From cinema’s beginnings; the film image of the "Jew" has closely followed the fortunes and misfortunes of Jews. Analyzing more than 70 films made in the Soviet Union; Poland; Hungary; Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic; East and West Germany; France; Italy; the United States; and Israel from 1920 to the 1990s; noted historian Omer Bartov argues that depictions of the "Jew" in film have been fed by; or have reacted to; certain stereotypical depictions of Jews arising from age-old prejudices. These images; in turn; both reflected public attitudes and helped to shape them. He points to Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ as one of the most recent examples of the phenomenon. In trenchant discussions of individual films; Bartov develops four basic cinematic representations of the "Jew": as perpetrator (especially in antisemitic films); as victim (especially in films about the Holocaust); as hero (especially in films about the state of Israel); and as anti-hero (especially in films about the Arab-Israeli conflict).This absorbing book reveals the ways in which powerful images remained deeply embedded in the creative imagination; even as the circumstances that originally engendered them underwent profound changes. Bartov concludes that some of the fundamental prejudices about Jews; which predate cinema; persisted in cinematic depictions throughout the 20th century; although they have been reinterpreted according to changing political regimes; ideologies; and tastes. Covering a range of traditions and periods; The "Jew" in Cinema provides original and provocative interpretations that often contradict conventional views. Placing cinematic representations of the "Jew" within their historical context; Bartov demonstrates the powerful political; social; and cultural impact of these images on popular attitudes.The Helen and Martin Schwartz Lectures in Jewish Studies
#2984706 in Books Indiana Univ Pr 1998-02Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.50 x 6.25 x .75l; #File Name: 0253211697186 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Informative but dryBy BrianThe Roman Empire contained literally millions of slaves during its roughly seven-hundred year history. There were three significant uprisings of the Roman survile population against their shackles; two of which occured in Sicily. The third; led by Sparticus; was the largest; and after Stanley Kubrik's movie; is probably the best-known. Author Keith Bradley dissects the three uprisings and identifies some common strings among them. In all three cases; the uprisings started as small skirmishes; with the slaves intending only revenge against their cruel masters; not society-wide insurrection. Furthermore; the three slave rebellions eventually selected natural leaders to direct military actions and lead the slaves. Finally; the three slave wars each met with early success which overwhelmed the local authorities; and were only put down after imperial troops were called in from Rome.I have no doubts about the scholarship of this book; but give it only three stars since the reading can be arduous at times.It is sad but probably true that the slave uprisings never had a chance at sustained success. Manumission of slaves was known under Roman law; but never as a condition of negotiation with rebelling forces. Individual cases of successful escape of slaves are known; but any mass uprising of slaves; especially during the time period discussed (140BC to 70BC; when the Republic was in decline and the Empire was emerging); was fated to failure. The only silver lining (for readers sympathetic to the slaves) is that the three uprisings seem to cautioned the authorities about the potential of an angry survile population; and seems to have resulted in more humane laws regarding the handling and care of slave2 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Slave Revolts in the Roman WorldBy P. WebsterSome historians claim that our disgust at the slavery of the ancient world is an anachronistic reaction because the Greeks and Romans themselves took the existence of slavery for granted. Bradley's book shows that this claim is largely false; but that in one respect it contains an element of truth.It is false because the slaves themselves certainly did not passively accept their situation. Bradley sees the slaves as "human agents" who were constantly resisting the cruelty and exploitation they were subjected to. It is true that there were only three large-scale slave revolts in ancient Rome: two in Sicily in the second century BC; and the most famous one led by Spartacus from 73 to 71 BC. But small-scale resistance was widespread.The most usual form of resistance was to attempt to achieve freedom by running away. Bradley relates the inspiring example of one of Cicero's slaves who did this and who was never recaptured. But there was also the sabotage or theft of slave-owners' property; suicide; and quite a few local; small-scale revolts which were quickly suppressed.Full-scale revolt was rare because of the risks involved and because of the lack of unity amongst the slaves who came from many different parts of the world and did a variety of different jobs. The three large-scale rebellions all started off as spontaneous; local revolts caused by extreme provocation. They were not planned in advance; but they snowballed until they involved tens of thousands of slaves who; in the case of the Spartacus revolt; at one time threatened Rome itself.However; the claim that slavery was taken for granted in the ancient world does contain an element of truth; in the sense that no one was putting forward a coherent set of ideas advocating the destruction of slave society and its replacement by something else. The slaves wanted to get out of the situation they were in: they wanted their freedom. But they did not have an alternative to the system. (For example; the slave leaders in Sicily set themselves up as kings; with all the associated trappings.)There was also the problem that despite the growth of large estates owned by the rich and farmed by slaves; the majority of the population were small peasants and other free poor; not slaves. Few of these free poor seem to have joined the slave revolts.Of course this comes as no surprise to Marxists. At that stage of development a classless society was not a material possibility. If the slaves had won; the only possible outcomes were either escape from the control of the Roman state or the slave leaders becoming a new ruling elite.Unfortunately; Bradley is not a Marxist. He claims that the class struggle approach is "inherently inappropriate" for explaining the slave revolts. This is because he mistakenly thinks that a Marxist approach would mean seeing the slave revolts as class-conscious; planned affairs with worked-out aims for an alternative society. He thinks that Marxists are wrong because the slaves were driven to revolt by their experience of brutality and degradation; not by "ideological imperatives".This is a caricature of the Marxist view. Marxists argue that class struggle is the inevitable outcome of exploitation. But that does not mean that the participants in the struggle are necessarily fully class conscious or politically aware. The fact that it was the exploitation of the slaves which drove them to rebel is precisely what a Marxist approach would suggest. No Marxist would expect slaves in ancient Rome to have a fully developed Bolshevik programme.Bradley also emphasises the spontaneity of the revolts in a manner which leads the book at times to become deflating rather than inspiring. For example; instead of celebrating the fact that tens of thousands of slaves joined the revolts; he suggests that the growth in numbers was a problem because it made organisation difficult and invited Roman retribution.Despite its weaknesses; though; this book can fill out our knowledge and understanding of some truly inspiring rebellions by the oppressed and exploited.Phil Webster.(England)3 of 4 people found the following review helpful. good collection but uneven in qualityBy TammyJo EckhartThis is a collection of several articles by Bradley which examine the role of slavery in the Roman world. The articles do not flow smoothly together so they are best read separately though best understood as a whole. Too often for a five star rating; I found myself wondering where he got his evidence for certain statements.
