Category — Film

The Catholic Church does not fair well in Oren Jacoby’s adaptation of James Carroll’s book, “Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.”

I highly recommend seeing it.

To be sure, at times, Jacoby overreaches…and some of it doesn’t all add up, in the off chance than any of you – like me — aren’t as well versed in Christianity as you are in Judaism. I missed some things…like the exact importance of the robe of Jesus. But most of it is all too clear, and as someone with a limited background, I found much of it fascinating.

Did you know Constantine–the man who converted Rome to Christianity–killed his own son?

Carroll nails it when he denounces Pope Benedict’s claim that Nazism was created by “neo-paganism.” Rather, Carroll explains, while this is partially true, Nazism had “two parents,” the other being the Catholic Church.

Additionally, Carroll demonstrates all too clearly how even if maybe you can’t quite say that Pious was “Hitler’s pope,” you can certainly say he was “Hitler’s cardinal.” Unbelievable.

Other great exposes include Ted Haggard’s success in using the United States Air Force Academy as an essentially officially recognized recruiting safari for his specific fundamentalist mega church. And yes, we are talking about THE Ted “I like it in the ass and I’m willing to pay for it” Haggard. The film also covers resistance to Haggard and the evangelical control and harassment of resistors, including Mikey Weinstein and his son.

Overall, if you had any doubts as to the importance of the reinstatement of “The Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews,” well, this should make you realize that it is indeed problematic. The ADL is actually right. I guess when you bark at everyone who walks by you eventually end up barking at someone who deserves it.

It has been almost thirty years since Woody Allen’s masterpiece “Annie Hall�? was released, in which Alvy Singer further liberates Annie from the suburban Christian world she comes from, but then loses her to the cultural synthesis she completes for herself. But in “Annie Hall,�? overt hostility and resentment towards Alvy’s Jewishness is restricted to Annie’s mother, and his own hostility is towards everything outside of Manhattan’s intellectual world, including other Jews in Manhattan. Now, almost thirty years later, a new film focuses on the challenges of an interfaith relationship in a poignant and tragic love story.

Based on his own “most important relationship�? in his own life, Jeff Lipsky’s new film, “Flannel Pajamas,�? a Dramatic Competition selection at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival which opened on November 15th, focuses on an interfaith romance between Stuart (Justin Kirk) and Nicole (Julianne Nicholson). Stuart is Jewish, and from Long Island. Nicole is Catholic, from a small town in Montana. Though the love and attraction is intense, neither lover truly respects the culture of the other. They love each other despite where they come from. Both Stuart and Nicole seek supremacy of their respective values and lifestyles in different ways. Though this is, according to Lipsky’s own description of the film to Indiewire about “two people who fall desperately in love with each other, but at two completely different times,�? this is also a very different portrayal of an interfaith relationship than is usually depicted on the big screen or on television, where challenges such as a family Christmas Tree or a bris may be presented and examined as it was in “thirtysomething,�? but a general undercurrent of resentment, if there is any, is often relegated to the older generation: to the parents, as on “Curb Your Enthusiasm,�? or even, as in the comedy “American Wedding,�? just with the grandparents. After the showing at the Angelika theater in downtown New York Saturday night when asked about the role their different faiths played in contributing to their relationship failing, Lipsky answered, “A high percentage, actually.�?

In “Flannel Pajamas,�? it becomes increasingly clear that Nicole is not comfortable with her quintessentially Jewish New Yorker lover, and that the qualms of her family weigh on Nicole herself, even before her mother, in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, informs Stuart that she has consistently expressed her disapproval of Stuart and Nicole’s union from the start, that she is against intermarriages generally, that “Jews are too sensitive,�? and assures him that she believes “all the stereotypes about Jews.�?

But though ardently secular (a family burial includes an open casket viewing, and Stuart does not recognize the name “Ilan�? as an Israeli name), Stuart is not just a victim of prejudice, but an active partner in mutual contempt. He is a shyster, making a successful living scamming exactly the sort of people Nicole comes from, convincing them to purchase bulk ticket sales to whichever specific Broadway show he is working to promote, by weaving an imaginary backdrop to the play, parallel and appealing to the specific interests of the prospective tourist community he is selling it to.

But while Stuart may have a discerning and empathetic eye to those different than himself, it isn’t a sympathetic or respectful one. Stuart quickly detects past physical abuse in the family, and uses this as justification for his desire to “protect�? Nicole from her family and friends, and the culture of her family and friends. The past is misappropriated to extend to the present, even though no such specific danger exists any longer. Stuart will give Nicole whatever she needs physically, he will pay off her student loans, and he will finance her endeavors to create a career as a caterer, but he will not accept her values, and he will not accept her network into his own life, and her goals and ambitions will not become his.

Generally, secular and liberal Jewish resistance to intermarriage is publicly justified by noting our historical persecution and our communal fear of extinction, or at least, a continued reduction of our already small numbers. What makes “Flannel Pajamas�? such a powerful and honest film is that Lipsky assiduously avoids validating these concerns in this specific relationship, but instead examines the deeper and more interesting dynamics that include those that are less comfortable or one sided. The less flaunted reasons for secular Jewish resistance to intermarriage is mirrored and magnified by the Catholic partner’s best friend and family, and perhaps most startling, even through Stuart’s reactions to their anti-Semitism and Catholic sensibilities, as Justin Kirk’s portrayal of Stuart, slick and confident even when desperate, only listens to his critics when he wants something, and even then, he is no victim. Even when he is lobbying for help while receiving abuse and condemnation of his secular Jewish morals, he will counterattack with his own charges of their moral failings and hypocrisy, but not just to call out hypocrisy, but to underscore that he never witnessed such behavior in his family or in the Long Island Jewish world he grew up in. Absent from Stuart is any appeal to universalism one would expect a Jew in his circumstances would make. Because at his core, he doesn’t believe they are both equally acceptable approaches to life either. He isn’t any happier that they are in Nicole’s life than they are that he is in hers.

Our resentment towards interfaith relationships can be for us, just as it is for them, and just as it is for Stuart, perhaps less about victimology, and more about a resentment and feeling of superiority about our culture and our way of life, and a contempt towards those worshipping a God different than our own, even if we ourselves do not even follow our own religion even nominally. Still, we consider our religion and way of life superior, and theirs more fundamentally flawed, and this perception subsists even in the most secular (but still culturally affiliated) of Jewish circles.

Though the movie has its flaws and at times can drag just little, the acting is superb, and “Flannel Pajamas�? is a uniquely honest and important movie about the challenges of interfaith relationships.