This week we screened Sandi Simcha DuBowski's film Trembling Before G-d (2001) to begin our exploration of 21st Century Docs. I chose this film to begin the course in part because of the questions it raises:
Is it possible to reconcile tradition with modernity? Why or why not? And if yes, how?
Who gets to decide who is "inside" and who is "outside" within communities? Are these boundaries always clearly defined or is there some fluidity?
Why do we need communities in the first place? What do we get out of them, especially when they can cause so much pain?
How do you balance the private or personal with the public?
How can one use documentary for activism? In his interview with FYI magazine, DuBowski maintains that "this film was not just a movie, but the seeds of a movement." What's the most effective (and affective) way to use film for social change?
What is the role of the documentary filmmaker vis-a-vis his or her subjects? In his interview with Lucy Walker and Carey Monserrate, DuBowski claims that he is "an interventionist" but also admits to struggling with his responsibilities as a film director. His interview concludes with him asking when should be he a director and when should he be an interventionist when interviewing his subjects.
These are just some of the issues that preoccupy many contemporary documentary filmmakers, and these topics are all explored in some way Trembling Before G-d.
So, what do you think? What are your views on the questions posed above? And how do you think DuBowski addresses these questions in his documentary?
Let's look at this from a historical context. This century, especially recent decades are unique in history from almost every perspective. We are contextualizing and disseminating information faster than human beings ever have, but are still (Innately! Inexorably! It's Human!) drawn to religious tradition, concepts (rules) that change at a glacial pace compared to increasingly progressive concepts of new social orderings. The answer to the question of how to reconcile tradition and modernity is fracture. Catholics vs. the UCC, Reform vs. Orthodox. Human beings, especially when religiosity is involved, tend to group around similarities, even if the binding similarity, as is the case with the "Orthodykes" or other groups, is the difference itself. We go to different Christmas Mass, but then gather at a table to split presents, we will eat Shabbat dinner, but half of the table drives home. Tradition itself is the definition of a community's REFUSAL to conform with modernity.
ReplyDeleteSo much of our society, and world, is based in binaries. "Us" and "them" are two of the most powerful ways to separate and distinguish parties. I feel as though the breaking down of such a distinction is a theme of Trembling Before G-d and many other documentaries. It's seemingly a very universal concept, but it's surely one that legitimizes a lot of unfavorable behavior. Trembling, and many other films, visually represent the idea that there needn't be such separation in a given system. Films such as this make apparent the inequalities and are effectively catalysts for action. I'd say that being aware of such binaries and the injustices that accompany them, is the first step towards resolution.
ReplyDeleteRemember also, Jews have, since the 1st century AD, been a people in diaspora. The struggle between assimilation and tradition has long been a distinct facet of Jewish life. The discourse on homosexuality and orthodoxy is, in many ways, an extension of 2 centuries or so of discussion about how assimilated Jews can be without losing their distinctive ethnic and religious identity.
ReplyDeleteEuropean Jews of the 19th and 20th century thought very much along these lines, albeit ethnically not sexually. Can we speak the vernacular language of say Poland, Hungary, France, and above all Germany, without losing what makes us distinctly Jewish? In fact, most of the most notable Jews of the past century, say Einstein or Woody Allen, are defined not on their relgious identity, but on their contributions to secular society (science, comedy, etc.)
It is interesting then, that the founding of the state of Israel has not solved, but actually exacerbated religious identity politics. Can you be gay and orthodox? - it's an update on Can you be a German and a Jew? with a post-modern, individualist twist. To me, it seems more an indicator of the interests of our time generally - personal identity, not national identity - than anything else.
In her interview with Sandi Simcha Dubowski and Lucy Walker, Carey Monserrate of CrossCurrents notes that both films portray the struggle between orthodoxy and modernity. From the readings and the film, it seems to me that the two cannot be reconciled. In the film, one of the rabbis even made this blanket statement, citing the Torah's condemnation of homosexuals. To be an Orthodox Jew is to follow the laws of the Torah. Therefore, homoxuality (and its acceptance, a modern convention) cannot be accepted or reconciled by Orthodox Jews.
ReplyDeleteMonserrate also notes both films' subject matter of community. The Orthodox Jews and Amish peoples form tight-knit, exclusive communities. She says the benefits to communities are having a preassigned set of rules to follow, making life completely clear. Dubowski futher elaborates on community by stating that an obvious question that arises from the film is "Why not just leave the Jewish community?" His challenge as a filmmaker was to accurately portray why homosexual Jews wanted to remain a part of the community and what its benefits were.
The Wertheimer reading presents an intresting contradiction within the Jewish (specifically conservative and Orthodox subgroups)community. Some Jews struggle with allowing homosexuals into the community--on one hand, there is a need and a desire to rebuild and expand the community, but on the other, there is an impulse to strictly define the community, thereby necessitating the exclusion of some members.
I think at the issue's very core, it comes down to the innate desires of people. Regardless of sexual orientation, people want to feel like they belong and people enjoy being a part of something--a movement, a set of ideological beliefs, an organized religion. I think it's interesting that from their exclusion, homosexual Jews are creating a new type of community composed of those who are deemed outsiders of the Othodox community.
It seems to me that more than anything, Sandi Simcha DuBowski needed to make this film. Whether or not it truly rallies Jews together or splits them apart, it was a personal project that he strove to make for a multitude of reasons including spiritual rejuvenation, mental clarity, communal connectivity, and to give a voice to himself and those like him, struggling to cope with the lives they live everyday. I won't say that it's the best documentary I've ever seen but I will say that he is one of the most dedicated and passionate documentarians I've ever studied. He treats his subjects and subject material with absolute respect and truly cares for them and their struggle to the extent that he is almost as present as they are in the film. The mirror he created for his subjects not only reflects their struggle but his own, as well, and that is something to admire. He put himself out there, for better and for worse, and in doing so made a successful film and shed light on a matter worth discussing.
ReplyDeleteDocumentary is certainly a powerful medium for activism. A film holds such wider appeal than any book or essay or article in that it generally demands more attention and puts human faces to the stories it tells. The pain, suffering, and struggles of the oppressed are right there on the screen for the audience to see and empathize with.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even the most powerful documentary can only be considered a tool for activism within the right community. In the case of "Trebmling Before G-d", only those already within the Orthodox Jewish community have the right to demand any sort of change within that community.
That is not to say that the film was not meant to be seen by a non-Orthodox audience, or that that audience cannot learn or gain anything from seeing it and discussing it. Anyone can relate to feelings of confusion, searching for one's identity, and not always being accepted by those that we want so desperately to be accepted by. Furthermore, other religions also deal with the issue of homosexuality in a very similar way.
Whether or not this film can be considered a call to action for us, as an audience, there is always value in learning about a community, a culture, or a lifestyle not our own.
The subject of tradition vs. modernity is perhaps the biggest issue displayed in "Trembling Before G-d." The question of whether or not these two ideas can be reconciled is an interesting one. I would argue that while it is impossible to maintain both, wholly intact, one can reach a certain compromise but it is always at the cost of one side of the argument. I picture it like two teams playing tug of war. On one side there is tradition and on the other side the modern world. DuBowski portrays this struggle very accurately in his film and we watch it play out through the subjects. It is made quite evident in the film that no matter how hard these people try, they can't have it both ways. If they are 100% Orthodox, then they have to accept what the Torah says and refrain from practicing homosexuality. I'm not arguing that this is what they should do, or even that it's right that such beliefs be enforced, but as one of the Rabbis points out in the film, this is what their religion states. Now, if an Orthodox Jew is also a homosexual, he or she has to make a choice. It must be incredibly difficult to be put in that position. But they have to choose. If he or she chooses to embrace his or her sexuality then he or she is giving up that piece of his or her religion. And the same thing holds true if he or she leans the other way and decides to denounce his or her sexuality, except in this case he or she would lean away from modernity and give up that piece of the modern, or in this case "secular" world. I believe it is possible to make these compromises between tradition and modernity, but they will always be compromises. And staunch traditionalists and their modern counterparts aren't going to understand these people who choose to find a place in the middle.
ReplyDelete(I accidently posted this comment on the wrong "blog post" and I couldn't figure out how delete it... so I'm just reposting)
ReplyDeleteTrying to conform yourself to a “life system” (Religious System) that is over three millennia old… a system created exclusively by men, who had the power through ownership of property… that grew into a group of “agricultural tycoons” and then became the Kings and aristocrats of court, or became the leaders of whatever religion, in the newly created “societies” that came out of the occidental-oriental regions of the Near and Middle East between 4000BC – 650AD. All known texts of the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Koran were written during this period in history, so… why go back to a time when “men” had no idea how to control large populations who by this time had wine and beer… and all sorts of sexual possibilities (for both men and woman, strait or gay)… I guess with people running around drunk and screwing everything that moved, some of the men in power decided to lay down some ground rules, for people to follow… very much like rules-of-the-road in driving… in order to create peace, productivity and general harmony.
What the came up with then… is very different from what “we” have come up with since.
I guess in the end, I have to say I did like the film… but it’s like when I was in Saudi Arabia. Everything is basically illegal (especially for women) but only a few miles drive out to the island of Bahrain you can drink, gamble, go to nightclubs and get your eardrums beat-out by Euro-techno-pop. Women (for the most part) can dress the way they like.
But… no one there would try to get his or her Imam or Mullah to say it was OK!
John-R
In regards to... "Is it possible to reconcile tradition with modernity? Why or why not? And if yes, how?"
ReplyDeleteReconciling tradition with modernity is entirely possible. We have seen it happen throughout history. People are ever changing, and with those changes, tradition, government, and the law must adapt. Those depicted in "Trembling Before G-d" are the kind of people that want their religion to adapt with them and with their lifestyles. However, I struggle with the thought that a religion that has been in place for so long will adapt for homosexuality. Being on the outside of their tradition, there is no viable way to communicate to them their wrongdoing. Also, Orthodox homosexuals that have come to grips with their sexuality often leave home because they are shunned. So there really is no way to communicate to the Orthodox community.
I believe that Orthodox homosexuals should take a more proactive role in their acceptance. They should find a rabi who will lead them and accept them, and immerse themselves in their own community of people who support them.
Once again I have to say, that these questions are ones that in many cases are nearly impossible to answer let alone speculate on. I'm going to have to reiterate my belief that there really is no such thing as true objectivity and that it truly is the individual that makes the world what they want it to be. With that said, I can go ahead and try and answer some of these questions from my own subjective point of view.
ReplyDeleteConcerning tradition and modernity, I really believe it's up to the individual to reach their own conclusions on the subject. You can't force a religious individual let alone an entire religious community that has existed for almost 100 years to throw away the rules that they see as the word of God in order to try and make them a better fit for the current populace and culture at large. This country is one of religious freedom and in this case it also applies to religious groups being able to restrict who they admit into their ranks and what behaviors they accept. If a person wants to be part of these communities it means they want to accept the rules and judgments so as to become part of the community and fit in. If members of that community, such as homosexual Orthodox Jews, want to change something about that community so that they have a place, that's between them and the other members of their community. If they feel that the community provides them with an environment where they feel safe, and accepted and are happy with how the community operates than that's a great thing for them. Some people feel that they need a tight close knit community like the Orthodox Jewish community to define themselves but when a community rejects them and they find themselves lost, it's up to them to reconcile their feelings with themselves and with the rest of the community. In such circumstances there really are no private and public matters. If you're willing to give yourself completely to the community then you have no private life. You discard your own individuality for the greater purpose of advancing the community. As outsiders to these religious communities we really don't have a say in how they practice or what they except and I feel that the best thing we can do is to help and support those who feel outcast from their community and assist them in their process of reconciliation.
Once again on the subject of the responsibilities a documentary filmmaker and where the line is drawn between “objective” filmmaker and interventionist is really up to the filmmaker. In the case of DuBowski he felt he needed to intervene in situations because of the personal connection he felt with the subjects. That was his own choice, as a filmmaker and as a person. I think it's impossible to define a clear set of rules and guidelines for situations like these. It is my personal opinion, and I feel that this applies equally to both situations (members of a community and documentary film makers), but there really is only the individual and that ultimately we are left to make our own decisions.
The class seemed to reach a consensus about the specificity of the subject matter in Trembling Before G-d, and this raised the question of what the film's target audience would be. While it could be said that the film tackles issues that only specifically relate to Jewish Orthodox gays and lesbians, there are universal themes represented throughout the film (loss of innocence, alienation, questioning of one's belief systems). In this way, it could be said that anyone could get something from the film if they're receptive enough in watching it.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's easy to discount the importance of films like this because many of us get jaded about the world and are reluctant to believe that these types of films really have any impact on people at all. But I believe that anytime you are helping to widen people's perspective, you are doing a great service to the collective consciousness as whole.
Perhaps the most important element of documentary film making is the relationship between the film maker and the subjects of that film. If a strong bond is not present between the two then it becomes increasingly difficult to convey accurate and non-biased information. The trust and relationships shared by the film maker and their subjects is what constitutes and determines the representation of truth as it pertains to the documentarian's subjects.
ReplyDeletePeople interact with countless forms of media in this day and age, but film (documentary) as a medium of reaching a mass-audience is still extremely effective. People are exposed to political, social, and ideological messages/propaganda every day, but seeing a film is a choice and therefore so are their messages. Most people absorb and retain information better when more of their senses are involved, a key reason why documentaries are so effective and influence so many people.
As an age-old dilemma, the question of the responsibility of the documentary film maker to intervene to somehow benefit their subjects is a foggy one. How, in the case of "Trembling Before God", is the film maker expected to make any immediate changes to the systems that enable this discrimination. While the film itself is actively making strides to bring attention to the issue of homosexuality in Judaism, it can not ultimately generate drastic alterations to an age-old people and culture, it can only enlighten mass audiences and inspire them to be independently active.
Something interesting that was brought up in class was the idea of otherness on the part of the viewer. While we may see these seemingly homophobic customs to be wrong, who are we to judge the rules of a religion that is thousands of years old? I, personally, am not an orthodox Jew, and so I'm finding it hard for me to denounce the beliefs of an institution of which I am not a part, never mind the fact that I know very little to nothing about Orthodox Judaism. This is something that I found interesting about DuBowski also. While he is a homosexual Jew, he isn't an Orthodox Jew, so in a way he is also an outsider. That is possibly why, while he is clearly trying to pass judgement on these customs, he claims to simply be presenting an issue without actually taking a side on the issue with Trembling Before G-d.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to say I'm surprised that a new spin-off religion hasn't been started that forms its basis on Judaism, but that is more accepting of all types of people willing to believe in what the Torah teaches. Oh wait, that's just all other sections of Judaism that aren't Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteI was brought up conservative, which means I kept Kosher, did my whole Bar Mitzvah in Hebrew, fasted on every Yom Kippur, and did various other things. But many of the constricting rules which would normally restrict me from most of society were lifted. So I got to wear what I want, hang out with whoever I wanted, whatever. The orthodox family I sometimes had Shabbat dinner with showed me how, even though we were all Jews, we were so different. Let me tell you, these people are borderline racist. They have all the best intentions, and they never wish harm on anybody, but they are the most exclusive group of people I know. You seriously have to conform to all their rules to be considered a good Jew, that includes being born Jewish (no converts allowed).
These traditions always confounded me, like how men and women aren't supposed to be in the same room when davening (reciting Hebrew prayers). So when I saw Trembling, none of it surprised me. This is a community who believes that the laws of the Torah must be followed EXACTLY, so no updates are allowed either. These people daven every day, they devote a huge part of their lives to praying to God. When I was at my orthodox friend's house, I understood most of what they were about, but we never had anything to talk about, apart from Jewish stuff. They never went out to see movies or watched TV, they never read any books that didn't teach Jewish values, and I'm pretty sure only the father ever used the Internet, and only for e-mail.
There's no way in all of time that their views are going to change. I feel bad for the people in the film, but there are other options than renouncing one's religion. That can be a very hard thing to do, especially if you believe in it as strongly as knowing your sexual orientation.