Film

December 2, 2009

British Film Gives ‘An Education’ in Anti-Semitism

by Irina Bragin, Contributing Writer

Tweet

Share

Jenny: “Oh, and by the way ... David’s a Jew, a wandering Jew. So watch yourself.”

We were only 15 minutes into the film and this was the second reference to the “Wandering Jew,” an age-old, European anti-Semitic stereotype. The British coming-of-age film, “An Education,” had gotten rave reviews, yet the more I watched, the more the character of David Goldman resembled the parasitical Jew of “Der Ewige Juden” (“The Eternal Jew”) — one of the infamous 1930s Nazi propaganda films I had studied in Peter Loewenberg’s class at UCLA.

From the moment David starts following the teenage Jenny in his fancy car, the pudgy, effete David Goldman (played by Peter Sarsgaard) proclaims his ethnicity. (Jenny: “I’m not a Jew.” David: “No, I am. I wasn’t ... accusing you.”) Like the predatory creature characterized in “Der Ewige Juden,” Goldman pretends to adopt the values of his host culture in order to turn its treasures into his profit. He offers Jenny “three five-pound notes” to drive her cello home safely out of the rain; “I’m a music lover,” he tells her. Then he proceeds to corrupt the innocent gentile girl (played by Carey Mulligan) with expensive flowers, gifts, concerts, art auctions and trips to Oxford and Paris.

David enriches himself by ruining good English neighborhoods, deflating property values and looting cultural treasures from displaced widows. He moves blacks into white neighborhoods: “Shvartzes,” he tells Jenny, “have to live somewhere; it’s not as if they can rent from their own kind.” The only identifiable Jew in the film, he constantly uses the collective “we” to justify his wickedness: “This is how we are, Jenny,” Goldman editorializes. “We’re not clever like you, so we have to be clever in other ways, because if we weren’t, there would be no fun.” He uses the word “stats” for old ladies he victimizes. They “are scared of colored people; so we move the coloreds in and the old ladies out and I buy their flats cheap.” Along with his partner, Danny, David barges into a house, military style, and speeds away with precious relics. “We have to be clever with maps,” he tells Jenny. An ancient map, he rationalizes, “shouldn’t spend its life on a wall…. We know how to look after it…. We liberated it.”

Is it possible that the film attempts to link the predatory Jew with his purloined Jewish homeland?

In his book “Anti-Semitic Stereotypes” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), Frank Felsenstein explains that “stereotypes stress the difference between the dominant group and the other…. The ‘true born Englishman,’ is the ideal ‘counter-stereotype’ of the Jew. The wandering-Jew stereotypes were constantly invoked in anti-Semitic narratives to present the homeless Jews as living proof of God’s declared intention that these were once his chosen people and should not be granted respite until they recognized the true Messiah.”

In “An Education,” Jenny’s values, and those of her middle-class parents, teachers and first boyfriend, are antithetical to those of the crooked Jew. The Brits are refined, attractive, honest, sober and hard working. Boyfriend and classmate Graham, “a handsome boy,” according to the script, plays the violin, is modest and clean-cut and presents Jenny with the same plainly wrapped Latin dictionary for her birthday as her parents.

Miss Stubbs, an English teacher, encourages Jenny to pass her “A” levels and earn her way into Oxford in the same honest way she once got into Cambridge. Like Graham and Jenny, Miss Stubbs is “attractive,” “bright” and “animated.”

By contrast, writer Nick Hornby, who initiated the film project based on a woman’s personal essay that he changed to suit his themes, confesses that he feared “no conventional male lead would want to play the part of the predatory, amoral, lonely David.” David’s wife, Sarah, “a homely looking woman in her early 30s,” shows no surprise when her husband’s fiancée, Jenny, shows up at her door. As alien a creature as David may be, the dark, curly haired Jewess is accustomed to her man’s infidelities. 

The climactic scene after David proposes, when Jenny, unaware of his treachery, informs her school’s headmistress that she plans to marry a Jew, is blatantly anti-Semitic:

Headmistress: “He’s a Jew? You’re aware, I take it, that the Jews killed our Lord?”

Jenny: “And you’re aware, I suppose, that our Lord was Jewish?”

Headmistress: “I suppose he told you that. We’re all very sorry about what happened during the war. But that’s absolutely no excuse for that sort of malicious and untruthful propaganda.”

The pretty girl makes no attempt to defend her fiancé’s human dignity, no effort to profess her love for him. As a depersonalized, demonized Jew, David has no qualities worth defending. Instead, Jenny suggests she prefers spending the Jew’s money over studying her Latin.

“My choice is to do something hard and boring or marry my Jew and go to Paris and Rome and ... eat in nice restaurants and have fun.”

The articulate headmistress, played by Emma Thompson, defends the native values that the rootless Jew tempted her student to abandon. “Nobody does anything worth doing without a degree,” she warns Jenny.

As movie blogger Joe Baltake points out, the film “seems to go out of its way to justify Thompson’s anti-Semitic outburst.” Baltake is one of a minority of critics to acknowledge the film’s anti-Semitism (many of the glowing reviews fail to even mention that Jenny’s seducer is Jewish, or that the word “Jew” appears in the film). A little more subtly, David Edelstein, of New York Magazine, writes, “The story’s most obvious lesson is: Beware of Jews bearing flowers….”

Despite the advertising campaign’s promise of a seduction film, there is nothing erotic about David. True to another ugly stereotype, Goldman turns out to be wimpy, “fruity,” “babyish” and disgusting. He calls Jenny “Minnie,” and wants her to call him “Boobaloo.”

Squeamish about the possible shedding of blood, he first tries to take Jenny’s virginity with a banana. “I thought we might get the messy bit over with first,” he tells her. “I don’t want to lose my virginity to a piece of fruit,” Jenny responds. The Jewish seducer of young gentile girls cannot be allowed to be seductive. As Felsenstein points out, “The bipolarity with which Jews are stereotyped is frequently impressive. They are bankers and capitalists; they are communists and agitators; they are tough and full of chutzpah; they look wretched and sickly….” 

“An Education” wraps old, anti-Semitic messages in a pretty new package.

My husband and the two friends with whom I went to see “An Education” did not initially recognize the stereotypes in the film. They had never experienced anti-Semitism; they had never felt like strangers in an inhospitable culture. They had never seen a Nazi propaganda film. The wandering Jew was unfamiliar to them — and perhaps meaningless in America, a land of immigrants, pioneers and vagabonds. 

On the other hand, my close friend, Julia Ribak, daughter of a Holocaust survivor, found the movie deeply disturbing. Her mother had often described the hateful images of Jews that resulted in Auschwitz. “The movie is a magnificent and nasty creation of propaganda,” Julia e-mailed me. “The writer managed to include everything ... everything that would make the viewer of the film walk away hating Jews!”

Irina Bragin is an L.A. tutor and writer who teaches English and public speaking at Touro College Los Angeles. She can be contacted at irina.bragin@touro.edu.

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

I think you are no being fair since this is based on memoir and at that time these were the problems that exisited. I think you should clarify your remarks.

Comment by mel moreno on 12/02/09 at 5:36 pm

The movie is fiction…7.4/10. Some interesting themes. It is boring when critics latch on to any portrayal of a Jewish person in a bad light and then squeeze the life out of the “Anti-Semitic” angle. The male lead, like his friends is reprehensible. It is a pretty dark movie. Why can’t the writer of this piece accept that all tribes of people have had their fair share of ugly characters over the years ? I’ve never visited this site before, and probably never will again. G-d guides me…

Comment by Adam Neira on 12/03/09 at 7:25 am

The reviewer maligns an excellent film as antisemitic because stereotypes are voiced and a Jewish character is portrayed as “pudgy” and a con man. In fact the protagonist pointedly rebuts ignorant statements by her father and schoolmistress. Not all Jews look like an IDF recruiting poster and some are even crooked (see Madoff). This is primarily a coming-of-age story sociological panorama of postwar London. Peter L. Reich, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School.

Comment by Peter L Reich on 12/06/09 at 7:30 pm

I am not going to say this was a “brilliant piece of propaganda” because this apparently did happen. As an American the one person “David” reminds me of is Bernie Madoff. He has little education but somehow talks his way into high society. Combine the Bernie Madoff “shyster” personality with the stereotype used against every group that they “deflower our innocent children” and all the other things you mentioned it was highly disturbing film to watch for more than the story.

Comment by Long Island Film viewer on 12/07/09 at 1:53 pm

First of all, this movie was based on a woman’s REAL MEMOIR. The real guy happened to be Jewish, so the character in the film was, too. I think there are real venomous, vicious irrational Jew-haters out there in the world, but I don’t think the makers of this film are, nor is this little indie film an effective or even intended piece of anti-Jewish propaganda.

Comment by Adam Gropman on 12/12/09 at 11:44 pm

I left the movie not concerned/pre-occupied that the movie was anti-Jewish. I spoke to my non-Jewish friend who saw the movie and he didn’t even pick up on the Jewish angle. This is a rather sophisticated indie film, trusting it’s audience to read the nuances and gray areas of life. Sarsgaard’s character was handsome, charming, kind, courtly, cultured and generous. Sarsgaard is absolutely not Jewish, so the filmmakers certainly weren’t casting some horrible “Jewish stereotype” in the role.

Comment by Doug Glassberg on 12/12/09 at 11:50 pm

The theme of this movie didn’t require any religious context, and could have dealt with the seduction of a young girl by an older man quite adequately without mention of the man being Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.
By it’s emphatic portrayal of a ’ sleazy, crooked Jewish pedophile who killed Christ,’ it encapsulates all the classic stereotypic anti-semitic portrayals of the past century, and will sit comfortably with those who already view Jews in that way.

Comment by Dr. arthur klepfisz on 12/14/09 at 12:58 am

I don’t think there is an Anti-Semitic message in this film unless you really want to find one. I would like to defend this film against your allegations. In fact, I found the Anti-Semitic views held by the characters portraying their ignorance.

Comment by Greg Gillespie on 12/14/09 at 4:32 am

In the Godfather we laughed when Woltz found the horse’s head in his bed because we knew Woltz was rotten. We were not told that Woltz’s Jewishness made him rotten.

Comment by Christopher Davis on 12/15/09 at 12:20 pm

I felt the film’s sting of anti-Semitism and went looking for an analysis, liked the Journal’s take.  It’s quite easy: simply visualize that “the other” isn’t Jewish, but Polynesian like me… and whatever euphemistic justification fades away, exposing the raw racism of this film.  I wouldn’t want to live in an all-white neighborhood that has seen such a film about how “the other” would “derail” their daughters (sexist too!)

Comment by Palaina on 12/27/09 at 4:35 am

This article by Irina Bragin accurately captures my own feelings about this movie.  Some will argue that this movie is just a realistic portrayal of one lousy Jewish person and that all ethnic groups have been portrayed in film in this manner.  Not true.  I can’t think of any other movie where the villain’s ethnic or religious background is a major theme.

Comment by R.B. on 12/29/09 at 2:40 am

While anti-Semitic notions exist in the film, it is important to recognize this as a historical depiction. (I’m not saying that such sentiment is absent today—perhaps stronger, though changed in name and form.) The xenophobic atmosphere is true to the reality of the times. I found it enlightening—perhaps even refreshing—that in today’s PC world, the film honestly depicted the anti-Jewish feeling of a seemingly pristine world.

Comment by Rachel S on 12/30/09 at 12:33 pm

This film is nothing short of propaganda and hate. I just can’t believe that so many people, especially film critics, don’t see it. So what if it was based on a true story recorded in a memoir by Lynn Barber?  I haven’t read Barber’s book, but if it’s anti-Semitic as well (which I doubt is the case) – does that justify this screenplay making it to the screen?

Is the critics’ silence over this a jab at Hollywood which is too Jewish for anyone to bear.

Comment by Montreal film viewer on 1/01/10 at 1:11 am

Watch the scene in which a school headmistress makes the Christ-killing charge, then the heroine says (I paraphrase), ‘But our Lord was a Jew himself,’ to which the headmistress says (paraphrase), ‘We all know what happened in WWII, but why is that an excuse to exaggerate just for propaganda?’ It’s an unambiguous endorsement of left-wing Holocaust denial, which says the Holocaust is exaggerated and used for propaganda by Zionists.

Also, “the Jew” steals an ancient map, then defends himself by saying it was old, had no value to the lady who had kept it. This is a reference to early Zionist rhetoric that Palestine was a desolate area ignored by its (then) owners, and was stolen.

Comment by Abe Aamidor on 1/08/11 at 8:45 am

All throughout the ages, Jews have been characterized in negative images.  Some Jews, like all nationalities and religions perpetuate the negativity (Madoff).  The reason why society has to be very careful in perpetuating these negative characteristics whether based on real cases or not is because with the Jews, violence is a probable end result.

So, people in society whether in politics or entertainment who are responsible and have a conscience will have the decency to not create films like this.

Comment by B on 1/10/11 at 8:54 am

(thank you all for writing-all had good points) The character David portrays could be any religion, but the fact that the word “JEW” was in the dialogue as much as it was ...is disturbing, but true to the times of the film.  The point of the film headed more towards the ‘parents’/teachers with their failing to give their daughter good parental advice and direction in a loving manner.  The Jew may have been the villain but paled compared to the head mistress.

Comment by Lee Locket on 2/27/11 at 12:35 pm

Lee, “The fact of the matter”?? I’m sorry, did I miss that you were assigned the role of arbiter?

I heartily disagree with your entire opinion on the matter and just because you say this is the “fact of the matter” doesn’t make it so.

The headmistress was unpleasant, yes. But David came off as much worse and not as just a (more) vile human being. He came across as a vile Jew.

Comment by ken on 2/27/11 at 1:27 pm

Once upon a time Ken at the age of 16 I met a man similar in personality disorder as “David” except he was raised Catholic attended private catholic schools his whole life.  It is a man taking advantage of a woman. It happens, it stinks.  Where did i say Fact of the matter and who made you the expert here?

Comment by Lee Locket on 2/27/11 at 1:59 pm

His Catholicism would less likely be part of the story- it’s part of his identity, yes, but not of the story.  David didn’t have a personality disorder; he had poor character.  But, in the film, he had a Jewish character. it’s okay if you don’t understand this. ..the buzz about the film is long gone. It was good, I enjoyed it.  But, it was anti-semitic.  Did the directors MEAN it to be? I doubt it, but who knows? I’ve read the initial article and the author’s memoir—not the one based on the movie.  The fact that he was Jewish in the memoir was just a sidepoint. It was a main point in the film because the directors chose to make it such.

Comment by Ken on 2/27/11 at 5:29 pm

Jews have to be vigilant about the perpetuating of horrible characterizations.  Our lives are at stake.  The propaganda is useful to people who hate Jews.  All of a sudden, Jews are out for others blood.  Then, sudenly many extrapolate that it is justified to shed Jewish blood.  A whole lot of Catholics, Christians or Buddhists weren’t systematically annihilated across multiple countries in modern times.  Right now, millions of Arabs are chanting “Death to the Jews.” The Leader of Iran intends to “wipe Israel off the face of the map.”  So, unless you are very sympathetic to current plight of the Jews, you will never comprehend and hence, never agree why this movie is dangerous.

Comment by B on 2/27/11 at 9:50 pm

I am late into this because I just saw the movie and I have to agree. Though the movie in itself was good, the anti semitism is blatant. I had not heard any mention of this in the “buzz” around the movie and it seems to me that fact, combined with the clarity of the movie’s anti semitism,  shows anti semitims IS alive and well in Britain. And the fact that this movie was BBC produced comes as no surprise to anybody who has noticed the way BBC reports on Israel and the middle east.

Comment by G. on 5/21/11 at 9:33 am

Did Nick Hornby hire David Irving to produce this piece of Jew-hatred?
I am surprised that Hornby was involved as well. Looks like he doesn’t have much sekel
(wisdom or sense in Yiddish), or he is just an old-school antisemitic Brit.

Comment by Murray Braun on 8/29/11 at 2:59 am

Are you people completely out of your minds? There is frothing Jew and Israel hatred out there, so go fight THAT! Write comments on sites that accuse Israel of grotesque, crazy upside-down allegations and recycle disgusting age-old Jewish power conspiracy theories. This was a small INDIE FILM that was meant to tell a little story, based on an HISTORICAL, NON-FICTION MEMOIR. Choose your targets! We don’t have the luxury of attacking marshmallow fluff stuff like this. See any of thousands of extreme left and extreme right websites or supposed “pro-Palestinian” people on college campuses who actually verbally and physically attack Israel supporters. Get out there and fight against that!!

Comment by Slim Jim Ghostberg on 8/29/11 at 9:04 am

@Jim, Wow, are you missing the bigger picture. Might be connected with you being an American. You guys tend to think America IS the whole world.
I am not however. I am an European and as such well aware of what anti-semitism in “marsmellow fluff stuff” can inspire. And it is anti-semitism we are talking here being displayed in this movie. Not anti Israel sentiments.
I will choose my own battles and manner of fighting. Yet more aggressive posting on the websites you mentioned is not my idea of a productive response. So thanks for your advice and perspective but I am sticking with simply speaking up when I see anti-semitism occur.
And btw…this “small indie film” was Oscar nominated.

Comment by G. on 8/29/11 at 10:03 am

And btw Jim, what exactly leads you to think that responses you see here are the only thing the people commenting are doing about these problems?

Comment by G. on 8/29/11 at 10:07 am

Wow, I’m offended by both “Slim Jim” AND “G.” I’m an American, and I do not think America is the whole world.  I’m not sure why you’re defending Jews from anti-Jewish bigotry yet it’s okay to level a blanket insult at an American.  Anyway, I agree that “marshmallow fluff stuff” is how bigotry is insidiously spread.  A maniac who goes out and kills a bunch of Jews is less likely to inspire anti-semitism than a movie that makes Jew-hating look understandable (and is defended above simply because it is “true”).

Comment by Amanda on 8/29/11 at 1:12 pm

@Amanda. I did say “might”. I figured that would indicate I am aware many Americans are not as short sighted as on the other hand many have shown them to be. As Jim did in his post by assuming I am an American and by clearly believing American politics inspired side choosing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more of a problem than world wide insidious anti-semitism of the kind I was addressing because that is what is the problem with this movie and the reception of it.
I am sorry if I offended you in my irritation over Jim’s several leveled presumptuousness.

Comment by G. on 8/29/11 at 5:46 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?