Welcome to Hollyhurt
A New Scroll of LA Jewish News
Photo Rodman Archive
Folks
Seeing Hollywood star Edward G. Robinson in 1945 holding a sign protesting fascism somehow connects with his movie persona of tough-talking gangsters; it’s a tough-talking sign. In real life, Robinson was a committed Jew. When he died in 1973, an editorial in the B’nai B’rith Messenger noted that “In a milieu where so many have divorced themselves from their Jewishness, Edward G. Robinson reaffirmed his affection for and identification with his people time and time again.” He was the kind of Jew I wish the Academy Museum would include if they ever look beyond the Hollywood moguls they made the focus of their flawed Hollywoodland exhibit. In 1973, Robinson received a posthumous Academy Award, but, as the Messenger said, “his greatest ‘Oscar’” was the “crown of a good name.”
Speaking of good name…what about helping MegilLA? Having broken out of the frame of traditional Jewish Journalism, and I need your support to continue publishing. If you like what you read, if it makes you think, please support MegilLA with your paid subscriptions.
Shabbat shalom
Edmon J. Rodman
////\/\\\\
////\/\\\\
The stinging words
of 'Hollywoodland'
Edmon J. Rodman
The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures’ recent attempt to right the wrong of ignoring Hollywood’s deep Jewish roots from its opening exhibition over two years ago, was a total flop with a Jewish critical audience.
The permanent exhibit, “Hollywoodland: Jewish Founders and the Making of a Movie Capital,” mounted in a narrow third-floor space, highlights the careers of movie studio founders Jack and Harry Warner, Harry Cohn at Columbia, Marcus Loew and Louis B. Mayer at MGM, and Jesse Lasky and Adolph Zukor at Paramount, and Carl Laemmle at Universal, among others.
Why the bad box office?
An open letter to the Academy Museum from a group called United Jewish Writers expressed the "disappointment in, and frustration” with the museum’s exhibit, calling out the “words ‘tyrant,’ ‘oppressive,’ ‘womanizer,’ ‘predator,’ ‘offensive,’ ‘racial oppression,’ ‘nepotism,’ and ‘prejudices,’” used in the show to describe the Jews included in it.
“It is the only section of the museum that vilifies those it purports to celebrate,” read the letter. “While we acknowledge the value in confronting Hollywood’s problematic past, the despicable double standard of the Jewish Founders exhibit, blaming only the Jews for that problematic past, is unacceptable and, whether intentional or not, antisemitic.”
Similarly, a reviewer in Los Angeles Magazine panned the exhibit, writing that it relied on a “linguistic smorgasbord of tired antisemitic tropes, to paint a portrait” of each of the Hollywood studio’s founders.
“We take these concerns seriously and are committed to making changes to the exhibition to address them” responded the museum to the growing criticism.
The re-worked exhibit, which I visited a few days after the changes were made, is edited and much improved. It not only represents a less critical and less uber- politically correct history of the Hollywood moguls, but also acknowledges, I think, some changes in the Jews who inhabit this capital of movies and beyond: a sense of Jewish pride that emerged with the baby boomer generation, as well as a new tingling sense of awareness of antisemitism in the U.S.
Who do the offending words purport to describe?
In the original version of the show text, Carl Laemmle, who became president of Universal, was called out for his “nepotism.” Harry Warner was described as “a womanizer,” both he and brother Jack were described as “frugal,” and Harry Cohn, co-founder of Columbia Pictures, was portrayed as a “tyrant and predator.”
Original text.
Edited text.
Original text.
Edited text.
Though these words are offensive to many Jews, they do hurt and sting, the question must still be asked: are they true?
Dara Jafee, film historian and associate curator of the museum, the exhibit's curator, and Neal Gabler, cultural historian, and author of the 1988 book “An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood,” who served as an advisor to the Hollywoodland exhibit, must have had time to correct or edit them, if they were not.
A search of Wikipedia, at least in the case of Harry Cohn, gives the use of “tyrant and predator” at least some cover.
Wikipedia is far from the final arbitrator of historical fact, I use it often in my research, but have learned from experience that it is peppered with opinion, glosses, folktales and rumor posing as historic fact, outdated information, and outright error. If you read the entry for Harry Cohn, though the words “tyrant and predator” do not appear, the entry’s characterization fits mostly those words.
But are they appropriate, especially in such a short text, where their impact is exaggerated?
The original text also calls Carl Laemmle out for “nepotism.” What is not explained, however, is that coming from a German Jewish family, this is what was expected. You took care of your relatives.
Yet, even with this understanding, the words, called out in the open letter to the museum still sting. Jews have a good reason to be sensitive to words that make them seem exploitative in business, miserly, and abusive. They are antisemitic tropes that have been handed down generation to generation, and it is not surprising that seen writ large on the wall of a museum, they become fighting words.
Since we can assume that the leadership of the museum as well as its curatorial staff would be well-aware of the special weight of words seen on its walls, we also need to ask: Is this same level of historical accuracy applied throughout the museum?
Michael Kaplan, TV writer and producer, writing for The Algemeiner website concluded that after searching in vain the museum’s wall texts looking for similar “critical or uncomfortable” language about non-Jewish actors, writers, directors, and producers, a “double standard” was employed “in singling out Jews as the only ones called out for their sins.”
My own observation, after two trips to the Academy Museum, is that most Hollywood personalities given coverage are described with historically accurate coverage, but written with a nice, soft, Hollywood glow. No where else did I find similar stinging words.
Though Jaffe, in an interview with Jewish Living, a few weeks before the exhibit opened, was asked “Will you tell their stories, warts and all?” Her response, “I wouldn’t say we are delving into those,” is puzzling, in light of what was produced, since the warts, in the form of stinging words, were there for all to see.
The negative response to them revealed the complexity of the LA Jewish museum-going audience, and the times they live in.
No minority group wants to see its most famous members portrayed in disparaging terms, no matter the facts; especially during this time when American institutions are focusing on historical fairness and equality.
For many in the museum’s audience, having grown up in an environment that has grown progressively more open to Jews, more open to our stories, and the things that makes us different, we are also more sensitive to antisemitism when we do experience it.
We are part of our times, and want to be treated with the same even and fair hand as other minorities, and we want our complex stories to be told honestly, in context, and with the same sensitivity as any other group that has experienced prejudice and marginalization.
Heightening this awareness, the Israel-Hamas War has made many Jews feel unfairly singled out, demonized, and just plain sick of being stereotyped in the media; museums included.
There is really no surprise ending to this movie: hitting us over the head with the non-nuanced and poorly contextualized facts has caused a much larger bump than the Academy Museum expected.
////\/\\\\
*Live from the Archive
Hidden in Hollywood:
A Jewish family story
Beyond the studio moguls, the story of Jews in Hollywoodland is also the story of a Los Angeles Jewish family. Silent screen star Carmel Myers (B. 1899), shown here on the cover of Movie Weekly, was the daughter of Rabbi Isador Myers of Sinai Temple, and his wife Ann (Kaplan) Myers.
In 1916, Myers was already working in low-budget comedy shorts, when her father began helping D.W. Griffith as an unpaid religious consultant on “Intolerance.” Nudged by his wife, Rabbi Myers asked for Griffith’s help with his daughter’s career. Carmel did a test reading, and Griffith hired her as a contract player.
During her career, Carmel Myers' greatest success was in silent pictures. She acted in over seventy films, often playing a vamp. In the 1918 romantic comedy “All Night,” she played opposite Rudolph Valentino. She also appeared in talkies, and in the early 1950’s took a whirl at being an early television talk-show host.
Her many business interests included heading a production company that packaged radio and television shows, and holding a patent for an electronic synchronizer that controlled studio lights. She was also an importer and distributor of French perfume.
Myers also aided her brother Zion Myers’ entry into Hollywood as a writer and director. (Would the Academy Museum label her as a nepotist?)
Her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is at 1751 Vine Street.
Besides her roles in film, Myers played a role in LA Jewish life as well. “There is hardly a Jewish charitable or philanthropic cause for which Miss Myers does not volunteer her services,” read her entry in the 1926 edition of “Southwest Jewry,” a kind of early Who’s Who for LA Jews.
Among her communal activities, in 1922, Myers attended a Purim fundraiser for Temple Beth El, and in 1928 made herself available to the local United Jewish Welfare campaign.
In 1921, Myers made her first appearance as a Jewish character Sonya, a recent immigrant, in Universal Studio’s, “Cheated Love.” To make sure that the ambiance portrayed in the film was authentic, Carmel’s mother served as an advisor.
Myers died in 1980. According to the Jewish Women’s Archive, Myers' personal life was totally unlike the wicked woman type she played in so many films. One publisher even turned down her memoirs, mostly because her life had been without scandal.
*The Rodman Archive of Los Angeles Jewish History is a collection of approximately 1000 objects, photos, clothing, art, books, recordings, and ephemera relating to the lives and endeavors of Jewish Angelenos between 1850 and 1980.
////\/\\\\
Seen on the way: Hillside Memorial Park
Statue of Al Jolson, not in blackface, down on one knee.
Over 70 years after Al Jolson’s death in 1950, will we ever find a way to be at rest with the blackface performances of his amazing career? If the original wall text of the Academy Museum’s new Hollywoodland show is any indicator, the answer is “no.” The show's text about "The Jazz Singer" (1927) unblinkingly tells us “Jakie performs in blackface, perpetuating a century-long tradition in the United States that dehumanizes Black people. As part of a marginalized minority, Jakie–and the Warners–seek acceptance as Americans by embodying the dominant culture, invoking a popular symbol of racial oppression that further harms another marginalized group.”
After an uproar, the “marginalized minority” sentence has since been removed, but not before Emmy-winning TV writer, Ilana Wernick, while pointing out that the negative statements comprised almost half of the “Jazz Singer” text told Los Angeles Magazine “This is sickening. We all agree in 2024 that blackface is offensive, but in 1927, it was a very common and — for better or worse — an accepted form of entertainment, even by many in the Black community.”
Showing the range of both exposition and political correctness on Jolson and his use of blackface, a more nuanced understanding of the “Jazz Singer” appears on the PBS SoCal website: “Al Jolson was the first openly Jewish man to become an entertainment star in America. His marginal status as a Jew informed his blackface portrayal of Southern blacks. Almost single-handedly, Jolson helped to introduce African-American musical innovations like jazz, ragtime, and blues to white audiences.”
////\/\\\\