#jewish tony

[fanchonmoreau]

“Antisemitism is ancient and it’s never gone away. More people are aware of it now, more people are signing up for it, and more people are being loud about it, but that’s a constant.

“I feel a great responsibility with the part to make sure that this central question of ‘What would you do?’ in [Fraulein Schneider’s situation] is given as much fodder as possible. It’s a very complicated, difficult, awful decision that Fraulein Schneider has to make, and she does not make it without deep shame and guilt and self-loathing and also self-justification. It’s really complicated. That’s the last thing she does on the stage, is pose that question. She’s fun, she’s gregarious, she’s a really sharp businesswoman. She’s strong, she’s tough, she’s all these things. She’s kind, she’s a little bit goofy. She likes the Bohemians. I hope to make her a very full and complicated person who can hold a lot of different qualities at the same time, so that when her final moment on the stage [comes], we get a full person. If you take that song, ‘What Would You Do?’ out of context, it loses a bit of something. You have to see how much she absolutely adores, loves, cares so deeply, and who Herr Schultz is to her.

“We have to have enough information so that we can approach that question. In a way, it’s the simplest of questions and in a way, it’s the most complicated questions, because right now in our country and around the world, this is a question that is relevant."

—Bebe Neuwirth (source)

[its-a-cautionary-tale]

I’m reading a bunch of plays written by Jews and non-Jews about Jewish characters as part of my senior honors thesis in theatre. Last week I reread The Last Night of Ballyhoo, by Alfred Uhry (who also wrote Driving Miss Daisy and the book for the musical Parade). It won the Tony award in 1997 when it premiered on Broadway but it isn’t a super well known piece today.

It is a truly beautiful play. It’s funny and thought provoking and so well written. Every single character in the play is Jewish. If you like theatre or want to experience art about Jews by Jews, I highly recommend it.

It’s about a Jewish family in Atlanta, Georgia in December of 1939 (which is when Hitler invaded Poland). It deals with what it means to be Jewish and the importance of knowing about your culture. It’s a story that deals with the assimilated German Jews’ response to the arrival of “the other kind”, the Jews from Eastern Europe, in the United States.

[pettyshippen]

The fact that these two have the black cat golden retriever dynamic to them is why I refuse to ship Violet with anybody else.

That and I’m obsessed with the vintage high school sweethearts who share milkshakes trope.

[miss-galaxy-turtle]

Goyim when the musical about the rise of fascism in nazi Germany is unsettling and "not sexy"

[zappedbyzabka]

Beautiful boy

[chaossmagic]

For winterdad: the Jewish headcanon Bucky + Jewish (canon in some places but absolutely here) Peter Parker. Something about keeping traditions alive and shared.

Yes please give me Jewish Bucky and Peter re-affirming their faith in different ways after everything they've been through. Maybe Bucky filling the role that Peter's dad or Uncle Ben would have done for him if they'd lived long enough, reminiscing about his own childhood and how hard it was.

Bucky being worried that the Jewish community wouldn't even want him to be a part of it after everything he's done. Peter feeling like because he was raised pretty secular that he doesn't really know how to do it 'right' and that he's too inexperienced or doesn't know enough to go back to it now, but they encourage and help each other to at least try.

Peter showing up on Bucky's doorstep for Hanukkah with a crappy menorah he found in a thrift shop that's seen better days, saying that after the year they've had - years, plural - no one deserves to be alone during the Festival of Lights, right? Sure, Bucky complains and rolls his eyes and is wondering how the fuck this kid knew where he lived, but he invites him in anyway because he's right, it's been hell, and it's the first time in actual decades that he's even seen a menorah, let alone a lit one that's burning bright as they eat store-bought sufganiyot and Peter asks Bucky what he remembers, if anything, about growing up Jewish in the years before World War Two.

Just. Yes.

[opheliaintherushes]

I still can't believe Spielberg didn't rush the stage to slap Jonathan Glazer after that speech, especially after he heaped praise on The Zone of Interest as the best movie made about the Holocaust since Schindler's List.

Spielberg is wrong, of course, Son of Saul was made in the interim, and is a masterpiece (Geza Rohrig is my forever Oscar snub). But The Zone of Interest is a brilliant film, casting a cold eye on Rudolf Hoss and his wife as they go about their daily lives in the shadow of Auschwitz. It would seem to be a story about the banality of evil, par excellence.

But there's two things to dissect here:

1) there's a tangled legacy with the banality of evil; it's a good phrase, it explains or excuses a lot of savagery, anyone can be swept up if they find themselves in the wrong historical moment. Except people have been criticizing Arendt for coining it from the moment she wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem. Eichmann wasn't some bureaucrat who went along with the machine; he was obsessed with Jews, studied them, he organized the deportation of the Hungarian Jews near the end of the war, almost 450,000 of them, 12,000 a day, and even arranged his own trains when he was told to stop.

2) Hoss, of course, was the man who was on the receiving end of this; The Zone of Interest ends at the moment of his reassignment back to Auschwitz to deal with the mass influx of of Jews. Hoss also wasn't some abstract figure who lived next to the camps. He was an unrepentant Nazi from the earliest days of the party, and honed his cruelty in Dachau and Sachsenhausen until he turned Auschwitz into the most effective extermination machine the world has known.

If audiences feel incriminated by The Zone of Interest, that's on them. This was a crime against Jews, executed by a society that hated Jews, and overseen by officials who embraced the chance to wipe them out in the most efficient and organized way possible. The Holocaust isn't a lesson, isn't a yardstick of your morality, isn't a rhetorical device, isn't a scenario where you play 'what I would have done.' It isn't the beginning or end of antisemitism, or the beginning or end of Jewish history.

If Glazer feels guilty as a Jew, there's not much I can do about that. But how can he not feel the same sock to the gut I do when The Zone of Interest finally flashes to the present to show exactly the extent to which Hoss dedicated himself to the eradication of our people?

[hersheysmcboom]

List of Jewish characters in my au

Dr melina vostokoff(not practcing)

Natasha Romanoff (raised interfaith)

Yelena belova (raised interfaith)

Erik lehnsherr

Magda lehnsherr (converted)

Wanda vostokoff

(Birth mother is Jewish; birth father is Romani catholic, starting practicing after leaving red room)

Pietro vostokoff

Anya lehnsherr

Peter maximoff

Wendy maximoff

Nina lehnsherr

Dr Lorna Dane

James “bucky” Barnes

Anothoy Edward “Tony” stark

Virginia “pepper” Potts

Peter Benjamin Parker

[theoscarsproject]

An American Tail (1986). While emigrating to the United States, a young Russian mouse gets separated from his family and must relocate them while trying to survive in a new country.

Forever kind of gutted Amblimation folded as quickly as it did. None of its three films (An American Tail, We're Back, and Balto) are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it was a studio with a different voice in the era and the medium, and it would've been interesting to see it grow. This is a charming, albeit flawed little film though, with lovely, fluid animation and a rich migration story. I like it a lot, and it was fun to revisit as it's been a minute since I've seen it! 7/10.

[whetstonefires]

So I can't reply to @phoenixyfriend having replied to my reblog because either they've blocked me or they don't do DMs with non-mutuals despite suggesting that as a preferable forum for disagreement, but in brief:

My reblog was 'necessary' within the very limited definition of that word that applies to fandom blogging because that post was not a post About Tony Stark. I don't engage with posts About Tony Stark or most characters in general that I disagree with, in general! It's rude and life is too short.

That post, however, was not about Tony. It was a conversation between bloggers asserting an argument for why people who don't agree with your headcanons are morally inferior and have Bad Corrupt Motives.

"What does it say that Steve is, in fandom, often considered a better/more qualified speaker on the topic of chronic illness and disability than Tony" and "these people would rather listen to the white, able-bodied guy than the person actually forced to live with the consequences of life-long disability" and "viewers with that perspective continue to see his disability as a sign that he's still a bad person, because he hasn't 'earned' a cure the way Steve did."

(Which again is wild as a take because Iron Man 3 has tony 'earn' his way out of both physical damage and PTSD through willpower and smartness in the ending montage, because inspiration porn doesn't work if you stay damaged.)

It was a post about the fandom. Accusing other actual human beings of being morally at fault for how they interpreted the marvel cinematic universe.

Not like, an intense horrible attack post as these things go, but it still wasn't about characters. It was about other fans. That is different from talking about characters! Your post was about how it's sus and shameful for people to disagree with you, not about your actual positions and why they're right. Let alone about the character. That doesn't fall under the curtain of 'don't start shit' because shit was already started.

Like I don't have any Avengers fic, haven't been in the fandom for several years, and I was still sitting here scrolling my dash getting these Bad Person Motives assigned to me just for thinking one character was more meaningful disability representation, that I would be interested in hearing from on the subject, than another.

You made inflammatory statements about other actual people in a public forum, where it could be predicted they would see it.

And then flew off the handle when someone went over your post asserting their alternate perspective, carefully avoiding attacking you personally or assigning you evil motives, which would have been incredibly easy except it's a shitty way to interact so no, and speaking only in general terms about things they found personally annoying.

If you can't deal with people reblogging your posts to argue that you're being unfair, then maybe don't post about how other people only disagree with you about your blorbos because you are a better human being than those people. I mean.

[bringthemoonclosertoearth]

i LOVE the sassiness (sassyness?) and crassness in the speeches at the Tonys tonight. I am here for this celebration and pride in identity

all identities are celebrated tonight

[groovy-lady]

I JUST FIGURED OUT A WAY THAT HOWARD STARK IS CANONICALLY JEWISH (alas, the show Marvel’s Agent Carter is not considered canon by the MCU creators): In the first Iron Man movie, it is stated by both Tony Stark and Obadiah Stane that Howard Stark was part of the Manhattan Project/helped create the atomic bomb; I looked it up and 21% of the real life scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were Jewish!!!! FUCK YEA CANON JEWISH STARK FAMILY FOR THE WIN!!!!!

[shakespearenews]

The topic of theater and its relative openness led to discussion of problematic plays, like Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice.”

“Should it be banned?” asked Greenblatt.

“God, no,” responded Kushner. Acknowledging that Shakespeare “accepted many received ideas about Jewishness,” and noting that “it was written at a time when there were no Jews in England,” Kushner went on to describe the humanity that the playwright grants the Jewish character of Shylock, despite the use of stereotypes: “’Hath not a Jew eyes?’” he quoted. “That transcends prejudice.”

Art, he continued, should not be condemned for being “unsafe.” “It’s so rare that you encounter a work of art that it makes you feel unsafe,” he said. “In the rare moments that you do, you should treasure it.”

Recalling monumental performances by Fiona Shaw as Euripides’ murderous “Medea” and Brian Cox in the title role of Shakespeare’s disturbing “Titus Andronicus,” he described relishing the experience. “You watched a human being pushed to a point,” he said of Cox. Afterward, “the houselights came up and everyone just sat there. Nobody moved. It was the opposite of safe.”

This electrifying — and sometimes discomfiting — experience is “the deal that you make when you go into the theater, the deal that you make when you go to bed and you dream,” he said. “Medea is not really going to come off the stage and kill you.”

[tonymarias]

this sends me every time maria didn’t give a FUCK

[tony-andonuts]

Just now realised that my brothers, sister, and myself are literally the only people in my dads side of the family who aren't recognized by Orthodox Jews as Jewish

[ephemeral-winter]

oh man i always forget that sophie okonedo is jewish in addition to being so beautiful i can't breathe. sophie literally call me