By your leave, I will leave it 'til next time on Thursday so we can go nice and slowly.

Now, this again is one of my favourite pictures. It was produced by the wonderful Sam P. Eagle. Sam Spiegel, who we’ve talked about. It’s an American film noir. It was directed and written by the wonderful Orson Welles, who I’m not going to talk about, because I am going to persuade, either I’ll do it or one of my colleagues. He surely deserves a whole session to himself. In fact, my daughter Tanya, is going to give a session on Judy Garland on Thursday at seven o'clock because she writes lots of reviews about the books that come out. So I want to do more of this. I think in this dark period, we really need escapism. Now, it’s an American film noir. It stars the great Edward G. Robinson, you know, the Romanian Jew and the great art collector, Loretta Young and Orson Welles. It was his third completed film as a director. It’s his first film noir. And it’s the story of a war crimes investigator tracking a high-ranking Nazi to a small Connecticut town.

It’s the first Hollywood film to present documentary footage of the Shoah. Welles wrote of the Holocaust footage. He had a column in “The New York Post,” and this is what he wrote. 7th of May, '45. “No, you must not miss the newsreels. The war has strewn the world with corpses, none of them very nice to look at. The thought of death is never pretty. But the news reels testified to the fact of another sort of death, quite another level of decay. This is purification of the soul, a perfect spiritual garbage. For some years now, we’ve been calling it fascism. The stench is unendurable.” And three of the four post-liberation scenes of the film are from the Nazi concentration camps, which was, of course, put together, remember, by Billy Wilder. And they were used in evidence at the Nuremberg Trials. It’s the only one of Welles’s films that become a success at the box office.

Now, what is interesting is that they deal, the Nazis played by Orson Welles, and I’m going to show you an extract. He has become a teacher in the school, in the local school, in this lovely little town. He’s married the beautiful Loretta Young. He is established, he’s the teacher of history. And what happens is Edward G. the Nazi hunter, has released his underling from custody, hoping it would lead him to Welles. And he comes to town to try and sniff out the Nazi. And he is invited to dinner by Loretta Young’s family with her new husband, Orson Welles. And they are sitting round the table. And this is a fascinating piece of dialogue. Can we see it, please, Hannah?

[Clip plays]

• Mine can still have a taste for war.

• Do you know Germany, Mr. Rankin?

• I’m sorry, I have a way of making enemies on that subject. Pretty unpopular.

• Well, we shall consider it the objective opinion of an objective historian.

• Historian? A psychiatrist could explain it better. The German sees himself as the innocent victim of world envy and hatred, conspired against, set upon by inferior peoples, inferior nations. He cannot admit to error, much less to wrongdoing. Not the German. We chose to ignore Ethiopia and Spain. But we learned from our casualty list the price of looking the other way. Men of truth everywhere have come to know for whom the bell tolled, but not the German. He still follows his warrior gods, marching to Wagnerian strains, his eyes still fixed upon the fiery sort of Siegfried. And in those subterranean meeting places that you don’t believe in, the German’s dream world comes alive. And he takes his place in shining armour beneath the banners of the Teutonic knights. Mankind is waiting for the Messiah. But for the German, the Messiah is not the prince of peace. He’s another Barbarossa, another Hitler.

• Well, then you have no faith in the reforms that are being affected in Germany?

• I don’t know, Mr. Wilson. I can’t believe that people can be reformed except from within. The basic principles of equality and freedom never have, never will take root in Germany. The world of freedom has been voiced in every other tongue, all men are created equal. Liberte, egalite, fraternite, but in German…

• Well, there’s Marx. Proletarians unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

• But Marx wasn’t a German, Marx was a Jew.

• Okay, stop it there.

• Argument, there is no solution.

[Clip ends]

• Okay. That is a very, very interest, of course, Orson Welles was an extraordinarily clever man and a great supporter of Jewish causes. So I will continue with the 40s in my next presentation, which is actually meant to be on the 50s. But I’ve got to do with you of course, “Crossfire,” “Gentleman’s Agreement,” and “The Sword in the Desert,” which was banned by the British. So let’s have a look at the questions. Thank you so much, honey. Let’s have a look. Hannah. Questions.

Q&A and Comments

“Divisive here in Israel. You’re not alone. My uncle would sing with a foghorn synchronising with the film in Canada, 'The Jazz Singer.’” “The distinction between U.S. and Canada. The U.S. is a melting pot. Canada is a mosaic.” That’s interesting. Stephen Creed, “In Canada we identify as Canadian Jews. Where in the US they identify as Jewish Americans.” From Jacob, “The first remake of ‘The Jazz Singer’ was not in the ‘65, in the '47. Larry Parks.” Oh, I’m so sorry. Of course, Marilyn. I’m an idiot. There’s been four, haven’t there? Yes, of course. Larry Parks, who was also blacklisted. Yes. “In Canada makes a difference in assimilating.” “There was a movie in 1932 titled 'Symphony for Six Million’ with a Jewish theme score by Max Steiner. I cannot find it. If anyone can help on that. Thank you.” “There was a very early talkie by David Sarsnik from a story by Fanny House. All the main stars are Jewish. The main background music.” Yeah.

Q: “What would that say about today, especially in England?” A: We have a problem, don’t we? So look, I haven’t, look, I’ve done the main ones. And don’t forget the Yiddish theatre was coming up with a lot of Jewish themes.

“Nations,” this is Michael, “have taken Israel to the ICJ in Amsterdam to permit the Arab refugees’ so-called to return to Israel, which would be the end of Israel.” 50 nations. Yeah. Thank you, Abigail. Rita, “Lord Jacob Rothschild passed away today.” Yes, he was a great man. Yeah. May he rest in peace. “I suppose to cover everything, but missing is Irving Thalberg.” Yes, of course. He was married to Norma Shearer. And also the first male Jewish star. Yes, look, I’ve had to make choices ‘cause obviously we could do a whole year on the movies. I’m trying. I suppose what I decided to do as a backdrop to America was to divert into film because I thought we needed a little bit of a different approach. So we can go more slowly. By the way, what we’re starting in April is we’re actually beginning, believe it or not, a course on the Middle East. But we’re going all the way back to Roman Palestine. But that doesn’t mean in the evenings, the seven o'clock classes, we won’t have other things. So, you know, let me know what you want.

Naomi, “My daughter’s doctoral thesis entitled The Ha Ha Holocaust: Exploring Levity Amidst the Ruins and Beyond in Testimony, Literature, and Film deals with 'The Producers,’ ‘The Great Dictator.’” Naomi, I would love to see that. Thank you. Oh, Diana’s agreeing that I should slow down. Yeah. Thank you. “I think the quote of Orson Welles can be equated with what happened in Israel with Hamas.” “There was a few scenes of ‘Symphony of Six Million’ in a recent doc on Max Steiner. So it exists.” Oy, we’ve got to try and find it. “The dialogue in the film ‘The Stranger” is the basis and description of the current rhetoric that Trumpers follow.“ What a world we live in, ladies and gentlemen. What can I say to you, except we’ve got to somehow keep our spirits up and do whatever we can in our way to keep each other safe.

So I wish you all good night. We have a lovely presentation at seven o'clock where Dennis is going to be talking about Leonard Bernstein. Again, let your heart soar, your spirit soar. God bless everyone and thank you, Hannah.