MovieChat Forums > Focus (2002) Discussion > Although there certainly was anti-semiti...

Although there certainly was anti-semitism in the 40s

posted 16 years ago by mmattagirl
7 replies | jump to latest

I think this whole thing was a bit contrived. For starters, Larry had lived in that same house with his mother for years and years, and had worked at the same office for 20 years. No one is going to tell me that just because he begins to wear a certain style of spectacle that he will suddenly become a jew to his neighbors and his employers, who all know very well that he is a Christian. Admittedly, an out of town big wig came in and insisted that he be moved from 'public view' - however, the only sensible course of action for Larry would have been to get another style of glasses, put them on only when he needed them and leave them off the rest of the time. This seems like capitulation , and had he been jewish that is what it certainly would have been. However he was not - likewise Gertie. What would have made anyone think either of those two was jewish?? How can you tell by looking whether or not someone is jewish? Kirk Douglas was jewish for heavens sake - who knew??? Who cared, what's more?? The whole thing started to annoy me once it became obvious that the neighbors didn't believe him when he denied that he and his wife were jewish. They were married in church - they both came from christian backgrounds and I simply don't believe that they would have been singled out for such treatment, even back then.

George... don't do that!

[–] seholmes 16 years ago

Although I agree with you in theory, I think we sometimes forget some of the other things that happened in this country around the same time. Japanese Americans were put into interment camps. Although I wouldn't equate the actions of the Japanese government with the suffering of the Jewish people at the time, the US's treatment of the Japanese here does indicate that people will go to extraordinary lengths when they are afraid. Or have been influenced to distrust a certain group of people.

[–] bryanac625 14 years ago

On the contrary, I think the movie is very credible. The big picture of the film is that bigotry is irrational, yet very powerful.

I'm African-American. As I've said before, I'd much rather be black and have everyone know it than to be black and hope no one ever finds out (i.e. light-skinned enough to "pass" as white). I've wondered how many people, here in 2011, still live with the reality of a secret black ancestor. They know that if the wrong person- a friend, a supervisor, an in-law, etc- discovers they have black blood, they will been seen differently than they have been before, even after 5, 10, 20 years. So if it seems ridiculous that a man buys a simple pair of glasses and everything changes for him, I think it's because it's supposed to.

I do believe much more is possible for non-whites in this society than there was 70 years ago. But I also believe recent things, like a black president, Hispanic immigration, and awareness of Muslims show how much prejudice still exists in America.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hotnoodletuna 14 years ago

Of course it is ridiculous to presume someone is Jewish and discriminate against them because of a pair of glasses. That is the point, though. It was a parable. If Bill Macy were clearly Jewish and walking around wearing a yarmulke all the time, would their treatment of him been any more valid or justifiable? Of course not. The whole point is the arbitrariness of the glasses. We probably wouldn't REALLY discriminate against someone based upon the type of glasses they wear. But what about certain genuinely religious garb? What about skin color? Sexual Orientation? The point is that whatever justification one uses to explain away their hatred and prejudice will be absurd. Hating the Finkelstein character, who was quite clearly Jewish, was no more reasonable than hating Bill Macy based on his glasses. All hatred and prejudice is irrational, and focusing on something that we can all immediately see as a benign thing (like a pair of glasses) makes the point better. It could just as easily have been a turban. The point would'e been equally valid

[–] donaldking 11 years ago

What is wrong about the film is its history. Creighton is clearly Father Charles Coughlin, a Catholic priest who broadcast on the radio and published a magazine called SOCIAL JUSTICE. His peak of popularity was in the Thirties, along with people like Charles Townsend and Gerald L. K. Smith. He was certainly not broadcasting his anti-Jewish anti-war views towards the end of the war. The Roosevelt administration began to suppress his radio talks and his publication in 1939 and even more so following Pearl Harbour. There was talk of prosecuting him for sedition, but his fall from prominence made this unnecessary. FOCUS gives the impression that political anti-Semitism existed in the US right through to the end of the war. Not so.

[–] max von meyerling 10 years ago

If one was there, at the time, and were Jewish, one wouldn't think there was any exaggeration at all. The only "fantasy" element was that this was all actually happening to a gentile. To a Jew it was all standard operating procedure. I realize it seems like scifi to anyone not alive in the 40s & 50s.

[–] artemis1644 10 years ago

mmattagirl, you certainly missed the point of the movie. Larry experienced what it felt like to be Jewish. He shouldn't have had to change his glasses. That just pointed out the ridiculousness of bigotry and hatred.