Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Citizen Bernstein

Not only did Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane—which turns 70 this spring—change the way films were made, it broke new ground in how Hollywood portrayed Jews onscreen

Print Email
Everett Sloane and Orson Welles in Citizen Kane. (Alexander Kahle/RKO Radio Pictures Inc./Photofest)

This May will mark the 70th anniversary of the first public screening of Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane, widely considered the greatest movie ever made. Although it has been studied for decades, one of the film’s major characters, Mr. Bernstein, Charles Foster Kane’s Jewish business manager (and the first of several characters in the film given the opportunity to tell their version of Kane’s story), remains largely overlooked.

The creation of Hollywood by Jewish studio moguls has been amply documented by film historians, but Jewish characters were rarely portrayed onscreen when Welles started his career. Intentionally or otherwise, the inclusion of Mr. Bernstein in Citizen Kane was a political act.

Bernstein is the most sympathetic character in the film. Expertly played by Everett Sloane, Bernstein (whose first name is never mentioned) remains loyal to his boss despite Kane’s deep character flaws and through his tragic fall. Bernstein is, at times, playful, avuncular, philosophical, rabbinical (without ever becoming stereotypical), and romantic. He is also accorded some of the best lines in film history. (“It’s no trick to make an awful lot of money if all you want is to make a lot of money.”) His famously nostalgic speech about seeing a girl in a white dress on the Jersey Ferry for a moment in 1896—“I’ll bet a month hasn’t gone by since that I haven’t thought of that girl”—encapsulates the film’s major theme of loss and longing. He’s a one-man Greek chorus and Horatio to Kane’s Hamlet, the trusted friend whose loyalty spans, as he says, from “before the beginning” to “after the end,” and who lives on to tell the tale.

Welles, who was 24 when he made Citizen Kane, arrived in Hollywood with a track record of staging plays that subverted expectations around race and intolerance. His revolutionary all-black production of Macbeth in 1936, known as Voodoo Macbeth, was set in 19th-century Haiti and staged through the Federal Theatre Project in Harlem. The next year, Welles staged a production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar set in contemporary fascist Europe, giving fresh poignancy to the scene in which Cinna the poet is attacked by an angry mob. Shortly after the play opened, Welles said in a New York Times interview: “It’s the same mob that hangs and burns Negroes in the South, the same mob that maltreats the Jews in Germany. It’s the Nazi mob anywhere.”

While investigating the evolution of the character of Bernstein in Citizen Kane, I reached out to the legendary film director Peter Bogdanovich, a close friend and confidant of Welles’ whose conversations with the director were recorded and published in 1992 as This Is Orson Welles. Bogdanovich is not surprised that Welles was moved to include a sympathetic Jewish character in his first film: “Orson was very fascinated and crazy about all things Jewish,” he said. “He was a big fan of the Yiddish art theater.” When asked where Welles’ empathy for Jewish culture originated, he talked about Maurice Bernstein, a doctor who was a close friend of the Welles family: “Bernstein, who was [Orson’s] legal guardian after his father died, was a very, very important figure in his life. He named Bernstein in the movie as a gesture toward his guardian … because he loved him dearly. Don’t forget, he lost his mother when he was 8 and his father when he was 15, so Dr.  Bernstein was a huge influence in his life.” Asked if he thought Welles was moved to create a sympathetic Jewish character in Citizen Kane because Europe’s Jews were under fire, Bogdanovich said, “it was very much on his mind.”

Welles described the evolution of Mr. Bernstein to Bogdanovich in 1969, noting that he “sketched out the character in preliminary sessions,” but that Welles’ co-writer, Herman Mankiewicz “did all the best writing for Bernstein.” Mankiewicz was a frequent guest at the parties of William Randolph Hearst, the media giant on whom Charles Foster Kane was modeled.

Despite the collaborative writing of Citizen Kane, there’s evidence that Mankiewicz was considerably less comfortable than Welles in having a major Jewish character in the film. Bogdanovich has unearthed an August 1940 memo written by Mankiewicz after he’d seen Bernstein’s first major scene in the film: “In Bernstein’s office with Bill Alland [the actor who played the reporter Thompson]: Everett Sloane is an unsympathetic looking man, and anyways you shouldn’t have two Jews in one scene.” Mankiewicz was clearly uneasy about transgressing unspoken Hollywood rules concerning Jews on screen (whether as characters or actors), and Welles would have been well aware of this resistance. Asked if Welles, a Hollywood neophyte at the time, may have been unaware of such rules when he developed the Bernstein character, Bogdanovich replied that Welles “knew what he was doing there.”

Mankiewicz may not have been the only participant in the Citizen Kane project concerned about whether Sloane’s appearance was sufficiently sympathetic. As Mankiewicz knew, Sloane was a Jewish actor and a veteran of Welles’ theater company. In the years following the filming of Citizen Kane, Sloane embarked on a series of plastic surgeries to reduce the size of his nose and thereby, he imagined, broaden the range of acting roles available to him. Welles later said that Sloane “must have had twenty operations before he killed himself. He must have thought, ‘If I could ever bob my nose right, then I’ll be a leading man.’ ”

The evolution of the Bernstein character has long been misunderstood. In her 1971 essay “Raising Kane,” film critic Pauline Kael writes that the use of the name Bernstein “was Mankiewicz’s way of giving Hearst points … because, whatever else Hearst was, he was not a snob or an anti-Semite.” Kael also argues that Mankiewicz was giving Hearst points in the film’s famous breakfast montage (where the history of Kane’s marriage to his first wife, Emily, is condensed to a short series of breakfast scenes), when Kane stands up to Emily after she is, according to Kael, “snobbish about Bernstein.”

But Kael is wrong on a number of levels. The identifiably Jewish name Bernstein, as Bogdanovich reminds us, was not Mankiewicz’s. And she’s wrong about Hearst’s attitude toward Jews. In his efforts to have every copy of Citizen Kane destroyed prior to its release, Hearst threatened to use his newspapers to expose the dominance of Jews and Jewish refugees working in the film industry. Also, Emily isn’t just “snobbish” about Bernstein in the breakfast montage; she’s chillingly anti-Semitic. And Mankiewicz didn’t write the breakfast montage; Welles wrote and inserted it during production.

Welles’ later work continued to reflect his fascination with Jews and Jewish concerns. His 1946 film The Stranger, which depicts a Nazi-hunter’s search for a war criminal hiding in the United States, is said to be the first postwar film to include footage from a concentration camp. In 1962, Welles made a film version of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, altering the novel’s ending in which Josef K. is executed without resistance because, he said, the original “seems very Pre-Auschwitz.” He worked unsuccessfully for many years to complete a film version of The Merchant of Venice; a clip of Welles performing Shylock’s soliloquy, and moving himself to tears, appears in the 1995 film Orson Welles: One Man Band.

For Bogdanovich, it’s not a wonder that a non-Jew proved to be such a pioneer in exploring Jewish themes and characters onscreen.

“The anti-Semitism that existed then,” he said, “was largely from the Jews themselves.”

Harold Heft has taught literature and film at the University of Western Ontario and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His last article for Tablet Magazine was about mystery writer Walter Mosley.

Print Email

Thanks for a fantastic article. “Citizen Kane” has always been a favorite of mine and I’ve always wondered about the Bernstein character. While film class in college–years ago–taught us about the technical aspects of “Citizen Kane” and just some of the political and social nuances of the time reflected therein, I have never read anything like this about Bernstein and the influence of the character’s namesake on Welles. I could go on, but suffice it to say that I learned a lot from this story.
Thanks again!

david chack says:

Excellent piece. But the part where Bogdanovich says “The anti-Semitism that existed then…was largely from the Jews themselves” is a bit off-putting. This is in a time when Jews were watching Nazi Europe, reading Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic Dearborn Independent, seeing Charles Lindburgh – a pro-Nazi – receive acclaim, and hearing Father Coughlin spout about international Jewry.

yankeedog says:

I bet a month hasn’t gone by that I haven’t thought of the “girl in the white dress” scene…

Jeffrey Sultanof says:

My mother would always remind me that during the thirties and forties, Jews did not relish seeing themselves attracting much attention in the media because of the rampant anti-semitism of the times. She knew that when the chips were down, Jews would be blamed for anything and everything wrong in the world. Jews just wanted to blend into the crowd so they wouldn’t be attacked, particularly after Hitler started to come after them in Germany.

I’ve seen Citizen Kane more than 150 times, and while the subject of Bernstein’s ethnicity has been touched on in some analyses of the film in the past, this is an excellent exploration of the subject. Emily’s anti-semitism in the breakfast scene is very subtle; when I was younger, I thought she was uncomfortable with him since she considered him low-class, and I’m sure that even today many audiences miss what is really bothering her. Such was the genius of the writing of this film. And yes, Bernstein is very much the heart of this movie, the only one who has no criticism of Kane.

David Diamond says:

Fascinating article on the Bernstein character with info on the tragic ending of character actor Everett Sloane who played him..I think the article is on point about Anti-Semitism in Hollywood or the US in the 1930’s can attest to that it was commonplace and accepted..Gentleman’s agreement changed that a few years later. The Bogdanovich quote however sounds inaccurate or over-simplified. From what I understand, most of the studio moguls who were born Jews desperately wanted to assimilate and leave their Jewish heritage behind by intermarriage etc..They may have been self-hating Jews but never actively engaged in anything anti-Jewish.

I guess I’ll have to watch this again. When I saw it, in the early eighties, the character of Bernstein struck me as a suck-up, but I suppose that’s a late twentieth-century attitude.

How about an analysis of the significantly Jewish character of Rosenthal in that other legendary film of that era, The Grand Illusion.

Mr Mel says:

If I remember correctly, years ago my wife worked for a company called Katz Media. She bought broadcast time for their clients. In her new employee kit, there was a history of the company. In it, it stated that their founder was the basis for the character, Mr Bernstein.
In doing some light research a few moments ago, the company is now called Katz Media Group and on their website a history of the company link, makes no mention of this.

M.R. Moore says:

I have to agree with fw. The older Bernstein is an appealing character, but the younger Bernstein is a toady. Jed Leland is far more sympathetic.

Dan Kimmel says:

I teach “Citizen Kane” and I also lecture on Jews and Hollywood and I’ve often noted Welles’ treatment of Bernstein. Your essay echoes, expands and embellishes upon my own observations, and I am deeply appreciative of that. It’s interesting to note that of all the characters in the film, Bernstein is the only one to give Kane the unconditional love and support he is seeking. Kane doesn’t always seem to appreciate that but, at the end we see how well Kane has taken care of him in return.

Ruth Einstein says:

Is it possible that the character of Bernstein was also influenced by Jake Gortatowsky, a Jew from Albany, Georgia, who was a general manager at the Hearst papers and a frequent visitor at San Simeon? Gortatowsky was apparently one of Hearst’s right-hand men.

Jeffrey Sultanof commented: “My mother would always remind me that the Jews did not relish seeing themselves attracting much attention in the media because of the rampant anti-semitism of the times. She knew that when the chips were down, Jews would be blamed for anything and everything wrong in the world.” Jeffrey, are you intimating that it is always wrong to blame Jews? Sounds like anti-gentilism to me. Here’s an example of something Jews should be blamed for but aren’t because of the pathetic fear most people have of saying word one against Jews. Ex.: Jews mounted a disgusting propaganda campaign to get the U.S. into WWI. “Stop the Hun! They cut off the hands of Belgian babies, rape nuns!” For a good source for that statement Google Benjamin K. Freedman Willard Hotel Speech. Freedman was Jewish, an ardent Zionist around the time of WWI, who came to realize he would rather be a patriotic American than a patriotic Zionist. Speaking from inside knowledge, he says that the Germans offered a status quo ante peace offer to the Allies. The Allies might have accepted but the Zionists said “Don’t make peace! We can get the Americans in the war.” Edward Bernays, Freud’s nephew and the father of the ill-begotten public relations industry, made his bones in this affair. The payoff for getting us STUPID Americans into WW! was the
Balfour Declaration, a promise from the British government of backing for a Jewish Home in Palestine. The British said such a home should not
harm the interests of the inhabitants. How is that working out, Jeffrey?

So there is one example of something I think Jews SHOULD be blamed for. You want more! Israel’s attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, knowing it was American, The Lavon affair, and a little thing called 9/11. The last one got to you? Check out http://www.rediscover911.com and wise up.

Nathan Rothschild started a panic in London with inside knowledge that Napoleon had lost at Waterloo, ruined many. If I blamed him, am I anti-semitic?

Robin Margolis says:

Dear Tablet:

What an interesting articl! And a thoughtful comment thread. I hope that you will run more of this type of article.

No, Zan Overall, blaming Nathan Rothschild does not make you Anti-Semite. It may make you an idiot and historically inaccurate, but I have no knowledge of that time period so I wouldnt want to comment. My gut, however, tells me you are an idiot. Does that mean that all socially maladjusted white Americans who still live with their parents work for USPS, have a GED, missing teeth, probably enjoy the mistreatment of animals are idiots as well? Or can I assume that all white male Americans are idiots? As a white American I would hope not. This leads me to my next point.

Blaming jews IS anti-semetic. Blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a select powerful few IS anti-semetic. Even when the intentions of those powerful few are to help their own people, their people are not at fault. It is as much their fault these people rose to prominence through education, hard-work and opportunity and affected the world in whatever way they did as it is white americans fault that you wasted your youth on meth.

Furthermore, if you want to believe Benjamin K. Freedman, that the jews started World War I (this is a new one for me, kudos on that you mad redneck f&ck) be my guest. I would rather not rely on a man who sold soap for a living (Yes, I googled him.) Zimmerman note comes to mind and the many attacks on American passenger ships.

I make fun of you good sir, when I should show my concern – as to why you are not taking your meds. According to a study by psychiatrist and neuroscientist, Mortimer Ostow, the more anti-Semitic beliefs you hold, the more likely you are to harbour psychotic thinking. So, while I poke fun, you are a man who clearly needs help. I wish you a speedy road to recovery.

Mike P writes:

” Blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a select powerful few IS anti-semetic. Even when the intentions of those powerful few are to help their own people, their people are not at fault.”

Really?

So by your definition, blaming the Nazis for the deaths of over six million victims of their death camps is anti-Semitic.

You might want to retink your definition, I humbly submit and resist making fun of people when your own definition is so lacking in meaning or accuracy.

Mr. Bob says:

Does Tablet do any editing? Wouldn’t someone have asked whether the following statement makes any historical sense or whether it is a good way to summarize the ideas that are presented? About a 1941 movie?

“For Bogdanovich, it’s not a wonder that a non-Jew proved to be such a pioneer in exploring Jewish themes and characters onscreen.

“The anti-Semitism that existed then,” he said, “was largely from the Jews themselves.”

Huh?

Peter says:

Dear Mr. Mike P., quite a few add-hominum attacks on a man you know nothig about. A shinning, objective thinking intellect you are not. To dissmiss Benjamine freedman because he sold soap? You are a silly little Yid – oh, you didn’t know? Yidds are not Semitic, no connection to Middle East at all, inspite of stolen land from Semitic Palestinians. As for Benjamin Freedman, he was a very successful manufacturer, a multi-millionaire who spent his last dollars warning the American people about the Internationalist Jewish Elites desires for world govt. No secret there. Bless the internet Mr. Mike as there is truth there, that you zio-controll freaks cannot limit, as much as you may try. There is an awakening of the Gentiles, can you feel it? People are beging to realize that the thieves on Wal street are not Irish – and they’re pissed. Oy Vey. Dezioniozer

artcohn says:

The statement that “Jewish characters were rarely portrayed onscreen” ignors the momentus film “The Jazz Singer”,as well “Emile Zola”. The people most favorably portrayed in the movies were the Irish. It was a great surprise to me, as a 10 year old at the end of the war in 1945, to learn that Ireland (Eire) was neutral throughout the war, since the movies made it seem that the Americans of Irish backround, always nostalgic about Ireland, were the main protaganists in winning the war.

Mitch says:

What started out as interesting comments about an interesting article degenerated into a spewing of “facts” by clueless individuals. This is an unfortunate, but relatively accurate description of the “average” uninformed American who can’t take the music plug out of his ear to learn anything about reality.

HERB says:

MITCH I THINK YOU SAID IT ALL THANKS

Mitch commented: “What started out as interesting comments about an interesting article degenerated into a spewing of “facts” by clueless individuals.” That’s the way conversations go, Mitch. Someone says something. Someone else responds and goes in a slightly different direction.

You don’t mention any names,Mitch. You use the buzz word “spew” so those
“facts” must have riled you. I’m assuming that I might be one of the so-called “clueless individuals” you referred to. I did cite a lot of facts. And no one responded to the facts, just resorted to insults.
Called me a “mad redneck f&ck” and other things. I don’t mind. Just wanted to point out what happens when someone criticizes Jews. Jews or their defendants never respond to the points raised. They respond with insults and occasionally with “humor.”

I responded to Jeffrey Sultanof quoting his mother: “She knew that when the chips were down, Jews would be blamed for anything and everything wrong in the world.” The old, old story. The poor harmless Jews! Blamed for everything and always oh so innocent! I am tired of that ploy and took the opportunity to point out a few examples of Jews doing terrible things to others. According to the Talmud that’s all right as long as the others are Goyim—except that it’s wrong if the Jews get caught.

I cited one place they got caught: the Lavon Affair, an Israeli false flag operation, finally fully admitted by Israel. Did any of the Tablet readers know that on the 50th anniversary of the Lavon Affair Israel held an official ceremony HONORING the surviving participants in the plot? Does that bother any of the Jewish readers? It bothers me big time! The Jewish role in 9/11 bothers me a lot worse. Visit http://www.rediscover911.com and wake up to that.

I will close with this: “If you want to identify the real rulers of any society, simply ask yourself this question: Who is it that I cannot criticize?”

HTML says:

Zan is right, but is this the right place to talk about the pros and cons of any one people? Yes, Bernstein is Jewish, but the film itself is not about that (it is partly about that).

I suppose the thing that set off this turn in the conversation was the snapper ending to the article – Bogodanovich’s quote to the effect that the Jews did it to themselves. That’s obviously quoted out of context, completely out of Bogo’s style and politics. He likely meant Jews in Hollywood tried to adapt to and anticipate anti-Semitism and went overboard in this direction in hindsight. They had good reason to be frightened but were probably frightened too much, should have been bolder – that’s my read of Bogo’s statement. Very quickly (e.g. with “Gentlemen’s Agreement”) Jews in Hollywood did start becoming a little more confident.

Anyway, I always liked the Bernstein character. Interestingly, Bernard Herrmann wrote some music for Bernstein that didn’t make it into the final cut of the movie. (You can find this music on a CD of the score.) The special Bernstein music probably would have slowed the film down or made it sound wrong, but it’s good “movie music” in itself. And no, the notes are not anti-Semitic, LOL, although one piece is frenetic with bounding, happy energy.

Bill Pearlman says:

Saw the movie in college, was bored out my mind.

stan nadel says:

I see this really brought out the Antisemitic trolls. Zan Overall has Jews calling for US participation in WWI when in fact almost all Jews were opposed to joining a war on the side of Czarist Russia which was then the most Antisemitic country in the world. But when have Antisemitic conspiracy theorists ever let facts stand in the way of their fantasies?

The quote was cut from the previous comment for some reason. Here it is:

“The company began in 1886 when newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst sent Emmanuel Katz from San Francisco to New York City to sell advertising space in the San Francisco Examiner. Katz was successful in persuading New York merchants to advertise in the West Coast paper, and two years later he decided to strike out on his own. In 1888 the E. Katz Special Advertising Agency set up shop on Park Row in New York City, and the business of media representation was born. The agency operated as an intermediary between newspapers and businesses that wanted to advertise in towns other than their own. Katz’s first and largest customer was Hearst, who had one of the largest newspaper circulations in the country at that time.”

The Jews says:

Hey! What’s all this about these things we’re being accused of doing?!
You know, an important — maybe the most important — Jewish contribution to history and civilization was the binding of freedom and power to responsibility and morality. Throughout history, authoritarians and Nazis and Communists and totalitarians and antisemites have specifically disagreed with this, saying power is its own justification. You can do whatever you can get away with. You can say whatever you want, truthful, accurate, or not. Stories about Kane and Hearst and the Jews are relevant to this discussion.
So, in the context here, what this Jewish insight can be reduced to is:
a) shut up unless you really, really, know what you’re talking about!
b) if it quacks like an illiterate or an antisemite …

Signed “The Jews” (a fully qualified representative thereof)

The Jews says:

And don’t piss us off, or we’ll come around to get you.

brynababy says:

Fabulous article, but the writer made it sound like Sloan committed suicide because of his “nose”, meaning his Jewishness and how it affected his career. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sloan developed serious Glaucoma, and fearful of becoming blind, he took his own life.

stan nadel says:
“I see this really brought out the Antisemitic trolls. Zan Overall has Jews calling for US participation in WWI when in fact almost all Jews were opposed to joining a war on the side of Czarist Russia which was then the most Antisemitic country in the world. But when have Antisemitic conspiracy theorists ever let facts stand in the way of their fantasies?”

Congratulations,Stan! Unlike your tribal predecessors, Mike P. and others, you actually responded to my points and did more than just insult me. You couldn’t resist the tired old conspiracy theorist canard. Don’t you know what a conspiracy theory is? It’s a truth that those in power don’t want people to know.

Stan, you were right about the earlier part of WWI. German Jews did support the Kaiser because he was fighting the hated Czar. (Hated because
he protected his people from the economic abuses of Jews by exiling them to the Pale of Settlement.)

However, when the Zionists saw the opportunity to secure Palestine, Jews fell in line, along with British intelligence concocting the stinking, lying propaganda campaign that got us stupid Americans into fighting a war for Jewish interests. (Just as we stupid Americans are fighting wars
for Israel at this very moment… Stupid Uncle Samileh! Fighting Israel’s wars for her AND PICKING UP THE TAB! VAHT A SCHMUCK!)

Stan, you don’t deny the participation of Edward Bernays, Freud’s nephew, in the propaganda campaign, do you? He must have hated the Czar less than he loved Zionism.

By you I’m an anti-semitic troll. Was Benjamin K. Freedman an anti-semitic troll? You Jews never admit to doing anything wrong. Nathan Rothschild pulled his “Napoleon won at Waterloo” scam and ruined many of his “fellow LOL Brits.”
Answer me this, Stan! Would it be anti-semitic to say NR was—-how shall I put it?—less than admirable. Is ANYTHING ever your fault?
(Check out http://www.rediscover911.com for something bad Jews did: 9/11.
Lucky Larry Silverstein et al.)

#
“The Jews” said:
Hey! What’s all this about these things we’re being accused of doing?!
You know, an important — maybe the most important — Jewish contribution to history and civilization was the binding of freedom and power to responsibility and morality. Throughout history, authoritarians and Nazis and Communists and totalitarians and antisemites have specifically disagreed with this, saying power is its own justification. You can do whatever you can get away with. You can say whatever you want, truthful, accurate, or not.”

Dear “The Jews,” you actually think you can set Jews aside from “authoritarians and Nazis and Communists and totalitarians and antisemites? Communists??? You forget Marx was Jewish. You forget how overwhelmingly Jewish was the monstrously cruel and genocidal so-called Russian Revolution. TENS OF MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS KILLED BY LENIN AND OTHER JEWS! They bound “freedom and power to responsibility and morality?”

And you believe that Israel, in its dealings with the Palestinians, is not saying “power is its own justification. You can do whatever you can get away with. You can say whatever you want, truthful, accurate, or not.” A lot of good Jews who speak up for the Palestinians would puke their guts out hearing you paint Jews in the way you do. Can you say “Deir Yassin?” Can you say “Sabra and Shatilla?”

You added this:
“And don’t piss us off, or we’ll come around to get you.”

You intended this as humor, I suppose but it reminded me of a joke “The Bear” might have made in that monstrosity “Illegitimate Basterds.” Not funny. I protest at Academy Awards. That year I had a placard that said
“Illegitimate Basterds” (sp) is up for an Oscar!!! What is next?
A snuff film category?….Tarantino yells “Cut!” to START” a scene.”

Your sally reminded me of the Book of Esther. After the slaughter of the Gentiles it says, “And many became Jews for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.” You’re not the little lambs you profess to be. You’re scary.

German American Bund rally over yet? Here’s video of “Zan Overall” picketing for Holocaust denial outside the Academy Awards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4zaVN2KpFc&feature=player_embedded#at=19

jeff gorsky says:

Bogdanovich’s comment is an exageration, but there is some truth to it. The men who kept Jews off the screen and suppressed the Jewish identities of Hollywood talent had names like Goldwyn, Mayer,and Warner (although the Warner Brothers did make their fortune on a film about a son of a cantor who became a Jazz singer). It was a Jewish Supreme Court Justice named Frankfurter who at one point denied reports of the Holocaust as not credible (as reported in the recent documentary The Karski Report). But these men were not motivated by Anti-Semitism, they were motivated by fear of Anti-Semitism.

Adam Holland wrote:
“German American Bund rally over yet? Here’s video of “Zan Overall” picketing for Holocaust denial outside the Academy Awards.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4zaVN2KpFc&feature=player_embedded#at=19#

By you I was picketing for “Holocaust denial.”
By me I was picketing for “Holocaust revisionism,” another way of looking at the subject. The year was 2009 when FIVE movies
on the subject of the “Holocaust” came out.(“The Reader” etc.)

The flyer I handed out read in part:
“The intention of their creators is to portray Jews and
Israel in the public mind as victims and obscure the
fact that they are anything but victims. When they come to power, as in Russia after the 1917 Revolution and as in Palestine in 1948, Jews are victimizers—not victims.

When have you seen ONE movie about Jewish power?
YOU NEVER HAVE AND YOU NEVER WILL!
Wake up! Don’t be propagandized sheep forever!”

My placards read:
“THE READER” IS PURE PROPAGANDA
WITH FOUR OTHER CURRENT HITLER/HOLOCAUST FILMS, IT (1) PORTRAYS JEWS AS PERPETUAL VICTIMS (2) EXCUSES THEIR VICTIMIZING PALESTINIANS AND OTHERS(3) PERPETUATES THE “GAS CHAMBER/DEATH CAMP” HOAX(4) DISGUISES
THE VAST POWER OF INTERNATIONAL JEWRY

JEWISH POWER & THE “HOLOCAUST”
“INVOKING THE HOLOCAUST IS A PLOY TO DELEGITIMIZE ALL CRITICISM OF JEWS.” (NORMAN FINKELSTEIN-THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY) /// “OF ALL THE ARTS FOR US THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THE CINEMA.” (LENIN) /// “ISRAEL CONTROLS THE U.S. SENATE” (SEN. WM. FULBRIGHT ON “FACE THE NATION”—DEFEATED BY JEWISH MONEY IN NEXT ELECTION) Ari Shavit, Haaretz, May 4, 2003:
“The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”/// Kate Winslett: “If you do a film about the Holocaust, you’re guaranteed an Oscar.”
(BTW Winslett said that as a line given her in the English TV comedy “Extras.” Funny and prophetic.)

Adam, care to respond substantively? Forget the Bund.

No Tablet reader responded to my April 11 post. Adam Holland contented himself with hurling the “Holocaust Denier” shibboleth and retiring from the field.

I wish Jews would discuss subjects such as the “Holocaust” with people who have different views. It’s best you don’t, of course, given the weaknesses in your case. Stick to invective.

Bradley Smith was interviewed by Tablet some time ago about his work as head of CODOH, the Committee for the Open Discussion of the Holocaust. He gets insults from the Holocaust believers but nothing substantive.

The case Jews make for the Holocaust keeps changing. Elie Wiesel’s lied in “Night” about Nazis hurling Jews of all ages into burning pits (“Holocaust,” “burnt offering – get it?). That lie came and went. The Jewish soap lie came and went. The lampshades made from Jewish skin lie came and went. The Jewish survivor’s lie about defecating and retrieving the family jewel(s)came and went. The Jewish girl’s lie about throwing apples over the camp fence to an inmate she later married came and went.
That one got as far as Oprah I believe.

We shuddered at the very words “Dachau” and “Buchenwald” thinking about the horrible gasings that took place there. Now it is admitted that there were no “death camps” in Germany proper. (How many of you knew that?) The gas chambers lie had to retreat eastward to Poland.

Everything keeps changing except the sacrosanct “Six Million” figure.
No matter how many claims are abandoned, no matter how the figures carved in stone at Auschwitz keep dwindling, the Six Million figure remains. It scares the “little” Jews who believe it and it shames the kindly but stupid Goyim who also believe it.

If a witness’s testimony in court kept changing the way the testimony for the “Holocaust” does, that witness would go to jail for perjury.

Check out codoh.com and ihr.org if you dare.

There have been no comments on my comment of 4-14-2011. Discretion is the better part of valor, eh, guys? Since I have the floor, I will give you a couple of quotes. The first you are unlikely to come across in the
circles you go around in. From a Jesuit priest about Israel.

— “Every time anyone says Israel is our only friend in the Middle East,
I can’t help remembering that, before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.” — John Sheehan, S.J.

The other is from a speech Helen Keller made as they were ramping up for WWI. She was no dummy!

— Congress is not preparing to defend the people of the United States. It is planning to protect the capital of American speculators and investors…. Incidentally, this preparation will benefit the manufacturers of munitions and war machines…. Strike against war, for without you, no battles can be fought! Strike against manufacturing shrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools of murder! Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human beings! Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction! – Helen Keller at Carnegie Hall January 5, 1916.

Will close noting that the Zionists dissuaded Britain and France from making peace with Germany to end WWI by assuring the Allies that they,
the Zionists, could get the US into the war. Part of the propaganda campaign they whomped up included the warning to the American sheeple that the Kaiser was going to invade us through Mexico. What a logistics
nightmare that would be! “Over There! Over There!”

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Citizen Bernstein

Not only did Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane—which turns 70 this spring—change the way films were made, it broke new ground in how Hollywood portrayed Jews onscreen

More on Tablet:

11 Non-Jewish Celebrities—and 2 Jewish Ones—Show Off Their Hebrew Tattoos

By Marjorie Ingall — You don’t have to be Jewish to sport Hebrew ink. But some of these stars should have thought twice before going under the needle.